LDL-C reduction with diet and supplements (no statins)
Hi everyone,
I recently came across some interesting videos about the optimal levels of LDL-C at the website, http://plantpositive.com/ . The author of the videos includes screenshots of the scientific papers he's referencing during the videos, which made his claims more believable to me.
I have had some doubt over the past 10 years whether one really had to lower LDL-C very far to be in the category of lowest risk of heart disease and atherosclerosis. The videos on this site made me think otherwise. I now want to get my LDL-C under 70 mg/dL, and under 50 if I can possibly achieve it.
There are a lot of videos on this website; I recommend starting with Ancestral Cholesterol 1 and Ancestral Cholesterol 2, if you're interested (I know BrianMDelaney may be interested).
But, I bring these videos up in this post because they inspired me to try to lower my LDL-C. I've had some success I've been happy with, using just diet and supplements (no statins). I thought others here might be interested.
My LDL-C usually ranged between 90 and 110. I've been tracking my LDL-C for over 10 years, and I've never seen it under about 80.
After studying the science literature on reducing LDL-C, I decided the following factors are reliably effective, so I started to implement them:
- Eat more soluble fiber (barley, oats, beans, and apples)
- Strictly avoid saturated fat
- Consumption of polyunsaturated fats (walnuts are great for this)
- Daily supplementation of plant sterols and stanols
- Daily niacin (500 mg for me)
I have been impressed with the results. Within about a week, my LDL-C dropped about 40 pts, from 100 to 60 mg/dL. My total cholesterol went from 150 to as low as 102 mg/dL. And keeping on this regimen has kept my LDL-C this low.
Previous to this self-experiment, I didn't know LDL-C was so strongly influenced by diet and supplements. I assumed I needed a statin to get it that low. But it looks like that's not necessary, at least not for me--not if I'm strict with implementing the above concepts. I wonder if it would work for other people.
I'd be interested to learn what other members' LDL-C numbers have been, and what you've done to manage them.
-
Yup, I did the same. I had horrible numbers at age 20, I forget the exact numbers other than triglycerides were 500. The others (LDL-C) were similar. At the time (years ago) everybody said I'd have to go on drugs for the rest of my life, I said no way and that I would solve it by lifestyle or not at all. Anyhow I took up exercise and became a vegetarian and eventually vegan. I performed many experiments over the years (e.g. change diet and do blood panel) and found the most profound effect was not from exercise but from removing all animal and refined foods from my diet. Now my numbers are better than perfect - by that I mean my Dr's are concerned they're too low. This shows again that standard protocols are too high. A secondary effect is that your white blood cell count goes low. Your Dr might think this is due to cancer killing off your immune system, but it's well known that people who follow this diet have a low count because they don't need that many T cells. I suspect the real reason is your inflammation is so low your immune count goes wrong.
At any rate my wife follows the same diet and has seen the exact same results. As for the plant sterols and such, sure if you like, but you don't need them unless you have a special condition I think.
-
Dan Hey Dan. I'm reviewing my personal experimentation notes, and I'm fascinated at what you write here. I had a few questions for you, if you have time to field them.
1. About how many grams of protein do you eat per day, and what are the dietary sources?
2. How many grams of fat do you eat per day, and what are the dietary sources?
3. How many grams of carbs do you eat per day, and what are the dietary sources?
4. What do you think made the biggest difference for you in recovering from exercise?
I ask the above because I'm not settled on the optimal macronutrient ratios for me. I tend to eat high carb, low fat, moderate protein (about 65/20/15), carbs/fat/protein).
And I'd really like to know how you recover from exercise like that. Man, if I lift weights for 40 minutes, I'm sore for 3 days (I've been weight lifting most of my life; I'm kinda beefy and have always been this way).
Thanks!
--Maximus
-
Maximus Targets are 30% (protein) 40% (carbs) 30% (fat) but in practice I get 15%-20% protein with the difference made up in carbs. Sources are all plants - G-BOMBS (greens, beans, onions, mushrooms, berries, seeds/nuts). For me the precise mix of carb/protein/fat doesn't matter I've found, all that matters is where I get them from (G-BOMBS and nothing else - nothing refined such as oil or flour).
The biggest change I found in recovery was when I went 100% whole plant foods after reading The China Study. I cut all oils, flour and refined anything. I was running with a bunch of buddies and suddenly turned into superman. Previously I'd huff and puff up a hill and now I ran it like nothing.
A secondary, smaller effect was from taking creatine as Brian suggested. I'm a adult-life long vegan, and now I run and stationary cycle. The day after taking creatine I easily added two gears to my cycle. I run with a buddy who is a life long runner, and he remarks on how I carry on a conversation easily while running a 8 minute mile. My VO2max is 50 (college athlete level) but I've never been a serious athlete, just a consistent one.
Anyhow taking the dietary load off your system by going pure whole foods, which reduces inflammation and many other effects is the primary effect. Rich Roll has a podcast where he talks a lot about this.
-
Dan Fascinating. Thanks for the quick response Dan.
I have been contemplating the possibility that triglycerides and cholesterol is synthesized from surplus macronutrients in the bloodstream. When we eat unprocessed foods, there ends up being relatively little surplus in the bloodstream at any one time, so there are fewer raw materials to build these bigger molecules from.
In contrast, eating refined stuff spikes the bloodstream with far more macronutrients than it can manage well, so the surplus is used for anabolic processes. This could be good in some circumstances (e.g. healing), but seems like it could be negative for healthspan if done habitually.
I may experiment with what you write. I already take creatine. Thanks again Dan. I'd love to have that running endurance!
-
Maximus btw also I was long overweight by about 40 lbs, within 6 months of whole food vegan only my weight drifted back to high school level of 180 (6 3’). Now I’m having 175, but the combination of high nutrients with low calories really shedded the lbs.
At least in my experience and 4 others I know who have done this (well plus all the patients of Dr Fuhrman, Dr Goldhammer, Dr McDougall, Dr Essystytln etc) it’s clear that our bodies can’t handle refined food. Too much of a good thing I think.
On triglycerides/cholesterol they dropped to something like 110-115 total cholesterol also, so you might have a theory. I am taking fish oil now to push up the HDL, which was pretty low (not enough cholesterol to go around was a theory my Dr had). I’m not positive that naturally low cholesterol is bad, but ... insurance
-
Dan Thanks Dan. Very interesting.
-
-
Other than the lipid test results have you noticed anything different - positive or negative?
-
Kerry I found that supplements generally have no discernible effects (with four exceptions see below), dietary changes always improved general well being and health (e.g. being able to climb a mountain where friends who didn't eat well would have trouble). Exercise has a lesser effect, it makes me feel marginally better for a few days until I exercise again. So dietary changes are the greatest general benefit. The upshot that is in my 50's I'm 'younger' than I was in my 20's to a great degree. The most noticeable is not getting sick anymore, and your exercise ability/recovery goes way up (e.g. after a marathon I recover by the next day, no aches).
On supplements I found that (all post age 48) CoQ10 is noticeable above about 100mg (more energy, but in a slightly 'caffeinated sense'), ALA/ALC has a more 'ground plane' improvement in energy and thus well being, and phosphatidylcholine mostly maintains aging skin. Oh and NAD+ has a profound effect on the quality of sleep.
Back in the old days when everybody thought I was crazy/stupid for my lifestyle I'd say that regardless of the possible longevity benefits (only suspected at that point), if for nothing else my quality of life has greatly improved, now I'd say it gives both benefits. For the 'downside' of not being able to eat at restaurants, and making sure you're taken care of at somebody's house.
-
-
Maximus, I think your niacin supplementation is great.
But the more I look into cholesterol, the more I think it's one of the least important things to be looking at -- and total cholesterol in particular (the HDL/LDL ratio is vastly more important).
I found this presentation quite surprising, as it seems to indicate that we may have been looking at the LDL data all wrong.
https://thefatemperor.com/dave-feldman-with-shocking-nhanes-data-on-ldl-cholesterol-and-mortality/?fbclid=IwAR3Wo1bumHRKwQK2aSe1N3s9nRcXkIYqi-chjXi9sO6pO4mVn_7drsqLYu0-
Paul Tozour It's interesting that these results seem to match with https://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2009/12/total-cholesterol-and-cardiovascular.html
-
-
Here's a paper on all cause mortality and lipids re "lipids manipulation/targets"
Association of lipoprotein levels with mortality in subjects aged 50 without previous diabetes or cardiovascular disease: A population-based register study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3750440/pdf/pri-31-172.pdf
The 8 year study of 100,000+ people aged 50+ without preexisting diabetes or heart disease suggests something more than "LDL is irrelevant". It's the only high-powered study I have seen that focuses on the lipids of healthy older people. I am skeptical of the studies that support the high LDL -> disease link primarily because they include so many sick people. By excluding young people and those with preexisting diabetes, heart disease, or statin prescriptions, the study shows us a cross-section of people who navigated the contemporary nutritional minefield reasonably well to 1997. The subsequent experiences of this relatively insulin-sensitive population therefore seem more relevant to my burning question - how do lipids drive mortality when insulin is low?
The fascinating answer of this study is NOT that lipids don't matter. Instead, the study suggests that lipids matter A LOT. Low lipids - those which conform to conventional recommendations - correlate with greatly INCREASED mortality. High lipids - at levels many doctors are treating with statins - correlate with greatly REDUCED mortality.
Now, it's still a prospective study, a step up from observational but well below a random controlled trial, so I don't want to leap from correlation to causation. (To my knowledge there are zero long-duration, high-powered, random controlled trials addressing this topic.) For me it just means that in a low-insulin, low-FBG, low-HbA1c, low-triglycerides world there are three camps, not two:
1. Low TC/LDL/LDL-P is best.
2. TC/LDL/LDL-P doesn't matter.
3. High TC/LDL/LDL-P is best.
-
If you haven't, I'd recommend checking out Ivor Cummin's youtube channel, regarding LDL and it's lack of predictive capability in coronary disease. Ivor isn't just a talking head spouting off theories - he cites relevant studies, and has had on several researchers and doctors, including the author of the study that showed low-LDL raising all-cause mortality.
-
Ajax recently got new cholesterol results and tot and LDL were high so Dr wants to put me on statins. Watching this video however, my HDL and trigycerides are great and ratios predict I'm in lowest risk pool!
-
-
Sadly the kneejerk statin reaction to LDL is part of the orthodoxy. I'm glad the video was useful to you!
