Lipid Panel

Following up from this, I don't see how you could have a better lipid panel than this, which is a clip right off my Med record on Kaiser's website, results obtained yesterday:

Lipid panel

Total Cholesterol is really a bullshit number, because observe that I could get to an "ideal" <200 by making my HDL worse, like say 50. Triglycerides way low, just like you want, and HDLs stratospheric, also, just like you want. LDL is only 4 points off "above optimal" figure of <100.

The ratios are as follows:

  • Total/HDL = 2.1 (average is 4-6 and ideal is 2-3; I'm on the extreme end of ideal)
  • HDL/LDL = 1 (average is .3-.4 and ideal is above .4; again extreme end of ideal)
  • Triglyceride/HDL = .4 (optimal is <2, so again, extreme end of ideal)

While my fasting glucose seems high at 109, free insulin was only 6 (standard being 4-29, lower the better) and Glycohemoglobin (HGBA1C %) comes in at 4.8 (standard range 4.6 –  6 with the lower range being optimal). Glycohemoglobin is the percent of hemoglobin with sugar bound to it and doesn't change very rapidly over time, while a blood glucose test is sugar levels at that moment, so the HGBA1C % is a far more reliable method of checking whether you're borderline Type II.

    All in all, not bad for being on such an unhealthy diet and eating things like this and this and this.

    So, any of you low-fat-grain-eaters want to go up against those numbers?

    Update 3/19/2009: Here's my latest lipid panel.

    Richard Nikoley

    I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


    1. Richard Nikoley on July 10, 2008 at 14:42

      I was just kicking around the home office for my 2005 numbers (last test I had), but all I can come up with now are the 2003 numbers with total at 208, HDL 64, LDL 132, and Triglycerides 59. That was five years ago, so I was 42, and it was prior to really putting on the weight big time. I've done the low carb thing on and off for years, so that Trig number could be the result of being low carb at the time.

    2. Justin Owings on July 10, 2008 at 14:29

      I really enjoy seeing these kinds of stats. I wish I had done "before" numbers for cholesterol, but I'm confident that my "afters" will tell the story plenty well.

    3. Tony K on July 13, 2008 at 22:47

      Congratulations on the incredible improvement.

      I had a similar experience with all my numbers improving from last year's work. Interestingly, my fasting blood sugar was 104. I have read a few other accounts of peole eating lower fat whose sugar is also in the low 100s.

      I wonder what is the deal with that?


    4. g on August 4, 2008 at 20:58

      I'm really impressed! I eat mod-high fat but my HDLs are THAT high… your's totally kick a$$! I'm grain-free and do crossfit…

      I hope you share with everyone and continue to get utter blank stares.

      So do you taking anything other than high-potency cod liver oil? any niacin? any glutathione or vitamins or antioxidants?

      Vitamin D3 also raises HDLs by 20-30% (found of course in LARD and pasture raised butter *HA*). Of course in cod liver oil as well — that why I was curious


    5. Richard Nikoley on August 5, 2008 at 10:37


      I'll be posting on it, but I had been taking 6 grams of fish oil per day. Now, I'm taking 4 caps of the regular (Carlson's Salmon) fish oil, 2 of the cod liver oil, and now thee caps of the Green Pastures high vitamin butter oil (with some really amazing results).

      I've been getting lots and lots of sun, so my D is probably sky high right now.

    6. on August 5, 2008 at 21:08

      WOW — the butter oil… it's got Wulzen factor in it which is a natural FANTASTIC cholesterol reducer and raises HDLs (made by bacteria in cows' stomachs from grass and clover). It's destroyed in heat. It's believed to cure joint pains — it's sooooo potent.

      Awesome post — I'm a numbers gal. Strong work and keep it up!

      Do you happen to have a baseline and current fasting insulin level? Don't worry too much about the fasting glucoses. I think Peter/Hyperlip explained once that glucose tolerance tests will fail until 'acclimated' again to carbs.

      Thanks for the info — I just posted on the Wulzen factor (briefly) a few days ago!


    7. Richard Nikoley on August 7, 2008 at 08:12


      My insulin level was at 6. A bit above the extreme low range of 4, but probably not bad at all. I've heard Art DV say that his is around 2, i.e., unmeasurable via the standard test.

    8. Geek2Freak Brandon on December 3, 2008 at 05:59

      Hey Richard,

      Great blog, just found you through Mark's Daily Apple.

      My question is in regard to your comment above:

      "Triglycerides 59. That was five years ago, so I was 42, and it was prior to really putting on the weight big time. I've done the low carb thing on and off for years, so that Trig number could be the result of being low carb at the time."

      I can't quite discern if you're saying low-carb is a good thing in relation to Triglycerides, or harmful.

      I can read it as, "Though my other numbers were high back then, my Trig's were relatively low, thanks to my low-carb diet," or

      "My Trig's were higher back then than they are now, because of the low-carb diet."

      I think it's the first one, but just wanted to clarify, since I'm also following a low-carb approach.

    9. Geek2Freak Brandon on December 3, 2008 at 11:34

      Ok, gotcha, thanks.

      Excellent progress, and keep up the great work!

    10. Richard Nikoley on December 3, 2008 at 08:43


      I guess the best way to describe it is since the early 90s when I read Atkins and gave it a shot, I was always convinced it was effective for a bit of weight loss and especially control. But, I never went more than a few weeks with any real discipline, and this is why I gained weight slowly over time. Had I not been low carbing some of the time, I'd probably have been 260 or more instead of 230 when I got serious. But, I've always been a good meat eater, and rarely concerned about fat. Of course, doing that lowers your carb intake over time, so I trigs have always been pretty low as far as I know.

    11. Dr Dan on December 30, 2008 at 03:26

      GREAT results for your blood lipid profile!!! Do you think that the intermittent fasting component helps with this? I was impressed with mine but yours is much better!!

    12. Richard Nikoley on December 30, 2008 at 08:27

      I'm not certain, of course. No easier to control for variables than in anything else. I'm sure my relatively high fat eating plays a role as well. Stephan at Whole Health Source eats very high fat as well, and he sports an HDL of 112, the only one I've ever encountered with a higher number than mine.

    Leave a Comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Follow by Email8k