On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:11:04 -0400, Hilary McClure 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Just got some blood lipid numbers for my brother after a month or so
>of meat-only, high-fat living (conventional and grass-fed beef,
>Alaskan salmon, chicken, olive-oil mayonnaise), and eight years of
>off-and-on paleo low-carb with periods of cheating.
>
>312  total cholesterol
>215  LDL
>64  HDL
>43  Triglycerides
>
>And this is at a BMI of 22.8 and blood pressure of 102 over 60-something.
>
>To me, the numbers look great. Am I right that it's a nice high HDL
>and a nice low TG? Which would mean the very high LDL is mostly
>large-fluffy, right? Problem is that his doctor would probably want to
>put him on statins without even checking LDL particle size, which
>seems irresponsibly ignorant. The bigger problem is that he's planning
>to apply for life insurance, and I expect they will use the number as
>an excuse to double or triple his premiums. He could take Crestor
>(rosuvastatin) for a couple of weeks and save $1,000 a year for the
>next twenty years, but I wonder what damage he might do to his health
>taking that poison for a few weeks.
>
>Comments? Advice?

His numbers look great.  The Triglycerides/HDL ratio is 0.67 which is way 
below the ideal of 2.0.  Combine that with his BP and BMI and the doctors 
would be scratching their head.  

My company has a health fair every year and the nurses are always puzzled 
over my blood lipids (good) vs my BMI and other risk factors (bad in their 
opinion).  They just tell me to eat less saturated fat and cholesterol and get 
more exercise.

The LDL is likely the protective kind, but he might want to consider a LDL 
particle size test (pattern a vs b) to confirm.

It is hard to say how much a statin would "improve" his numbers and how they 
would affect HDL, triglycerides, etc.  IMO, it is not worth it.  He should be 
able to find a insurance company and doctor that would accept him based on 
his non-cholesterol numbers and especially if he does not drink or smoke.