SusanJ wrote:Makes sense, but they did refer to cardio-metabolic health more than once.
I think that's the role played by triglycerides and HDL in the metabolic syndrome model. I'm particularly fond of the TG/HDL ratio as an overall measure of cardio-metabolic health. These are my personal guidelines: <1 is good, <2 is ok, and >2 is bad.
This accessible, persuasive article from P. D. Mangan does a good job of pulling together the evidence:
Same here. I'm a 4/4 and had the worst TG/HDL ratio of 7.18, when I was on a statin (Ezetimibe/Simvastatin or Vytorin 10/20) back in 2005, although the LDL and TC looked perfectly "normal" to my cardiologist (TG 244, LDL 38, HDL 34, TC 121).
Now we know from Bredesen's book that when total cholesterol falls below 150, you're more likely to suffer brain atrophy! That's no good.
I think that's the role played by triglycerides and HDL in the metabolic syndrome model. I'm particularly fond of the TG/HDL ratio as an overall measure of cardio-metabolic health. These are my personal guidelines: <1 is good, <2 is ok, and >2 is bad.
Me too, but for some reason even when I was metabolically broken, my ratios looked great. I think I'm some weird outlier with crazy high HDL that throws my numbers off. When I was metabolically very unwell, my TG/HDL ratio was 0.857; now 0.526. I think Marc's observation may generally be true, but not necessarily apply to all.
unless otherwise noted. Use governed by Terms of Use.
