NMR Data Sample

[MarkES]

Julie, ok, I see what you're referring to now. I like Figure 3 better since it splits up the concordant line into two separate lines (NotLow-NotLow and Low-Low).

ScreenShot688.jpg

It is interesting how Low-NotLow looks favorable to Low-Low. I wish Table 1 would have split the concordant data this way also. Table 1 and the scatterplot didn't seem to jive, maybe I'm missing something. Table 1 seems to indicate the lowest LDL-P is 854 (1249 - 395), but the scatterplot shows lots of LDL-P data points < 854.

Also consider the similar Figure 2 from the LDL Particle Number and Risk of Future Cardiovascular Disease in the Framingham Offspring Study - Implications for LDL Management study. Note the data is graphed in reverse direction and so the bottom lines are worse.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657464

ScreenShot689.jpg

This one shows Low-Low is favorable. Noting the High/Low cutoffs are different (LDL-C 131, LDL-P 1414 vs. LDL-C 100, LDL-P 1060) The number of years of follow-up is quite a bit longer (14.8 vs. 5.5 years).

It's an interesting observation. I'd like to see the difference in LDL-P distribution between Low LDL-P groups to see if the lowest LDL-P resulted in the most favorable outcome.

[Julie G]

Yeah Mark, I saw and appreciate the simplicity of Figure 3 too I've also seen the Framingham graph before...slightly different outcome when you carry it out over time, but I'm still dumbfounded by the overall similarity.

In figure 1, my guess is that the diagonal line represents concordancy. Anything plotted to the right of the line is considered to have a decreased risk of CVD; to the left, an increased risk. Graph B is a zoomed in version of Graph A. You can plot James's numbers on A, but lose them on B. I had to carefully extend B to find James's dot- definitely an outlier

I am far from drawing any conclusions here. To be honest, the more I look into it; the more confused I get. My link seems to indicate that a higher LDL-P is associated with increased carotid plaque (bad), but if it's discordant enough LDL-C>LDL-P could STILL represent a lower CVD risk (good)

I appreciate you tracking the numbers for us. This is a very important exercise that, to my knowledge, has never been undertaken- an amazing learning opportunity.

[MarkES]

Spectracell Lipoprotein Particle Profile:
http://www.spectracell.com/media/upload ... -guide.pdf

Spectracell's view on ApoE:

ScreenShot690.jpg

On a side note, it almost appears as though LP-IR is no longer included in LipoScience test results? Google search of LP-IR results in some broken links ... is the website reorganizing or no longer supporting LP-IR?
http://www.liposcience.com/nmr-lipoprof ... st-results

[SpunkyPup]

first one has to find out if one spikes insuin with carbs and adjust. Then one has to check if one is an hyper absorber of fat if these are not done then it could be either things causing the problem and making it impossible to figure out. A carb spiker will cause a increase in small sense ldl as will a hyper absorber.
A higher fiber diet will also block absorption of fat. I think there is a misunderstanding of what is high fat by reading the comments.
Being on a mono diet of poultry will increase O6:O3 which is not good.

[Julie G]

Mark, you are an intrepid researcher. I am beyond impressed with your diligence. I share your passion and am very appreciative. I suspect by continuing to pull and analyze this data, we CAN hammer together some rough dietary guidelines that may be truly beneficial to E4s.

So, the Spectracell, while an amazing test, isn't quite comparable to the NMR...throwing a monkey wrench in our data collection. Could we take Stuart's numbers and use the bar graphs in this link as a conversion formula?
http://liposcience.com/sites/default/fi ... Report.pdf

Very interesting to see how Spectracell summarizes the E4 data vs. Berkeley. I'm still in the midst of re-reading every Berkley study and I see a big divergence in their interpretations. Berkeley definitely concludes that 3/4s and 4/4s hyper-respond to dietary fat with higher LDL; whereas Spectracell indicates 4/4s demonstrate increased TGs? And then they recommend low fat??? IF that were the case, shouldn't the recommendation be low carb? FWIW, the Berkeley studies (I've read so far) conclude that E2s (and sometimes/to a lesser extent E4s) demonstrate higher TGs. Curiouser and curiouser. Seeing the discrepancies between these two major testing companies outlines the importance of our work.

Kudos to you, Mark. Keep up the great work.

[MarkES]

I edited my previous post to remove data from a forum that doesn't allow it.

Julie, yeah, the Spectracell summary is pretty high-level and I suspect more info could be added to the Risk Factors and Recommendations.

Berkeley definitely concludes that 3/4s and 4/4s hyper-respond to dietary fat with higher LDL; whereas Spectracell indicates 4/4s demonstrate increased TGs? And then they recommend low fat??? IF that were the case, shouldn't the recommendation be low carb?

To SpunkyPup's point, I think increased TGs can be caused by either fat or carbs, even though carbs are generally thought (and perhaps more often) to be the reason. It may also be due to refined carbs vs whole food carbs. I think it depends on the person and apoe status isn't necessarily the sole factor, while it may generally be a significant factor. I personally (3/4) have seen an increase in TG=79 on HFLC, with TG=32 eating 50% CW-healthy carbs from oats, brown rice.

Consider this anonymous food/lipid data of someone with unknown apoe status with TG=39 (TC:190 LDL:98 HDL:84) eating typical daily 300 grams of carbs from 4 cups white rice and high-sugar fruit. Walking for exercise.

ScreenShot692.jpg

Happy new year!

[Julie G]

Interesting observations about TGs. As a 4/4, mine were around 52 eating moderate (sometimes heavy) carbs and are now a mere 47 eating pretty low carb; little change. Perhaps the reduction I should have gotten from going lower carb has been off-set by the higher fat I still find it incredulous that Spectracell concludes 4/4s demonstrate high TGs...when higher LDL seems to be much more clearly demonstrated from every study I've read. I may try to track down their references too.

I know you never meant to violate any forum's rules, Mark. I appreciate you honoring them (and ours,) but i'm very saddened to lose the data. From what I could tell, Stuart still had an amazing result and I would appreciate the opportunity to learn from him.

I understand that sharing diet and lipid information (with regard to genotype) takes a certain amount of courage. I certainly wasn't happy to see a TC of 250 on my NMR, but still thought it important for everyone to see what a HFLC diet did to a 4/4. By sharing information, we put ourselves out there for scrutiny and even criticism; but we also learn a great deal from one another. I very rarely see negativity on this forum and sincerely apologize if I've ever inadvertently given any. I think by respectful sharing, we have an opportunity to observe the effect that diet has on genotype.

We all share the same goal, that of a long and healthful life. By removing ego attachment to concepts and outcomes, we become free to openly learn. I'm certainly a work in progress there and am very grateful for everyone who has shared thus far. I humbly encourage others to do the same in an attempt to gather more data and continue learning from one another.

[SpunkyPup]

notice that in the sample diet MarkES put up the sat fat is only 6% and the carbs likely as it was 4 cups of rice was probably split across the day and we don't know if it was parboiled as that would contain resistant starch too and that would moderate the affect. From the egg yolks it does raise the cholestrol input but the liver will regulate usage. I do not think so many yokes are a good idea as it does contain inflammatory Arachadonic Acid. I even eat eggs regularly for a while and it did not make much a difference but who knows if long term consumption is not good for everybody. I just read that eating less than one egg a week people had the lowest cancer risk.
If I remember correctly Berkley and other consider <30% fat calories as low fat. I suspect many Paleo diets are within this range. If one compares range feed animals to feedlot there is about a 20% difference in the wrong type of fats. The carbs could still spike insulin to over 100 and that is dependent on the person. Trigs <100 is ok.

the best example of a young healthy E3/4 is here. Now he is just doing an expert and it is not a real food diet would could be perfect to get similar results.

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/58 ... poprofile/

Now here is a lifeextensionist regime altho it is is dated. Still this is an artificially created diet and not real food based like one recommended by the Weston Price Institute. The results are similar alto we do not know the genotype although it might not matter in this case. there is a wealth of information here even if it is dated the principals apply.

http://www.benbest.com/health/MacroNut.html

Here is his actual regime which I'm sure he updated

http://www.benbest.com/personal/regimen.html

[MarkES]

Another E4 experience/perspective with higher trigs on LC to consider (emphasis mine) ...

I'm E2/E4 and have done enough experiments to know that if I increase SaFA, my LDL goes up by 50 points. Never more than 180 but around 120-160. If I go heavy yams, sweet potatoes, my LDL is between 60-100. Not that big a movement as some other E*/E4s so I'm lucky in that regard. Your results reflect mine but with a bigger jump in LDL and TC. My trigs also don't go down to like 40 like some people on a LC diet; instead it's around 100, whereas if I do 150-200g carbs, trigs go down to 60. Weird? No. Healthy carbs trump processed carbs.

notice that in the sample diet MarkES put up the sat fat is only 6%

Good observation. This individual avoided added fats/oils. Note that olive oil is about 15% sat fat.

If I remember correctly Berkley and other consider <30% fat calories as low fat. I suspect many Paleo diets are within this range. If one compares range feed animals to feedlot there is about a 20% difference in the wrong type of fats.

Good point about free-range vs feedlot, although anecdotally the Paleo diets I've seen are mostly higher fat because it's more common they include little to no starches and so calories are coming mostly from fat.

the best example of a young healthy E3/4 is here. Now he is just doing an expert and it is not a real food diet would could be perfect to get similar results.

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/58 ... poprofile/

Yes, James NMR data is included in this post and he's a member of this forum. He's indicated he's about to get new NMR results soon. Noting his longecity post indicates he's E4/4, as opposed to E3/4.

[James]

Hey James, PLEASE share your new NMR when you get results. We've all learned great things from you already and expect to continue. I'm curious about what dietary changes you've made. Your Longecity posting has made you a "celeb" in our E4 circle. You're the guy to beat

I've added an update with my thoughts here.
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/58 ... ntry634114

Someone here posted this website to get a $75 NMR Lipoprofile.
http://www.mdlabtests.com/md087428-nmr-lipoprofile.html
This is awesome! I don't think my doc wants to order any more of them since they were so similar and both excellent, and for $75 and a LabCorp down the street from me I'll definitely get them done more often, probably throwing in a few other minor changes, or just retest for validity.