Hope some of you "veterans" of the cholesterol war can help me. My husband just got his cholesterol test back and it was 244. Mine was 217. So now we're both trying to lower our cholesterol with diet and excercise. I'm confused about what foods are okay and which to avoid after reading the nutrition labels on packaged foods. For instance, tuna packed in spring water (I thought this was a good, healthy choice) listed total cholesterol at 30mg. But Skippy Honey Nut peanut butter (which has partially hydrogenated veg oil and corn syrup) lists 0 mg Cholesterol. Foods that I think are a no-no have 0 mg Choles. , while foods that I think would be okay have higher chol. What's the story?

Hi!
I know exactly what your saying.I too am confused on food labeling.I went to the store to purchase a pack of turkey breast,which is supposed to be okay and next to the turkey was ham and out of curiosity I compared labels and the turkey actually had more cholesterol and saturated fat than the ham.Could someone please help us people out on translating food labels?

Hope some of you "veterans" of the cholesterol war can help me. My husband just got his cholesterol test back and it was 244. Mine was 217. So now we're both trying to lower our cholesterol with diet and excercise. I'm confused about what foods are okay and which to avoid after reading the nutrition labels on packaged foods. For instance, tuna packed in spring water (I thought this was a good, healthy choice) listed total cholesterol at 30mg. But Skippy Honey Nut peanut butter (which has partially hydrogenated veg oil and corn syrup) lists 0 mg Cholesterol. Foods that I think are a no-no have 0 mg Choles. , while foods that I think would be okay have higher chol. What's the story?

Kaycee,

There are still plenty of debates going on about whether the cholesterol in foods directly can correlate to elevated cholesterol in us. To be quite honest, what worked for me (taking my cholesterol from 269 down to at one point 96 total) was a reduction in a)the amount of calories I was taking in b)reduction in total fat, with emphasis on minimizing saturated fat and increasing monounsaturated fats, c) controlled the carb intake and focused more on carbs from vegetables. Some people have great success with Atkins, or South Beach, but for me, low fat has been most beneficial--each of us probably requires a different diet that is most beneficial to the lipid profile.

One of my favorite sources of protein is the tuna you mentioned above. On days when I am not getting enough protein, I will open up a pack of tuna and eat it. I avoid the peanut butter because of the high caloric load. Nowadays, I pay the most attention to two things only, whether its reasonable for me calorie-wise and if its high fat, I eat less of it.

For me, exercise helped the most in three areas 1. raising HDL-C, the good cholesterol. 2. Lowering triglycerides 3. Lowering weight. Because of the weight loss, though, there was a further impact in lowering blood pressure (no more hypertension), reversing diabetes (no more meds, nor any detectable glucose tolerance issues), lowering LDL-C but most likely only slightly. The whole picture (diet, exercise, weight loss) benefits the lipid profile, in my experience, and neglecting one area will not give you the benefits gained by working all areas.

In regard to turkey vs. ham. For me, everything in moderation is fine. I no longer worry to much about food A which may have 6 g fat, 4 g saturated vs food B which may have 7 g fat, 2 g saturated. In the grand scheme of it all, moderation has been the key. My past scenario would have been go to an all you can eat diner and get the prime rib and crab legs. I would then woof down 4 plates of prime rib (at least 8 oz each), and at least 3 snow crab clusters with drawn butter. Clearly, there was a problem. Now, I aim for 3-6 oz of meat at dinner, where 3 oz would be for chicken and 6 oz when I eat finish. I do, however, avoid trans fats (hydrogenated oils) as much as possible.

I still use an online program called FitDay to track my foods, exercise, weight and caloric intake. That gives me the best idea as to how I am doing intake wise. It also compares it to the RDA, or you can set your own goals/target ranges.

When I kept my total fat intake to under 30 g per day with < 6 g saturated fats, I had total cholesterol levels near 100 mg/dL. My HDL-C was a little too low. I increased the fat intake to 60 g/day with <20 g sat fat and I now have the best total/HDL-C ratios that I have ever had. Fats aren't totally evil, but for some people (e.g. me) the fat intake can have a significant impact on my lipoprotein levels.

Many processed foods have transfat in them. Partially hydrogenated and hydrogenated oils are a big no-no. Just because a label may say 0 cholesterol it doesn't mean it is good for you. Look at Fig Newtons they have 0 cholesterol but are a highly processed food with refined sugars and flours and some other nasty ingredients. Because they have 0 cholesterol does NOT make them healthy. If you can't pronounce the ingredient or have never heard of it then it probably isn't very good for your health or nutritious for that matter. Your consumption of processed and refined foods should be elimated to help you to reduce your cholesterol. Exercise is also important.

Many experts are beginning to realize that saturated fats (coconut oil,meats, dairy,eggs ect...) are not the bad guys that they have been made out to be. The real villians here are vegetable oil, soy oil, canola oil,corn oil, cottonseed oil and margarines. These are all very processed and at very high temps to boot. Fake foods should have no place in our diets as they are experimental, and guess who the ginuea pigs are?

Buy all natural peanut butter with no artifical ingredients or better yet buy organic which has no GMO peanuts used or pesticides.

Kaycee,

I agree completely with what ubernier posted.

Let me amplify on the nutrition lists:
The worries over dietary cholesterol were overblown decades ago when the Framingham study showed a high correlation between blood cholesterol and heart disease. The connection is VERY real BUT the response of lowering dietary cholesterol was a mistake...and the FDA and USDA are VERY loathe to admit mistakes....thus the ubiquitous cholesterol labelling.

The liver has a feedback mechanism that causes the copious manufature of cholesterol in the absence of dietary cholesterol.
Study after study has shown a low correlation between dietary and blood cholesterol but a high correlation between SATURATED FAT and blood cholesterol...and an even HIGHER correlation with TRANS FATS (hydrogenated oils.)

So, I recommend ignoring the cholesterol number but keeping saturated fat calories to 10% or less of the diet. Just multiply grams on label time 9 for the saturated fat calories.

Thus the Tuna is wonderful for the heart and the Skippy (with hydrogenated peanut and soy oils) is DEADLY!
Grind-your-own peanut butter is really the only safe way to enjoy the stuff (and then its a healthy high protein snack)

Thanks everyone for some really sound advice....you make sense. It would have been nice if our doctor would have talked to us. His practice is to send a post card in the mail with your results (no phone call). My card listed my TC at 217 HDL at 60 and LDL at 97. Written on the card said "all blood work looks good". I knew anything over 217 wasn't that good...then someone on this board pointed out that my TRIG level would be near 300 based on TC, LDL & HDL. He was right, I got a copy of my bloodwork and it was 299!!! I took it upon myself to start eating better (I already excercise daily). Now, a few months later, my husband had bloodwork done. Doctor sends his results in an envelope instead of a postcard. I think oh-oh! Post card inside says TC is 244 - note at bottom says need to recheck blood in 3 months (no HDL, LDL TRIG given, which I think is important to know). They also included two pages of foods to decrease, foods to choose. The doctor is a very nice man, and I know he's busy, but I think high cholesterol deserves a phone conversation at least! My GYN doesn't even send results of your yearly PAP and Mammogram....said "no news is good news, you won't hear from us unless there is a problem". Many doctors now days act like they don't have time to deal with you!

Kaycee,

Since your TG seems to be the real problem, you might be able to lower it by simply cutting back on your carb intake and choosing carbs that aren't, well, heavy sugar based. There are a bunch of posts in here mentioning the benefit of low carbs on TG values. Also, some use supplements (omega-3 fish oil) which can have some benefit to lipid levels. What worked best for me was losing weight and exercise. I had a lot of weight to lose, and could get no less exercise than I was doing back then. My TGs were always above 400 mg/dL before being treated. The weight loss and exercise allows me to eat the carbs I want now, take no meds, and still have TG levels in the 30-40 mg/dL range for each blood draw. We will see how true this still holds in about an hour, when I visit my endocrinologist who will be waiting with my latest blood draw results from last week.

In edit: I did get my lab results: TG 48 mg/dL, Total-C: 164, HDL: 60, LDL: 94, HbA1c=4.7. I had my blood drawn on 1/20/04.

The night before that draw I ate at the Olive Garden (breadsticks included), ate 1/2 bag of chocolate covered soy nuts, and followed that up with a bowl of cereal for dessert. The day before I see that I had Baklava for dessert at lunch and more cereal after dinner. My carb intake for the 3 days prior to the draw was: 240 g, 180 g, 270 g. The only reason that I believe that I can get away with so many carbs (sugars a good part of it) and have TG in the 40s rather than 400s like before is because of the weight I am at now and the daily exercise (30 min run). If I go lower on carbs, I get TGs in the 30s and get flagged for having too low of a level.

Kaycee,
Yep, your numbers are superb EXCEPT for the triglycerides.
And lucky for you it's the component that can be changed almost overnight. Just say bye-bye to sugars (purists would say rice and potatoes begone but that's overkill IMHO).
A no sweets regimen will show HUGE results next blood test! Artificial sweetners are just fine...pick for taste and price.

edit: LOL on the double 9:29 posts....ubie beat me by seconds :bouncing:

Limit your carbs and your triglycerides will drop fast. I tried to eat about 20 g per meal and my trigs were cut by more than half to 72 in three months.

I would be upset to get a postcard with only partial results. Why doesn't he at least send a copy of the lab results. I don't like what my doctor does either though. He sees me in an office visit and orders blood drawn ($95) Then he sees me three weeks later to give me the results. Anther $95! I try to get around this by asking him what tests he wants next time and going in a week before my appointment to get the blood drawn.

Jacqueline,

My technique to avoid the double billing is to tell him to have his nurse call me when the blood tests are in(usually 2 days) and I have SOMEONE pick them up for me.
I tell him I like to see the results ahead of time so we can "discuss" them the next appointment...when I NEED ONE!
Once he tried to diddle me by telling me that State Law demands he give me HIV test results in person....he LIED and I learned a lesson!

I tried having them mailed to me but they convieniently "FORGET."

I have to be as crafty as they!:D:D

Zip, that's crafty of you. My doctor is more obliging, thank heavens, though he does schedule a lot of appointments for me. There always seems to be a followup appointment with doctors whenever you have something done. If you are better, why do you need to see him? This didn't seem to be the way things worked a few years ago. I think they have conferences to figure out ways to get more fees. I told him I didn't want to make two appointments when it could be done in one by scheduling the blood draw a week early. He was agreeable and put an order for tests in my file. My husband's doctor always did it this way, but few others do.