"I lost 30 lbs and my triglycerides went . . . up?"

Brad needed to lose weight.

At 6 ft tall, he began the program at 291 lbs, easily 80 lbs overweight. He wore virtually all of it in his belly.

He had laboratory numbers to match: HDL 33 mg/dl, triglycerides 225 mg/dl, LDL (calculated) 144 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (fasting--clearly "pre-diabetic"), c-reactive protein 3.0 mg/dl. Among his lipoprotein abnormalities: small LDL representing 80% of all LDL (no surprise).

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that these are the patterns of the carbohydrate-indulgent. I asked Brad to eliminate all wheat flour products, all foods made with cornstarch, and follow a diet rich in healthy oils, raw nuts, vegetables, and lean meats.

Brad returned for a discussion about follow-up basic lipids (cholesterol) values four months later--31 lbs lighter, most of it clearly lost from his abdomen. He claimed he felt more energetic and clear-headed than he had in years.

His lipid panel: HDL 34 mg/dl, LDL 122 mg/dl, triglycerides 295 mg/dl. Brad's smile dissolved. "How could that happen? You said losing weight would make my HDL go up and my triglycerides go down!"

Yes, I had said that. But I was oversimplifying.

The truth is that, when there is weight loss, especially profound weight loss like Brad experienced eliminating wheat and cornstarch products, there is mobilization of fat stores. Fat is stored energy. Energy is stored as . . . triglycerides.

So when there is substantial weight loss, there is a flood of triglycerides in the blood, and triglyceride levels in the midst of weight loss can commonly jump up, not uncommonly to the 200-300+ mg/dl range. When triglycerides go up, there is also a drop in HDL (triglycerides interact with HDL particles, modify their structure and make them more readily destroyed, thereby dropping blood levels). Occasionally, substantial weight loss like Brad experienced will drop HDL really low, as low as the 20's.

Once weight stabilizes, this effect can last up to 2 months before correcting. Only then will triglycerides drop and HDL rise. The rise in HDL occurs even more slowly, requiring several more months to plateau.

In other words, weight loss like Brad's causes triglycerides to increase and HDL to decrease, to be followed later by a drop in triglycerides and a rise in HDL.

I know of no way to block this phenomenon. And perhaps we shouldn't, since this is how fat stores are mobilized and "burned off." Fish oil does blunt the triglyceride rise (perhaps through activation of lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme responsible for clearance of triglycerides), but doesn't eliminate it.

I call these changes "transitional" changes in lipids.

Patience pays. A few more months from now, Brad's numbers will be much happier, as will Brad.

Comments (6) -

  • Jenny

    8/13/2008 2:35:00 PM |

    Thanks for posting this.  My husband has allowed himself to be carried along with my strict low-carbing for a few months now, and has lost 25 pounds +  or so so far. He had labs a couple of months ago, and his Triglycerides were up and his HDL somewhat low.  So of course his physician wants him to repeat the labs in Oct., and will want to put him on meds , I'm sure, if he still exhibits that profile.  But I will advise him to wait, to continue with what he's doing until his weight loss stabilizes, and this post will give me the concise authoritative ammo I'll need to encourage him both to continue with carb restriction and to resist medication, which he almost certainly is not a proper candidate for.  Perfect timing for us, and thanks so much! jennytoo.

  • Anonymous

    8/15/2008 1:57:00 PM |

    on another subject, but I'm curious about your thoughts on krill oil.

    Here's a post by Michael Eades on the subject:
    http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/07/23/krill-oil-48x-better-than-fish-oil/

  • Peter

    8/15/2008 7:33:00 PM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    While fat is stored as triglycerides, it is released from adipose stores as non esterified fatty acids, and these will be predominantly palmitic acid in humans. Non esterified palmitic acid appears to be an excellent inducer of insulin resistance, and insulin resistance has been hypothesised by several authors to be a completely normal physiological adaption to fasting or seasonal carbohydrate absence. While weight loss is on going, the circulation is flooded with NEFA and "physiological" insulin resistance should predominate. If the person continues to consume "good" carbohydrate at above acute metabolic needs, the excess will get shipped out of the liver as VLDLs. Under insulin resistance lipoprotein lipase, routinely under the control of insulin, won't be doing much lipolysis and so VLDLs can hang around in the circulation... Muscle can happily accept NEFA as a prime source of energy without lipoprotein lipase having to split the lipids from VLDLs, so leave the VLDLs there to show up as fasting trigs....

    Once weight is stable the NEFA release from adipose tissue will be much better matched to metabolic needs. With the improved insulin sensitivity due to loss of visceral fat, control of both adipose hormone sensitive lipase and endothelial lipoprotein lipase activity should normalise and allow VLDLs and HDL to settle in to  more cardiologically acceptable numbers.

    Just an idea. The prediction it makes is for a reduced HbA1c due to the reduction in bulk carbohydrate (this must happen to allow lipolysis for weight loss), coupled with no drop or an increase in fasting blood glucose due to the NEFA induced insulin resistance. Very curious as to whether this happened...

    Idea is open for kicking.

    Peter

  • Brian

    1/13/2010 3:35:45 PM |

    Thanks for the article.  In the midst or losing a good deal of weight I had a finger prick test here at work.  My HDL had indeed dropped into the low 20's but my Triglycerides had also dropped (maybe a good does of fish oil and cod-liver oil help those?).  Anyway my weight has pretty much stabilized at a good level and I'm looking to do a good blood test in a few weeks.  Hopefully the HDL numbers are coming up.

  • Mickey

    1/28/2010 3:47:49 AM |

    The post about Brad is from August of 2008.  So how is he doing now?  Did the triglycerides drop and HDL rise?

  • kellyme

    10/28/2011 9:27:02 AM |

    I wonder what happened to Brad now? How did it go? By the way, I wanna share this video I came across with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-ZnG3NoZY You'll surely learn a lot of information here. Smile

Loading
Is direct-to-consumer drug marketing a failure?

Is direct-to-consumer drug marketing a failure?

According to the poll just completed by 80 participants on The Heart Scan Blog, 50% of respondents said they were less likely to take a drug after viewing an advertisement for it. A whopping 3 (4%) said that they would be more likely to take the drug after viewing an advertisement.

I find that interesting. If half the people responding are less likely to become customers of a drug company, then how does the drug industry justify running around-the-clock, every-few-minute ads? Spending by the drug industry for direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising has ballooned over the past few years, and is now well over $30 billion dollars per year.

Unfortunately, despite the views of the highly-educated, curious, think-for-yourself, health information-seeking sorts of people who read this blog, drug companies still come out on top by DTC advertising. Estimates vary, with a 2006 U.S. Government Accountability Office study reporting that, for every $1 DTC advertising, sales are increased by $2.20. A 2000 Harvard study showed a higher return of $4.40 for every advertising dollar spent.

I'm sure the drug companies themselves have a very tight accounting handle on their own set of figures. We may not be terribly fond of these people and their often suspect tactics, but they're not stupid. They are certainly not stupid when it comes to making money.

Interestingly, 80% of the funds spent on DTC advertising focus on the 20 or so most popular drugs, all of which are used for treatment of chronic conditions like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, markets that are large and long-term. It pays very little to advertise drugs that may serve small markets for a short period. The implicit message is that this is not at all about informing the public. It is about advertising to grow revenues and profits--pure and simple.

It makes me wonder what the results of our poll would have been had we conducted it in 2000 before many people hadn't yet been brought to the brink of vomiting from the endless onslaught of commercial after commercial, complete with smarmy spokespeople (a la Lipitor's Dr. Robert Jarvik). What will it show in two years? Will the broader public join the more informed people who read this blog and become increasingly inured to the hard sell tactics?

For further discussion of this topic, click here for a reprint of an August, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study, A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs provides background, along with commentary on the impact of DTC drug marketing since the FDA allowed it 10 years ago. (Because it is a study and not an editorial, the editors fall short of making any recommendations for improvement or calling for a moratorium.)


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (4) -

  • shreela

    4/23/2008 9:22:00 PM |

    I usually try to avoid taking a drug that hasn't been on the market for 5 years. One exception was when my knee doctor HIGHLY recommended Celebrex. It worked great at first, but the effectiveness wore off after a while, so I stopped taking it, and just took iced my knee when it swelled, and took ibuprofen if the ice wasn't enough. I also discovered later that biking brought down the swelling.

    Looking back on that, although I'm glad he gave me Celebrex instead of Vioxx (shudders), I'm glad I only took the Celebrex for a little while. Even though their commercial brag that they're the only prescription anti-inflammatory that hasn't been taken off the market, I recall reading about some severe side-effects I'd rather not have.

    If there's a natural way to decrease any ailment, I'd much rather try that, instead of taking a new drug, as long as there's studies that back up the natural treatment/diet. That's why I'm so grateful for your blog, and others like it from licensed health professionals; you and the others provide balance between the old school AMA way, and the 'alternative' methods that sometimes are a bit out there.

  • Anonymous

    4/24/2008 10:31:00 AM |

    It's all about supply and demand really. Make people believe they need it and they will want it. Marketing trumps truth a lot fortunately.

    But then there's those of us who realise that if a company's trying too hard to push something, they're trying to sell us off yogurt with a fragrance in it.

  • ethyl d

    4/24/2008 4:48:00 PM |

    Most Americans are not "highly-educated, curious, think-for-yourself, health information-seeking sorts of people," and many of them prefer taking a pill to control a health condition rather than changing what they eat and how they live, so the drug ads probably are influential. I also suspect that the bombardment of all those ads makes people more likely to worry about having or someday getting the diseases the drugs supposedly help with, and instilling the belief that prescription drugs are the best or even the only way to alleviate or cure the condition. "Don't worry, American public, if you get sick, we've got a pill to make you all better."

  • Anne

    4/26/2008 1:17:00 PM |

    I probably would have answered "more likely" 6 years ago before I got on the internet and met some very smart people. It was with their help I discovered that lifestyle changes, not more prescription medication, would do more to optimize my health. This is an ongoing journey. I am still learning.

    Sadly, I have found most people I meet are more interested in the newest drug for their symptoms than in changing lifestyle.

Loading