For the past few months, life has required my attention in ways that pulled me away from writing. Between my work as an accountant and my role as a naturopathic coach and herbalist, there were simply other responsibilities that had to take priority for a while. It wasn’t planned, and it certainly wasn’t ideal, but sometimes you have to step back from one area in order to handle what’s right in front of you. Now that things have started to settle, I’ve found myself returning to the blog with a different perspective—one that is much more personal than anything I had intended to write this year.
What brought me here was not a new study or something I came across while researching. It was a visit with a cardiologist that took what I thought would be a routine conversation about cholesterol and turned it into something much deeper. Given my family history of heart and cholesterol-related issues, this wasn’t approached casually. Instead of stopping at a standard lipid panel, the decision was made to look further—into how the heart is functioning, how blood is moving, and whether there are underlying risk patterns that might not show up in basic lab work. At the time I’m writing this, I am still in the middle of that process. Some of the testing has been ordered and is waiting to be scheduled, and some of the results are still pending. But even without everything finalized, the shift in how this is being evaluated has already changed how I understand cholesterol in a way I did not expect.
What stood out immediately was how different this conversation was from every other one I’ve had in the past. Historically, whenever cholesterol came up, the focus was almost always on total cholesterol and triglycerides. Those were the numbers that were pointed out, the ones that were tracked, and the ones that seemed to carry the most weight in determining whether there was a problem. LDL and HDL were mentioned, but more as supporting details than as the main concern. That pattern was consistent enough over time that it shaped how I viewed cardiovascular risk, even with the background that I have in natural health.
This time, that pattern shifted completely. The cardiologist was very clear that he was not particularly concerned about my total cholesterol or my triglycerides. The concern was centered on my LDL level, and not in a casual or secondary way, but as the primary reason for moving forward with more advanced testing. Hearing that from a specialist, especially in the context of my family history, was enough to make me stop and reassess what I thought I understood. When the focus changes that directly, there is usually a deeper reason behind it.
Up until this point, cholesterol had been framed in a very simplified way. LDL was labeled the “bad” cholesterol, HDL the “good” cholesterol, and the goal was to keep one low and the other high. That framework is repeated so often that it becomes almost automatic, and most people never feel the need to question it. But once the conversation narrowed specifically to LDL, and especially in a setting where a cardiologist was concerned enough to order further evaluation, it became clear that there was more to the story than simply staying within standard ranges.
Cholesterol is not just a number on a lab report. It represents particles moving through the bloodstream, carrying lipids where they are needed, participating in repair processes, and interacting continuously with the vascular system. When you begin to look at it from that perspective, it becomes easier to understand why two people can have similar cholesterol numbers and very different outcomes over time. The number itself is only one piece of what determines risk, and in some cases, it may not even be the most important piece.
What seems to matter more is how those particles behave within the body. Inflammation, oxidative stress, blood sugar regulation, and the overall condition of the arterial lining all influence whether cholesterol remains relatively stable or begins to contribute to plaque formation. The inner lining of the arteries, known as the endothelium, plays a central role in this process. When it is functioning properly, it helps regulate what enters the arterial wall and maintains a level of protection against buildup. When it becomes compromised, even subtly, it creates an environment where particles are more likely to adhere and accumulate over time.
This changes the entire framework. Instead of viewing cholesterol as the direct cause of plaque, it becomes part of a larger process that involves damage, repair, and long-term imbalance within the vascular system. What is now understood is that this process is driven by underlying inflammation, which affects how particles behave and whether they contribute to build up over time. It also explains why some individuals with cholesterol numbers that appear acceptable can still develop cardiovascular issues, while others with higher numbers may not progress in the same way. The surrounding environment determines how those numbers translate into real outcomes.
As this process has unfolded, another layer has been introduced that adds even more depth to the situation. One of the tests that was ordered looks at Lipoprotein(a), which is not something that is typically included in standard cholesterol testing. Lp(a) is structurally different from standard LDL in that it carries an additional protein component, making it more adhesive and more likely to bind to artery walls, particularly in areas where there is already some degree of irritation or damage.
What makes this especially significant is that Lp(a) levels are largely influenced by genetics. This is not something that can be easily modified through diet alone, which challenges the assumption that cholesterol-related issues are always driven by lifestyle factors. In cases where there is a strong family history, as there is in mine, this becomes a critical piece of the puzzle because it helps explain why certain patterns may persist even when other aspects of health are being addressed.
That does not mean there is nothing that can be done. What it does mean is that the approach has to shift from focusing on a single number to looking at the broader system. If certain particles are more prone to contributing to buildup, then supporting the health of the arteries, reducing inflammation, maintaining stable metabolic function, and promoting healthy circulation all become central to the conversation. This is where the integrative perspective becomes especially valuable, because it allows for a more complete approach rather than a narrow focus on one marker.
From a naturopathic and herbal standpoint, this aligns with how patterns within the body are typically viewed. Circulation, stagnation, inflammation, and systemic balance all influence long-term cardiovascular health. When these systems are functioning well, the body is better able to manage the processes that contribute to plaque formation over time. When they are not, even subtle imbalances can gradually build into larger issues if they are not addressed early.
What stands out most to me right now is how much of this exists in what I refer to as the gray zone. This is the space where nothing has necessarily reached the point of diagnosis, but the underlying patterns are already present. It is also the point where intervention has the greatest potential to make a meaningful difference. Waiting until something becomes severe enough to demand attention is what most people are used to, but that approach often misses the opportunity to work with the body earlier, when those patterns are still more responsive.
I am still in the middle of this process, and I do not yet have all the answers. What I do have is a much clearer understanding that cholesterol is not as simple as I once believed it to be. It is one part of a much larger system involving inflammation, vascular integrity, metabolic health, and, in some cases, genetic factors that influence how these processes unfold over time. Going through this personally has reinforced something I have seen repeatedly in practice, which is that numbers alone rarely tell the full story.
As I continue through the testing that has been ordered and begin to receive more information, I will have a clearer picture of what this looks like in my specific case. For now, the most important shift has been in how I am thinking about the issue itself. Instead of focusing only on whether a number falls within a certain range, the focus has moved toward understanding what is happening beneath that number and what factors are influencing it.
That shift changes the entire approach, because it opens the door to asking better questions earlier, recognizing patterns sooner, and taking a more informed and proactive role in long-term health rather than waiting until something becomes obvious enough that it can no longer be ignored.
Herbally and Holistically Yours,
Charlotte Lange, CNC
CPL Botanicals | CPL Holistics
References
- Gimbrone MA Jr, García-Cardeña G. Endothelial Cell Dysfunction and the Pathobiology of Atherosclerosis. Circulation Research. 2016;118(4):620–636.
- Ross R. Atherosclerosis—An Inflammatory Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;340(2):115–126.
- Tsimikas S. A Test in Context: Lipoprotein(a). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017;69(6):692–711.
Leave a Reply