Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does a high fat diet reduce cholesterol numbers?
Replies
-
20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »If you stay within the same daily calories?
Please provide links.
I want exact info that shows daily caloric info and changes in cholesterol numbers.
Not just sites stating that if you replace the SAD junk food diet with this, well,, of coarse.
Info on diets like the mediterranean, or vegetarian diet vs high fat diet would be nice.
Which is better for cholesterol?
@JanetYellen a year into eating 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat both my Total Cholesterol and HDL numbers are higher than pre LCHF.
journal-advocate.com/ci_20054451
HDL/Total Cholesterol ideal ratio is 0.24 or greater. Mine was 0.17 pre LCHF and 0.23 after 1 year LCHF.
Triglycerides/HDL ideal ratio is 2 or less. Mine was 3.02 pre LCHF and 0.72 after one year LCHF.
As you can after 1 year LCHF I moved from high risk of CVD to a very safe to very low CVD risk. It also lowered my risks of premature death across the board from July 2014 to the Nov 2015 lipid panel test.
This n=1 results is all I am interested in at a personal level.
Gale, just a quick question. What was your total cholestrol level for your final readings. I know you are using mostly ratios and therefore a higher HDL makes the numbers look better without any other changes. Not questioning if it worked for you or not. I am just curious as to how it fits in with the guidelines represented on the lab results (given that you said it was higher)
@20yearsyounger the numbers are at the office but I think as of Nov 2015 lipid test Total Cholesterol was down to 310 from 404 July 2015. July 2014 pre LCHF I think the reading was 213. I use the two ratios above to judge my health since we now know no study has shown cholesterol only levels to predict cardio vascular health risks.
Dang, that's some high cholesterol numbers (the higher ones). Great job on the improvements
I don't track macros, but just tracking calorie intake/staying at a lower bmi (lower end of healthy range), my cholesterol numbers have been pretty solid (May, 2015 total was 150/HDL:58/LDL:82/Triglycerides:49..... October, 2015 total was 167/HDL:69/LDL:97 (no triglycerides given that time.). My October numbers went up a bit, but with the improvements in HDL, I'm still pretty good. I've also been doing some reading on how lower total cholesterol numbers may actually not be best, so getting over 150 makes me feel a bit better. Now I'm curious to know what my fat intake is, maybe I'll start tracking it until I have my next blood work done (next month).
@ReaderGirl3 clearly you have good lipid panel test results.
My total cholesterol goal is in the 200-250 range being an older guy (65) planning to live to be 110. From research I have read for old guys like me as long as we keep our total cholesterol levels as high as 200 we have no increase in risk or premature death, dementia, heart, etc. I hope my next round of testing may show me back down to my 213 pre LCHF values based on the fast drop from 404 to 310 over a period of 5 months.
Having maintained at 200 pounds for the 12 months at about 2500+ LCHF calories I am considering cutting back on the fats and work down to 175 which would give me a BMI of around 25.
Even holding an OD degree and have read medical research for years as it relates to my Ankylosing Spondylitis trying to make heads and tails out of research about cholesterol levels is confusing. At this point in time I think the Triglyceride/HDL ratio is the one health risk indicator that I trust and that it should be <2 (currently I am at 0.72) and keeping my Total Cholesterol at 200 - 250 are my only lipid goals. My goal to live to be 110 includes doing it walking and talking the entire way.
It makes me glad to seeing young people learning how to eat for health at a young age so you all do not wake up at the age of 63 realizing you have wrecked your health the way I did on yo yo dieting for 40 years.
While I know what is currently working for me I have no way to know how what others should eat. I do encourage younger people to read and select a Way Of Eating that sounds interesting and try it in 90 day steps until one can rule it in or out as working for them. If it is not then modify or replace that WOE with another one that sounds interesting.
Preventing a premature death from eating the wrong way is very doable when one is young. Reversing damage from eating in a way that was wrong for one's body is not as doable but cutting out most of my serious pain, resolving my 40 years of IBS, improving health markers while having less fat and more muscles by diet and walking a 1/4 mile daily indicates I need to keep working to reverse my damaged health.
Gale, your plan sounds like a good one. Any real reason you chose to cut the fats versus cutting other areas in order to reduce the overall calories? I have a special interest in metabolic syndrome related research etc (even if it is n=1) and though we may have some differences with regard to your thoughts on carbs, what you are doing is still interesting.
@20yearsyounger I want to stay in nutritional ketosis for its potential to reverse some health damage and protect from cancer, heart and dementia based on research I am learning about almost daily.
With a macro of 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fat the only place I am willing to cut is the fat part of my macro.
My thoughts on carbs are they typically are an awesome source of a healthy way of eating provided us by nature and they make up a large part of diets of people who live to be 100 years or older. In what way are your thoughts on carbs different.0 -
A discussion about the notion that dietary fat influences serum cholesterol http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html?m=1
n>1
@yarwell thanks for this awesome link. While I had never read this review of research it does support my findings. That is the reason I have no real concern with my LDL results, eat a lot of saturated fats and under no circumstance that I know about today would ever subject myself to statins health risks.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Big drop in HDL there and getting close to the minimum. Hmm.
True...that's because the human body is smart enough to reduce the number of garbage trucks (HDL) in circulation, if there's less excess trash (LDL) to pick up. (excess as in beyond normal LDL levels).
Besides, even from the perspective of the ratios, they're all better than before, despite the lower HDL.
Total Chol/HDL (optimal 3.5 or less, per AHA)
Before: 287/65=4.4
After: 168/46=3.6
LDL/HDL (optimal=?? not sure. My lab rpt says 1.5 is lowest risk)
Before: 203/65=3.1
After: 108/46=2.3
Triglycerides/HDL (optimal 2 or less)
Before:95/65=1.5
After:71/46=1.5
@Traveler120 I have read about the 'garbage truck' needed number going down. It will be interesting to see your next HDL numbers. Also test results can vary for many reasons and only one set of test results is not enough info to change one's WOE I read. I am sure if your HDL drops another 19 points one the next lipid panel test then you will to the bottom of the WHY.
Ya, there's been more than 1 set of tests.
No, there's no reason to expect a drop in HDL. My diet and exercise has remained about the same as last time I took the test. I had also taken another test 3 months prior to that one and my HDL was 45, so it actually increased by 1 point while LDL continued to go down. So based on my own history, I should be good on that front.
The only other reasons I can find that typically cause a drop in HDL, is sedentary lifestyle, syndrome X (obesity, high blood pressure, glucose intolerance etc), smoking, alcohol, drugs/meds........and so on. None of these are applicable to me, so I should be good.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »If you stay within the same daily calories?
Please provide links.
I want exact info that shows daily caloric info and changes in cholesterol numbers.
Not just sites stating that if you replace the SAD junk food diet with this, well,, of coarse.
Info on diets like the mediterranean, or vegetarian diet vs high fat diet would be nice.
Which is better for cholesterol?
@JanetYellen a year into eating 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat both my Total Cholesterol and HDL numbers are higher than pre LCHF.
journal-advocate.com/ci_20054451
HDL/Total Cholesterol ideal ratio is 0.24 or greater. Mine was 0.17 pre LCHF and 0.23 after 1 year LCHF.
Triglycerides/HDL ideal ratio is 2 or less. Mine was 3.02 pre LCHF and 0.72 after one year LCHF.
As you can after 1 year LCHF I moved from high risk of CVD to a very safe to very low CVD risk. It also lowered my risks of premature death across the board from July 2014 to the Nov 2015 lipid panel test.
This n=1 results is all I am interested in at a personal level.
Gale, just a quick question. What was your total cholestrol level for your final readings. I know you are using mostly ratios and therefore a higher HDL makes the numbers look better without any other changes. Not questioning if it worked for you or not. I am just curious as to how it fits in with the guidelines represented on the lab results (given that you said it was higher)
@20yearsyounger the numbers are at the office but I think as of Nov 2015 lipid test Total Cholesterol was down to 310 from 404 July 2015. July 2014 pre LCHF I think the reading was 213. I use the two ratios above to judge my health since we now know no study has shown cholesterol only levels to predict cardio vascular health risks.
Dang, that's some high cholesterol numbers (the higher ones). Great job on the improvements
I don't track macros, but just tracking calorie intake/staying at a lower bmi (lower end of healthy range), my cholesterol numbers have been pretty solid (May, 2015 total was 150/HDL:58/LDL:82/Triglycerides:49..... October, 2015 total was 167/HDL:69/LDL:97 (no triglycerides given that time.). My October numbers went up a bit, but with the improvements in HDL, I'm still pretty good. I've also been doing some reading on how lower total cholesterol numbers may actually not be best, so getting over 150 makes me feel a bit better. Now I'm curious to know what my fat intake is, maybe I'll start tracking it until I have my next blood work done (next month).
@ReaderGirl3 clearly you have good lipid panel test results.
My total cholesterol goal is in the 200-250 range being an older guy (65) planning to live to be 110. From research I have read for old guys like me as long as we keep our total cholesterol levels as high as 200 we have no increase in risk or premature death, dementia, heart, etc. I hope my next round of testing may show me back down to my 213 pre LCHF values based on the fast drop from 404 to 310 over a period of 5 months.
Having maintained at 200 pounds for the 12 months at about 2500+ LCHF calories I am considering cutting back on the fats and work down to 175 which would give me a BMI of around 25.
Even holding an OD degree and have read medical research for years as it relates to my Ankylosing Spondylitis trying to make heads and tails out of research about cholesterol levels is confusing. At this point in time I think the Triglyceride/HDL ratio is the one health risk indicator that I trust and that it should be <2 (currently I am at 0.72) and keeping my Total Cholesterol at 200 - 250 are my only lipid goals. My goal to live to be 110 includes doing it walking and talking the entire way.
It makes me glad to seeing young people learning how to eat for health at a young age so you all do not wake up at the age of 63 realizing you have wrecked your health the way I did on yo yo dieting for 40 years.
While I know what is currently working for me I have no way to know how what others should eat. I do encourage younger people to read and select a Way Of Eating that sounds interesting and try it in 90 day steps until one can rule it in or out as working for them. If it is not then modify or replace that WOE with another one that sounds interesting.
Preventing a premature death from eating the wrong way is very doable when one is young. Reversing damage from eating in a way that was wrong for one's body is not as doable but cutting out most of my serious pain, resolving my 40 years of IBS, improving health markers while having less fat and more muscles by diet and walking a 1/4 mile daily indicates I need to keep working to reverse my damaged health.
Gale, your plan sounds like a good one. Any real reason you chose to cut the fats versus cutting other areas in order to reduce the overall calories? I have a special interest in metabolic syndrome related research etc (even if it is n=1) and though we may have some differences with regard to your thoughts on carbs, what you are doing is still interesting.
@20yearsyounger I want to stay in nutritional ketosis for its potential to reverse some health damage and protect from cancer, heart and dementia based on research I am learning about almost daily.
With a macro of 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fat the only place I am willing to cut is the fat part of my macro.
My thoughts on carbs are they typically are an awesome source of a healthy way of eating provided us by nature and they make up a large part of diets of people who live to be 100 years or older. In what way are your thoughts on carbs different.
Gale, my thoughts are that there is no reason why I need to go below 30% carbs. My normal is 50%+ and based on the ketone count in some blood tests I obtained during weight loss, I know how to put my body in ketosis at that level. I don't think my body handles fat as well as it handles carbs but I do love fats and believe they are important to good health (in combination with the right calorie level for optimum weight).0 -
Here's a study that might meet the OP's spec except it went the wrong way - they reduced fat content in the diet stepwise while maintaining calorie levels and exchanging fat for carbs. After a controlled spell they went onto ad-lib low fat (15% F) from the controlled feeding, and lost weight. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1439.full.pdf
Triglycerides went up 35% with reducing fat, and HDL cholesterol fell 15%. LDL cholesterol fell 6% when fat went from 35 to 15%. CVD risk factors got worse by reducing the fat content and replacing with carbohydrate.
I guess the prevailing lipophobia makes it difficult to run a similar increasing fat trial.1 -
Here's a study that might meet the OP's spec except it went the wrong way - they reduced fat content in the diet stepwise while maintaining calorie levels and exchanging fat for carbs. After a controlled spell they went onto ad-lib low fat (15% F) from the controlled feeding, and lost weight. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1439.full.pdf
Triglycerides went up 35% with reducing fat, and HDL cholesterol fell 15%. LDL cholesterol fell 6% when fat went from 35 to 15%. CVD risk factors got worse by reducing the fat content and replacing with carbohydrate.
I guess the prevailing lipophobia makes it difficult to run a similar increasing fat trial.
Good researching. This one has some very good links in the References section that when traced can provide a wealth of information.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »If you stay within the same daily calories?
Please provide links.
I want exact info that shows daily caloric info and changes in cholesterol numbers.
Not just sites stating that if you replace the SAD junk food diet with this, well,, of coarse.
Info on diets like the mediterranean, or vegetarian diet vs high fat diet would be nice.
Which is better for cholesterol?
@JanetYellen a year into eating 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat both my Total Cholesterol and HDL numbers are higher than pre LCHF.
journal-advocate.com/ci_20054451
HDL/Total Cholesterol ideal ratio is 0.24 or greater. Mine was 0.17 pre LCHF and 0.23 after 1 year LCHF.
Triglycerides/HDL ideal ratio is 2 or less. Mine was 3.02 pre LCHF and 0.72 after one year LCHF.
As you can after 1 year LCHF I moved from high risk of CVD to a very safe to very low CVD risk. It also lowered my risks of premature death across the board from July 2014 to the Nov 2015 lipid panel test.
This n=1 results is all I am interested in at a personal level.
Gale, just a quick question. What was your total cholestrol level for your final readings. I know you are using mostly ratios and therefore a higher HDL makes the numbers look better without any other changes. Not questioning if it worked for you or not. I am just curious as to how it fits in with the guidelines represented on the lab results (given that you said it was higher)
@20yearsyounger the numbers are at the office but I think as of Nov 2015 lipid test Total Cholesterol was down to 310 from 404 July 2015. July 2014 pre LCHF I think the reading was 213. I use the two ratios above to judge my health since we now know no study has shown cholesterol only levels to predict cardio vascular health risks.
Dang, that's some high cholesterol numbers (the higher ones). Great job on the improvements
I don't track macros, but just tracking calorie intake/staying at a lower bmi (lower end of healthy range), my cholesterol numbers have been pretty solid (May, 2015 total was 150/HDL:58/LDL:82/Triglycerides:49..... October, 2015 total was 167/HDL:69/LDL:97 (no triglycerides given that time.). My October numbers went up a bit, but with the improvements in HDL, I'm still pretty good. I've also been doing some reading on how lower total cholesterol numbers may actually not be best, so getting over 150 makes me feel a bit better. Now I'm curious to know what my fat intake is, maybe I'll start tracking it until I have my next blood work done (next month).
@ReaderGirl3 clearly you have good lipid panel test results.
My total cholesterol goal is in the 200-250 range being an older guy (65) planning to live to be 110. From research I have read for old guys like me as long as we keep our total cholesterol levels as high as 200 we have no increase in risk or premature death, dementia, heart, etc. I hope my next round of testing may show me back down to my 213 pre LCHF values based on the fast drop from 404 to 310 over a period of 5 months.
Having maintained at 200 pounds for the 12 months at about 2500+ LCHF calories I am considering cutting back on the fats and work down to 175 which would give me a BMI of around 25.
Even holding an OD degree and have read medical research for years as it relates to my Ankylosing Spondylitis trying to make heads and tails out of research about cholesterol levels is confusing. At this point in time I think the Triglyceride/HDL ratio is the one health risk indicator that I trust and that it should be <2 (currently I am at 0.72) and keeping my Total Cholesterol at 200 - 250 are my only lipid goals. My goal to live to be 110 includes doing it walking and talking the entire way.
It makes me glad to seeing young people learning how to eat for health at a young age so you all do not wake up at the age of 63 realizing you have wrecked your health the way I did on yo yo dieting for 40 years.
While I know what is currently working for me I have no way to know how what others should eat. I do encourage younger people to read and select a Way Of Eating that sounds interesting and try it in 90 day steps until one can rule it in or out as working for them. If it is not then modify or replace that WOE with another one that sounds interesting.
Preventing a premature death from eating the wrong way is very doable when one is young. Reversing damage from eating in a way that was wrong for one's body is not as doable but cutting out most of my serious pain, resolving my 40 years of IBS, improving health markers while having less fat and more muscles by diet and walking a 1/4 mile daily indicates I need to keep working to reverse my damaged health.
Gale, your plan sounds like a good one. Any real reason you chose to cut the fats versus cutting other areas in order to reduce the overall calories? I have a special interest in metabolic syndrome related research etc (even if it is n=1) and though we may have some differences with regard to your thoughts on carbs, what you are doing is still interesting.
@20yearsyounger I want to stay in nutritional ketosis for its potential to reverse some health damage and protect from cancer, heart and dementia based on research I am learning about almost daily.
With a macro of 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fat the only place I am willing to cut is the fat part of my macro.
My thoughts on carbs are they typically are an awesome source of a healthy way of eating provided us by nature and they make up a large part of diets of people who live to be 100 years or older. In what way are your thoughts on carbs different.
Gale, my thoughts are that there is no reason why I need to go below 30% carbs. My normal is 50%+ and based on the ketone count in some blood tests I obtained during weight loss, I know how to put my body in ketosis at that level. I don't think my body handles fat as well as it handles carbs but I do love fats and believe they are important to good health (in combination with the right calorie level for optimum weight).
@20yearsyounger your case is interesting. What was the ketone level reading when you were eat 30% of your calories from carbs?
The last couple days I noticed my head feeling different but no pain and on my 1/4 mile walk my energy was on the low side. The last 2 mornings I had blown a 0.75 and 0.82 reading on my $15 breath analyzer off Ebay. My acetone levels are typically 0.30 - 0.60 so last night I tested my blood ketone level using the Precision Xtra meter. BG was 82 and ketones were at 2.9 so I ate an apple. Now just after lunch I blew a 0.02 and my blood tested 110 BG level and 2.2 ketone level. There was about 16 hours after I ate the apple.
I do not know why but I have more energy when my ketone levels are no higher than like 2.5. Today at 2.2 is much better for some reason. I shoot for a 1-2 range. It is harder more me to get knocked out of ketosis if I hang around a 1.5-2.5 range. If I get out of ketosis it concerns me about as much as getting a drop of rain on me getting out of the car in a rain storm.
I know of no reason to be in ketosis for weight loss. In my case keeping my carbs below 50 grams daily does help with my weight loss however. I do nutritional ketosis for health reasons not for the automatic weight loss I experience.
While the blow meters really tells no concrete info I find it a good YES/NO am I in ketosis tool. The blood meter is required for meaningful data. dietdoctor.com/a-new-toy-measuring-blood-ketones1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »If you stay within the same daily calories?
Please provide links.
I want exact info that shows daily caloric info and changes in cholesterol numbers.
Not just sites stating that if you replace the SAD junk food diet with this, well,, of coarse.
Info on diets like the mediterranean, or vegetarian diet vs high fat diet would be nice.
Which is better for cholesterol?
@JanetYellen a year into eating 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat both my Total Cholesterol and HDL numbers are higher than pre LCHF.
journal-advocate.com/ci_20054451
HDL/Total Cholesterol ideal ratio is 0.24 or greater. Mine was 0.17 pre LCHF and 0.23 after 1 year LCHF.
Triglycerides/HDL ideal ratio is 2 or less. Mine was 3.02 pre LCHF and 0.72 after one year LCHF.
As you can after 1 year LCHF I moved from high risk of CVD to a very safe to very low CVD risk. It also lowered my risks of premature death across the board from July 2014 to the Nov 2015 lipid panel test.
This n=1 results is all I am interested in at a personal level.
Gale, just a quick question. What was your total cholestrol level for your final readings. I know you are using mostly ratios and therefore a higher HDL makes the numbers look better without any other changes. Not questioning if it worked for you or not. I am just curious as to how it fits in with the guidelines represented on the lab results (given that you said it was higher)
@20yearsyounger the numbers are at the office but I think as of Nov 2015 lipid test Total Cholesterol was down to 310 from 404 July 2015. July 2014 pre LCHF I think the reading was 213. I use the two ratios above to judge my health since we now know no study has shown cholesterol only levels to predict cardio vascular health risks.
Dang, that's some high cholesterol numbers (the higher ones). Great job on the improvements
I don't track macros, but just tracking calorie intake/staying at a lower bmi (lower end of healthy range), my cholesterol numbers have been pretty solid (May, 2015 total was 150/HDL:58/LDL:82/Triglycerides:49..... October, 2015 total was 167/HDL:69/LDL:97 (no triglycerides given that time.). My October numbers went up a bit, but with the improvements in HDL, I'm still pretty good. I've also been doing some reading on how lower total cholesterol numbers may actually not be best, so getting over 150 makes me feel a bit better. Now I'm curious to know what my fat intake is, maybe I'll start tracking it until I have my next blood work done (next month).
@ReaderGirl3 clearly you have good lipid panel test results.
My total cholesterol goal is in the 200-250 range being an older guy (65) planning to live to be 110. From research I have read for old guys like me as long as we keep our total cholesterol levels as high as 200 we have no increase in risk or premature death, dementia, heart, etc. I hope my next round of testing may show me back down to my 213 pre LCHF values based on the fast drop from 404 to 310 over a period of 5 months.
Having maintained at 200 pounds for the 12 months at about 2500+ LCHF calories I am considering cutting back on the fats and work down to 175 which would give me a BMI of around 25.
Even holding an OD degree and have read medical research for years as it relates to my Ankylosing Spondylitis trying to make heads and tails out of research about cholesterol levels is confusing. At this point in time I think the Triglyceride/HDL ratio is the one health risk indicator that I trust and that it should be <2 (currently I am at 0.72) and keeping my Total Cholesterol at 200 - 250 are my only lipid goals. My goal to live to be 110 includes doing it walking and talking the entire way.
It makes me glad to seeing young people learning how to eat for health at a young age so you all do not wake up at the age of 63 realizing you have wrecked your health the way I did on yo yo dieting for 40 years.
While I know what is currently working for me I have no way to know how what others should eat. I do encourage younger people to read and select a Way Of Eating that sounds interesting and try it in 90 day steps until one can rule it in or out as working for them. If it is not then modify or replace that WOE with another one that sounds interesting.
Preventing a premature death from eating the wrong way is very doable when one is young. Reversing damage from eating in a way that was wrong for one's body is not as doable but cutting out most of my serious pain, resolving my 40 years of IBS, improving health markers while having less fat and more muscles by diet and walking a 1/4 mile daily indicates I need to keep working to reverse my damaged health.
Gale, your plan sounds like a good one. Any real reason you chose to cut the fats versus cutting other areas in order to reduce the overall calories? I have a special interest in metabolic syndrome related research etc (even if it is n=1) and though we may have some differences with regard to your thoughts on carbs, what you are doing is still interesting.
@20yearsyounger I want to stay in nutritional ketosis for its potential to reverse some health damage and protect from cancer, heart and dementia based on research I am learning about almost daily.
With a macro of 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fat the only place I am willing to cut is the fat part of my macro.
My thoughts on carbs are they typically are an awesome source of a healthy way of eating provided us by nature and they make up a large part of diets of people who live to be 100 years or older. In what way are your thoughts on carbs different.
Gale, my thoughts are that there is no reason why I need to go below 30% carbs. My normal is 50%+ and based on the ketone count in some blood tests I obtained during weight loss, I know how to put my body in ketosis at that level. I don't think my body handles fat as well as it handles carbs but I do love fats and believe they are important to good health (in combination with the right calorie level for optimum weight).
@20yearsyounger your case is interesting. What was the ketone level reading when you were eat 30% of your calories from carbs?
The last couple days I noticed my head feeling different but no pain and on my 1/4 mile walk my energy was on the low side. The last 2 mornings I had blown a 0.75 and 0.82 reading on my $15 breath analyzer off Ebay. My acetone levels are typically 0.30 - 0.60 so last night I tested my blood ketone level using the Precision Xtra meter. BG was 82 and ketones were at 2.9 so I ate an apple. Now just after lunch I blew a 0.02 and my blood tested 110 BG level and 2.2 ketone level. There was about 16 hours after I ate the apple.
I do not know why but I have more energy when my ketone levels are no higher than like 2.5. Today at 2.2 is much better for some reason. I shoot for a 1-2 range. It is harder more me to get knocked out of ketosis if I hang around a 1.5-2.5 range. If I get out of ketosis it concerns me about as much as getting a drop of rain on me getting out of the car in a rain storm.
I know of no reason to be in ketosis for weight loss. In my case keeping my carbs below 50 grams daily does help with my weight loss however. I do nutritional ketosis for health reasons not for the automatic weight loss I experience.
While the blow meters really tells no concrete info I find it a good YES/NO am I in ketosis tool. The blood meter is required for meaningful data. dietdoctor.com/a-new-toy-measuring-blood-ketones
Sorry, I had to look for the records. So I didn't get an actual number like you did. It's just bolded on the report and has a 1+ next to it (whereas everything else in negative or in range).
I went back to my diary and the day before I did 54% Carbs, 19% protein, 27% fats before my fast (that's around my norm)
Total Cholesterol - 180
HDL - 87
Triglycerides - 52
LDL - 83
Chol/HDLC Ratio - 2.1
Glucose - 78
Protein - 7.4 (range is 6.1-8.1)
Creatinine 1.09 (range is .6 - `1.35)
2 -
One more thing, just based on the definition of ketosis, I would expect most people to go into it for weight loss purposes (if you have a large deficit). My body fat was way higher than it should have been in the first place.0
-
20yearsyounger wrote: »One more thing, just based on the definition of ketosis, I would expect most people to go into it for weight loss purposes (if you have a large deficit). My body fat was way higher than it should have been in the first place.
Those are some awesome ratios. Would you say your source of carbs are mainly processed or not.
Ketosis I think based on my personal experience (n=1) is popular for some because it killed all of my cravings that was driving me to abuse processed carbs that just about took me out of the game of life. As I noted elsewhere I added an apple last night when I learned my ketone level was 2.9 and today it was back down to 2.2 and I feel better.
On a hunch I cut out sugar and all forms of all grains to see if it would manage my pain (and it did) so I did not have to start on Enbrel injections. I had already gone hog wild on coconut oil for the MCT's so I was eating keto accidentally before I found MFP. I am learning about Keto daily on MFP.0 -
My total cholesterol is 1160
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »One more thing, just based on the definition of ketosis, I would expect most people to go into it for weight loss purposes (if you have a large deficit). My body fat was way higher than it should have been in the first place.
Those are some awesome ratios. Would you say your source of carbs are mainly processed or not.
Ketosis I think based on my personal experience (n=1) is popular for some because it killed all of my cravings that was driving me to abuse processed carbs that just about took me out of the game of life. As I noted elsewhere I added an apple last night when I learned my ketone level was 2.9 and today it was back down to 2.2 and I feel better.
On a hunch I cut out sugar and all forms of all grains to see if it would manage my pain (and it did) so I did not have to start on Enbrel injections. I had already gone hog wild on coconut oil for the MCT's so I was eating keto accidentally before I found MFP. I am learning about Keto daily on MFP.
I went back in history to when my doctor wanted me on statins (which I took for a while but don't anymore). I was really bad about taking them.
Total Cholesterol - 223
Triglycerides - 57
HDL - 62
LDL 150
Chol/HDL Ratio - 3.6
I'm 5' 10 and that was when I weighed about 185-190lbs (BMI 27+). I weighed about 169lbs when I got the good results. I kept losing weight for blood pressure reasons.
I am a very bad example for carb eating. I eat donuts, bagels, pizza, whatever but I pay attention to my fiber and protein goals. I also separate my meals in 2-3 hour increments. So some days I load up on fat, others I load up on carbs.
As someone else said, everyone is different with what they can handle. I think though that is leads back to calorie intake levels and body fat (with the exception of some people)
To correlate it back to the OPs original question, if I had the resources available to me for testing, what I would really love to explore is this:-
As fats are increased, and calorie intake is set to maintain within a normal BMI range, there might be increases in total cholesterol, but that increase will be within a reasonable range and the chol/hdl level may be improved.
0 -
willammoney wrote: »My total cholesterol is 116
healthline.com/health/cholesterol-can-it-be-too-low#Overview1
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/15/why-low-cholesterol-is-not-good-for-you.aspx William this Dr. plays out in right field out near the fence but he does some times catch a fly ball.
circ.ahajournals.org/content/92/9/2365.full This is a health condition the doctors have know about for 20+ years.
ctds.info/low_cholesterol.html
@willammoney Here is a guy's story you may want to read more than the other links above. His level was 164 was not as critical but this is his personal story.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »One more thing, just based on the definition of ketosis, I would expect most people to go into it for weight loss purposes (if you have a large deficit). My body fat was way higher than it should have been in the first place.
Those are some awesome ratios. Would you say your source of carbs are mainly processed or not.
Ketosis I think based on my personal experience (n=1) is popular for some because it killed all of my cravings that was driving me to abuse processed carbs that just about took me out of the game of life. As I noted elsewhere I added an apple last night when I learned my ketone level was 2.9 and today it was back down to 2.2 and I feel better.
On a hunch I cut out sugar and all forms of all grains to see if it would manage my pain (and it did) so I did not have to start on Enbrel injections. I had already gone hog wild on coconut oil for the MCT's so I was eating keto accidentally before I found MFP. I am learning about Keto daily on MFP.
I went back in history to when my doctor wanted me on statins (which I took for a while but don't anymore). I was really bad about taking them.
Total Cholesterol - 223
Triglycerides - 57
HDL - 62
LDL 150
Chol/HDL Ratio - 3.6
I'm 5' 10 and that was when I weighed about 185-190lbs (BMI 27+). I weighed about 169lbs when I got the good results. I kept losing weight for blood pressure reasons.
I am a very bad example for carb eating. I eat donuts, bagels, pizza, whatever but I pay attention to my fiber and protein goals. I also separate my meals in 2-3 hour increments. So some days I load up on fat, others I load up on carbs.
As someone else said, everyone is different with what they can handle. I think though that is leads back to calorie intake levels and body fat (with the exception of some people)
To correlate it back to the OPs original question, if I had the resources available to me for testing, what I would really love to explore is this:-
As fats are increased, and calorie intake is set to maintain within a normal BMI range, there might be increases in total cholesterol, but that increase will be within a reasonable range and the chol/hdl level may be improved.
Man those were some awesome numbers/ratios before treatment.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Man those were some awesome numbers/ratios before treatment.
My doctor didn't think so. Honestly though, I feel way much better now than I did then. I'm not walking around bumping into things anymore, no back and chest pains from bending over, and I have a little bit more spring in my step 0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »willammoney wrote: »My total cholesterol is 116
healthline.com/health/cholesterol-can-it-be-too-low#Overview1
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/15/why-low-cholesterol-is-not-good-for-you.aspx William this Dr. plays out in right field out near the fence but he does some times catch a fly ball.
circ.ahajournals.org/content/92/9/2365.full This is a health condition the doctors have know about for 20+ years.
ctds.info/low_cholesterol.html
@willammoney Here is a guy's story you may want to read more than the other links above. His level was 164 was not as critical but this is his personal story.
I've done some reading on this as well and it does seem that there are some potential health problems that can arise from low total cholesterol numbers. You don't usually hear about it though, so much emphasis is on lowering (higher) numbers.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »willammoney wrote: »My total cholesterol is 116
healthline.com/health/cholesterol-can-it-be-too-low#Overview1
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/15/why-low-cholesterol-is-not-good-for-you.aspx William this Dr. plays out in right field out near the fence but he does some times catch a fly ball.
circ.ahajournals.org/content/92/9/2365.full This is a health condition the doctors have know about for 20+ years.
ctds.info/low_cholesterol.html
@willammoney Here is a guy's story you may want to read more than the other links above. His level was 164 was not as critical but this is his personal story.
I purposely lowered it from 140 through diet after reading the china study/esselstyn1 -
At 43 I'll take my low cholesterol and 110/70
Although I have been thinking about it being too low but I have not had any ill effects. Now if I can lose the next20 lbs .....lol1 -
@Traveler120 Thanks. It seems like you self-experimented on yourself.
I wanted numbers and someone that did not lose a lot of weight
I wanted to know from a healthy vegetarian switching to High fat would help.
And I think you helped most.
I'm staying with lots of fruits and vegetables (not on weekends).
Almost seems like in these studies the people eat a lot of those bad carbs (junk) before changing over.
I 100% agree that low carb is an excellent way to lose weight FAST.
But I am not sure if a high fat diet BEATS a plant based diet for cholesterol numbers.
I plan to raise my HDL by exercising more.
0 -
Almost half the patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease have LDL levels <100 mg/dL
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(08)00717-5/abstract1 -
Almost half the patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease have LDL levels <100 mg/dL
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(08)00717-5/abstract
Maybe thats why HDL is part of the key ratios. 10% had HDL > 60, and 1% a combination of low LDL and high HDL.0 -
50% of men over age 65 are on statin drugs (chart on site).
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/statin-use-is-up-cholesterol-levels-are-down-are-americans-hearts-benefiting-201104151518
I wonder if these statins really do anything besides just lower the numbers.
I think that 50% of people hospitalized have low LDL, but it's a fake low LDL due to prescription pills.
I think we are getting the wool pulled over our heads by the drug companies !
0 -
JanetYellen wrote: »50% of men over age 65 are on statin drugs (chart on site).
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/statin-use-is-up-cholesterol-levels-are-down-are-americans-hearts-benefiting-201104151518
I wonder if these statins really do anything besides just lower the numbers.
I think that 50% of people hospitalized have low LDL, but it's a fake low LDL due to prescription pills.
I think we are getting the wool pulled over our heads by the drug companies !
Good point. When I was on statins, there was no doubt that my LDL and total numbers were lower but what it did for my overall health that I dont do now? I dont know.0 -
Man, the posted triglyceride numbers make mine look down right terrifying! My last numbers were
Triglyceride 417 mg/dL -Standard Range 0 - 150 mg/dL
Triglyceride is greater than 400. LDL Calculation is invalid and cannot be reported.
Cholesterol- 184 mg/dL -Standard Range 7 - 200 mg/dL
HDL Chol- 24 mg/dL -Standard Range 40 - 200 mg/dL
T Chol/HDL Ratio- 7.7 Standard Range<5.0
Non HDL Cholesterol- 160 mg/dL -Standard Range 0 - 130 mg/dLTotal0 -
JanetYellen wrote: »@Traveler120 Thanks. It seems like you self-experimented on yourself.
I wanted numbers and someone that did not lose a lot of weight
I wanted to know from a healthy vegetarian switching to High fat would help.
And I think you helped most.
I'm staying with lots of fruits and vegetables (not on weekends).
Almost seems like in these studies the people eat a lot of those bad carbs (junk) before changing over.
I 100% agree that low carb is an excellent way to lose weight FAST.
But I am not sure if a high fat diet BEATS a plant based diet for cholesterol numbers.
I plan to raise my HDL by exercising more.
If you're counting net carbs, there's plenty of room for healthy plants and oils, sí?0 -
JanetYellen wrote: »@Traveler120 Thanks. It seems like you self-experimented on yourself.
I wanted numbers and someone that did not lose a lot of weight
I wanted to know from a healthy vegetarian switching to High fat would help.
And I think you helped most.
I'm staying with lots of fruits and vegetables (not on weekends).
Almost seems like in these studies the people eat a lot of those bad carbs (junk) before changing over.
I 100% agree that low carb is an excellent way to lose weight FAST.
But I am not sure if a high fat diet BEATS a plant based diet for cholesterol numbers.
I plan to raise my HDL by exercising more.
FWIW, I can tell you my personal experience. In 20s, eating a vegan whole foods diet and exercising a TON, I remember having my cholesterol checked. My HDL was too low (I want to say around 40 or so?), which seemed to make me high risk, but my total cholesterol was also very low, making the ratio good. I didn't really think about it after that.
Now I've been eating LCHF whole foods for several years. My last check up my HDL was high (around 80), while my total cholesterol was still normal and my triglycerides were low. When I got results, I compared it with a chart, and I was in the lowest risk factor for every single category, not just for my age and gender, but for the lowest values, which I think was 18 yr old males.
My weight has fluctuated greatly between having 3 pregnancies, but now I'm within 5 lbs of where I was at that time in my 20s--lighter with a whole lot less exercising.2 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »Almost half the patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease have LDL levels <100 mg/dL
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(08)00717-5/abstract
Maybe thats why HDL is part of the key ratios. 10% had HDL > 60, and 1% a combination of low LDL and high HDL.
Indeed, More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL ≥60 mg/dL.
We should also note that " Before admission, only 28,944 (21.1%) patients were receiving lipid-lowering medications. "
GPs use Risk calculators not single variables. My HDL of 70 keeps the doctor at bay.1 -
Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Man, the posted triglyceride numbers make mine look down right terrifying! My last numbers were
Triglyceride 417 mg/dL -Standard Range 0 - 150 mg/dL
Triglyceride is greater than 400. LDL Calculation is invalid and cannot be reported.
Cholesterol- 184 mg/dL -Standard Range 7 - 200 mg/dL
HDL Chol- 24 mg/dL -Standard Range 40 - 200 mg/dL
T Chol/HDL Ratio- 7.7 Standard Range<5.0
Non HDL Cholesterol- 160 mg/dL -Standard Range 0 - 130 mg/dLTotal
Pretty interesting that your total Cholesterol remains so low. I assume this is without medication?0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »@Traveler120 Thanks. It seems like you self-experimented on yourself.
I wanted numbers and someone that did not lose a lot of weight
I wanted to know from a healthy vegetarian switching to High fat would help.
And I think you helped most.
I'm staying with lots of fruits and vegetables (not on weekends).
Almost seems like in these studies the people eat a lot of those bad carbs (junk) before changing over.
I 100% agree that low carb is an excellent way to lose weight FAST.
But I am not sure if a high fat diet BEATS a plant based diet for cholesterol numbers.
I plan to raise my HDL by exercising more.
FWIW, I can tell you my personal experience. In 20s, eating a vegan whole foods diet and exercising a TON, I remember having my cholesterol checked. My HDL was too low (I want to say around 40 or so?), which seemed to make me high risk, but my total cholesterol was also very low, making the ratio good. I didn't really think about it after that.
Now I've been eating LCHF whole foods for several years. My last check up my HDL was high (around 80), while my total cholesterol was still normal and my triglycerides were low. When I got results, I compared it with a chart, and I was in the lowest risk factor for every single category, not just for my age and gender, but for the lowest values, which I think was 18 yr old males.
My weight has fluctuated greatly between having 3 pregnancies, but now I'm within 5 lbs of where I was at that time in my 20s--lighter with a whole lot less exercising.
This is exactly what I would expect.0 -
10 years of data from a LCHF guy http://www.dietdoctor.com/my-health-markers-after-10-years-with-lchf
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions