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.
afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?
Replies
-
Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.3 -
Traveler120 wrote: »I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
You say you "luckily" "wised up." Were you actually experiencing any negative effects or symptoms? Or are you just assuming you would have eventually acquired heart disease because that is what the "experts" say? Also, were you restricting calories at the time, and what was your weight (or more importantly, body fat percentage) then compared to now?
The more I read, the more I'm becoming convinced that high cholesterol levels are a symptom rather than a cause, and they're not affected as greatly by what we eat as how much."aqsylvester wrote: »My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.
300g/day of carbs comprising 75% of your diet is still under 2000 calories per day. I'm betting that has a lot to do with it. And have you ever been diabetic?
Funny thing about 65-99 being a "normal" fasting glucose, when I was first diagnosed Type 2, "normal" was considered to be 90 - 120. Then they lowered it to 70 - 110, now it's 65 - 99. Personally, I think the reduced limits are political. Lowering the threshold creates more diagnoses, taking more medications, and creates more urgency to provide research grants. Goes hand in hand with hyping up the obesity epidemic and using BMI to claim that over 60% of the populace is dangerously fat. Truth is that almost half of that 60% is "overweight" on the BMI chart (between 25 and 30) rather than obese, and actual statistically significant health risks don't increase until reaching "obese". The "overweight" category is basically someone's aesthetic judgement, and not really meaningful. But it sure does help sell a crisis.
In any event, I just had a blood test May 9. This was 10 days or so after starting on MFP. My A1C was 6.6, reflecting my state before changing my diet. My fasting glucose that morning was 116, where my average fasting glucose prior to starting MFP was in the 140 to 150 range.
total cholesterol: 144
hdl: 38
ldl:82
chol/hdlc: 3.8
ldl/hdl: 2.2
non hdl: 106
triglycerides: 119
Basically, everything normal. Three months before that, my total cholesterol and trigs were both over 200 and ratios were really off. Doc prescribed 10mg zocor daily, so I can't say for sure how much of the change was due to meds and how much was changing my diet. I lean more toward the diet based on the fact that the blood sugar medications don't seem to do much. But within three days of starting MFP my fasting glucose was down to under 120, and is now under 100. My 14 day average glucose, testing 3 - 4 times per day was in the upper 130s and is now 97. This is on 2200 calories per day, with targets of 20% or less carbs, 25% or more protein and fats set at 50% but I let them fall where they may.
I don't do a full-on keto or paleo diet (too restrictive) but I am definitely low-carb and high fat compared to establishment advice, and I'm in the process of reversing my diabetes, so far without cholesterol issues.
4 -
@markusdarwath. You should watch the documentary at the beginning of the thread and listen to the info on statins since you're now taking Zocor. Considering that statins work by blocking the production of cholesterol in the liver, blocking the precursor to many important substances, such CoQ10 (so important for the heart and all muscles), Vitamin D, steroid hormones, sex hormones, even clotting factors. In fact, some conjecture that the miniscule benefit provided by the drug is actually due to the effects on platelet aggregation, not cholesterol reduction. A friend of mine started taking one and had brain fog that made it difficult to perform as a pilot and discontinued the medication--it makes sense considering how brain tissue is very rich in cholesterol! The Cochrane Collaboration did a major systematic review (as they always do the largest reviews of the literature) and recommended that Statins NOT be given for primary prevention. That means you don't even consider taking one unless you've already had a heart attack or stroke.
Again, check out the thread for a video on this, but you made want to instead get a coronary calcium scan and address your risk factors from there. Elevated cholesterol is just one piece of the whole picture.
Sounds like you are doing well though! Keep up the good work!1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
I only did the standard lipid panel. I find there's no need to spend more money on tests that won't solve the problem, when there's already a cheap and viable solution - lower sat fat diet combined with exercise.aqsylvester wrote: »One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me.
Yes I exercise and eat mostly whole food carbs, but as I said earlier, I also do table sugar daily and sweets weekly. Fat is under 15%. About 20-30 g/day is sufficient for vitamin absorption. People think more is more, it's not.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/4/1041.long (study shows that deficiency in vit A was resolved to normal levels equally for all 3 groups on 12%, 17% and 24% fat).
WHO says don't exceed 30% and keep saturated fat at less than 10%. That's what I do. I see no reason to eat hundreds more empty calories from fats and oils when they provide little to no vitamins and minerals, those calories are better spent on extra plates of nutrient dense, and fiber rich foods like legumes, grains, fruits and veggies.
As for protein, I'm 53 kg (117 lbs) and eat about 1800-2100 to maintain. World Health Org. says 0.83g/kg is sufficient. The Int'l Olympic Comm(IOC) says for athletes, 1.2-1.6g/kg is sufficient. I aim for 60g/day which is ~1.13g/kg which I think is a perfect midpoint level between the WHO and IOC recs. I can't imagine why I would need to eat as much protein as an elite athlete so I think my level is spot on. At my current calories, 60g is ~12-15%. Again, more is not more, unless one is trying to sell people supplements or a high protein diet of some sort. In that case they'll need to and do convince many that they need a lot more than they actually do.aqsylvester wrote: »It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
No, if my fasting glucose and A1c are normal, that's certainly an indicator that my pancreas is working exactly like it should and points to insulin sensitivity. I don't need to do extra tests that are not on a standard panel of tests. Also, according to the NIDDK, I don't have the classic risk factors associated with insulin resistance ie. overweight, excess belly fat, inactivity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, medications etc.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx#happens
So according to the experts, looks like I'm good.
3 -
I didn't see you mention your A1C before. In some cases, problems can still exist if you remove A1C from the picture. It is entirely possible for the pancreas to have to secrete unusually large amounts of insulin while the fasting blood sugar remains perfectly normal. And it's also possible to be insulin resistant despite being at a normal weight, no excess body fat, no high cholesterol, and leading an active lifestyle.Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
No, if my fasting glucose and A1c are normal, that's certainly an indicator that my pancreas is working exactly like it should and points to insulin sensitivity. I don't need to do extra tests that are not on a standard panel of tests. Also, according to the NIDDK, I don't have the classic risk factors associated with insulin resistance ie. overweight, excess belly fat, inactivity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, medications etc.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx#happens
So according to the experts, looks like I'm good.
1 -
No, there are no symptoms of high cholesterol. That's what routine blood tests are for. To nip it in the bud and halt or prevent the process of arterial plaque buildup. In fact, don't most people usually find out about their CVD when they get a heart attack? Maybe a bit of angina leading up to it but otherwise no symptoms. And yes, I'm one of those people who still listen to what the "experts" say. As for the weight, when my cholesterol was high, I was about 145 lbs at the time of that test. At the recent test last year, I was 135 lbs. So the main difference was clearly diet (lower fat, less meat, more plants) and exercise.MarkusDarwath wrote: »You say you "luckily" "wised up." Were you actually experiencing any negative effects or symptoms? Or are you just assuming you would have eventually acquired heart disease because that is what the "experts" say? Also, were you restricting calories at the time, and what was your weight (or more importantly, body fat percentage) then compared to now?
The more I read, the more I'm becoming convinced that high cholesterol levels are a symptom rather than a cause, and they're not affected as greatly by what we eat as how much.MarkusDarwath wrote: »300g/day of carbs comprising 75% of your diet is still under 2000 calories per day. I'm betting that has a lot to do with it. And have you ever been diabetic?
Funny thing about 65-99 being a "normal" fasting glucose, when I was first diagnosed Type 2, "normal" was considered to be 90 - 120. Then they lowered it to 70 - 110, now it's 65 - 99. Personally, I think the reduced limits are political. Lowering the threshold creates more diagnoses, taking more medications, and creates more urgency to provide research grants. Goes hand in hand with hyping up the obesity epidemic and using BMI to claim that over 60% of the populace is dangerously fat. Truth is that almost half of that 60% is "overweight" on the BMI chart (between 25 and 30) rather than obese, and actual statistically significant health risks don't increase until reaching "obese". The "overweight" category is basically someone's aesthetic judgement, and not really meaningful. But it sure does help sell a crisis.
Sounds like a bit of denial going on if you think that 70% of Americans being overweight and obese and the effect on health is exaggerated or not as significant. Or that the proposed fasting glucose levels are political. That's absurd, especially considering you said you do take diabetes medication. If you think they're just out to get your money, why did/do you take them?
And no, I've never been diabetic, never had abnormal fasting glucose or A1C.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
Whats wrong with 75% carbs? The healthiest and longest lasting people in the world are in that range. But again, its the carb that matters.
2 -
Like most debate threads, this one is overflowing with broscience, nutty theories, attacks on perfectly valid ways of eating, cherry-picking studies while ignoring conflicting studies, and perfectly logical posts.
Eat a varied diet of mostly un-processed* foods, exercise, and you'll live to a hundred. Meat isn't bad. Cholesterol isn't bad. Fat isn't bad. Dairy isn't bad. Fruits and vegetables aren't bad. Paleo/keto can lower your cholesterol, and so can going vegan. Paleo/keto can lead to terrible eating habits, and so can going vegan.
Don't be an idiot and all will be well.
(*I know some a-hole is about to type, "But cooking is processing." Try to be smarter than that.)12 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
Whats wrong with 75% carbs? The healthiest and longest lasting people in the world are in that range. But again, its the carb that matters.
@psulemon
Just do the math, if he's consuming 75% of his macros in carbohydrate (about 300 grams, he states, which would correspond to a 1600 calorie diet)... let's assume he's eats the DRI of protein for the average sedentary male = 56 g, which would mean about 14% of this macros... then he's got another 11% for fat (insanely, impossibly low btw, no normal human does this and eats palatable food), which translates to about 20 g per day. That's ridiculous. It's absolutely intolerable for a normal human. If he was white knuckling himself to eat this way, his brain tissue would probably shrink and he'd become depressed (as many people on an extreme low fat diet)... The guy could basically eat 1/4 cup of almonds per day for his entire fat allowance. Everything else would have to be fat free!!2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't see you mention your A1C before. In some cases, problems can still exist if you remove A1C from the picture. It is entirely possible for the pancreas to have to secrete unusually large amounts of insulin while the fasting blood sugar remains perfectly normal. And it's also possible to be insulin resistant despite being at a normal weight, no excess body fat, no high cholesterol, and leading an active lifestyle.Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
No, if my fasting glucose and A1c are normal, that's certainly an indicator that my pancreas is working exactly like it should and points to insulin sensitivity. I don't need to do extra tests that are not on a standard panel of tests. Also, according to the NIDDK, I don't have the classic risk factors associated with insulin resistance ie. overweight, excess belly fat, inactivity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, medications etc.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx#happens
So according to the experts, looks like I'm good.
^^^THIS
That was my point. Fasting glucose and A1C is a measurement of insulin resistance much further down the road. The progression of the disease starts with elevated insulin levels, as your pancreas does its best to keep your blood glucose normal. It can keep working at it for years. As insulin rises, the cells being to develop insulin resistance, which causes insulin to rise further... a rise in blood glucose only appears after insulin resistance is full blown.
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind. How many years have you been eating like this? Do you still have a libido to speak of? LOL1 -
Here's a great discussion on the pathogenesis of cardiac disease. It touches on a lot of the discussion of this thread. Check it out!
Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt interviews heart surgeon, Dr. Dwight Lundell on the pathophysiology of heart disease. Dr. Lundell was one the first major voices pointing us to better science. You might remember his viral article from 2012 ( http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml )
https://youtu.be/vGHjnFoc_Rk 0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
Whats wrong with 75% carbs? The healthiest and longest lasting people in the world are in that range. But again, its the carb that matters.
@psulemon
Just do the math, if he's consuming 75% of his macros in carbohydrate (about 300 grams, he states, which would correspond to a 1600 calorie diet)... let's assume he's eats the DRI of protein for the average sedentary male = 56 g, which would mean about 14% of this macros... then he's got another 11% for fat (insanely, impossibly low btw, no normal human does this and eats palatable food), which translates to about 20 g per day. That's ridiculous. It's absolutely intolerable for a normal human. If he was white knuckling himself to eat this way, his brain tissue would probably shrink and he'd become depressed (as many people on an extreme low fat diet)... The guy could basically eat 1/4 cup of almonds per day for his entire fat allowance. Everything else would have to be fat free!!
"His" profile says he's actually female (which I think was stated in this thread).
75%, 10% (not insane, although not my thing: see https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/ and following), and I believe I've seen some posts supporting the below 10% fat thing, and so 15% protein. At 1600 that would mean 60, which lower than usually recommended to maintain muscle at a deficit, but the poster has not shared her goals.
Kenyan and Ethiopian marathon runners tend to be around 80-10-10, and healthy. Macro mix doesn't seem to matter that much traditionally either. Food choice does. But the idea that carbs are unhealthy is a ridiculous travesty.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
Whats wrong with 75% carbs? The healthiest and longest lasting people in the world are in that range. But again, its the carb that matters.
@psulemon
Just do the math, if he's consuming 75% of his macros in carbohydrate (about 300 grams, he states, which would correspond to a 1600 calorie diet)... let's assume he's eats the DRI of protein for the average sedentary male = 56 g, which would mean about 14% of this macros... then he's got another 11% for fat (insanely, impossibly low btw, no normal human does this and eats palatable food), which translates to about 20 g per day. That's ridiculous. It's absolutely intolerable for a normal human. If he was white knuckling himself to eat this way, his brain tissue would probably shrink and he'd become depressed (as many people on an extreme low fat diet)... The guy could basically eat 1/4 cup of almonds per day for his entire fat allowance. Everything else would have to be fat free!!
"His" profile says he's actually female (which I think was stated in this thread).
75%, 10% (not insane, although not my thing: see https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/ and following), and I believe I've seen some posts supporting the below 10% fat thing, and so 15% protein. At 1600 that would mean 60, which lower than usually recommended to maintain muscle at a deficit, but the poster has not shared her goals.
Kenyan and Ethiopian marathon runners tend to be around 80-10-10, and healthy. Macro mix doesn't seem to matter that much traditionally either. Food choice does. But the idea that carbs are unhealthy is a ridiculous travesty.
80/10/10 and the likes are probably sustainable in the context of a high calorie intake, because this way at the end of the day you can eat enough fat and protein. On a calorie restricted diet, they are probably a recipe for disaster.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Sounds like a bit of denial going on if you think that 70% of Americans being overweight and obese and the effect on health is exaggerated or not as significant. Or that the proposed fasting glucose levels are political. That's absurd, especially considering you said you do take diabetes medication. If you think they're just out to get your money, why did/do you take them?
And no, I've never been diabetic, never had abnormal fasting glucose or A1C.
As I said, "overweight" with regard to BMI (and that's what the statistics are always based on, even tho it's a horribly flawed metric in the first place) is meaningless. There is no statistical increase in health risks associated with being in the "overweight" BMI category. That leaves the reality that 30 to 35 percent are actually obese and have increased health risk factor. Yes, it's really bad, but it isn't the overwhelming crisis that it's hyped up to be by those who make money off it.
As far as denial, I am obese. I make no bones about that and don't claim otherwise.
As far as the fasting glucose guidelines, 90 - 120 was perfectly fine for decades. The lowered thresholds have come coinciding with the over-hyping of the obesity epidemic. As far as why I'm on the medication... as I said, my fasting glucose -was- well over 120. The meds -maybe- made 10 or 20 points difference but still didn't get me under 120. Adjusting my diet to 500 calories below maintenance for my goal weight and keeping my net carbs to 20% or less of total calories brought me under 120 within 3 days, and under 100 within 3 weeks. If my 14 day average should drop as low as 90 I will cut back the drugs by at least half on my own. If I stay where I am right now I will insist on cutting medication at my next doctor appointment. Note that my current glucose numbers are within the current guidelines, but I think they are still lower than necessary. I have in the past gotten my A1C down to normal range while being within the old glucose guidelines and higher than the new ones. But even more than the upper threshold, I take issue with the lower end. Many people are quite irritable when their blood sugar goes below 80. I, quite frankly, do not like myself if my glucose gets into the 70s. Having a negative effect on mood, in my opinion, is an indication of impaired brain function. There just aren't that many people who operate normally between 65 and 80. To me, labeling a borderline hypoglycemic reading as "normal" is just irresponsible.
I honestly could kick myself for not trying MFP a lot sooner. I wasted so much time trying to rely on medication and letting the disease progress. When I've had success controlling my glucose in the past, I was using a rule of avoiding (mostly) foods that had more than 20% carbs by total mass. I was also doing my logging on paper and having to do a lot of my own research for numbers. Limiting carbs by percentage of calories has proven -much- more effective, and the online logging and database are so much easier to use. It also gives me a wider range of food choices as I can easily figure everything as part of a daily total instead of having to strictly apply my goals to each item of food.
It's easy to take the attitude that carbs are great when you've never gotten diabetes, and as long as you keep your calories appropriate to a healthy maintenance weight, you may never get it, even with a high carb diet. But let yourself get fat on a high carb diet, and I mean obese, not just "overweight" and it's just begging for insulin resistance and damaged beta cells from being overworked. For most people with diabetes, low carb is the most effective dietary treatment, which will automatically mean more protein and fat. If one is able to achieve and maintain a normal A1C and get down to a healthy weight (actually body fat percentage) then the body will also correctly regulate the cholesterol and triglycerides, because, in my opinion, those are actually symptoms of underlying conditions and not causes. There's just too much research showing very little effect of diet upon cholesterol -in healthy people-. Low carbers who have their cholesterol go up are probably either already fat and dealing with primary issues that cause the rise, and/or they are doing the diet wrong and not getting a proper nutritional balance or too many calories. Yes, you can eat a pile of bacon on a low carb diet. No, you cannot eat it by the pound on a daily basis to the exclusion of lettuce and spinach and green beans and all the other nutritious low carb vegetables. Low carb, high carb, high protein, high fat, etc. really only relates to macro nutrient ratios. There are some bottom limits to any of the three, but beyond that focusing diet around macros only impairs micro nutrient intake if you let it. Micronutrient deficiency throws the body chemistry out of whack and is more likely to contribute to unwanted side effects like increased cholesterol.
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »@markusdarwath. You should watch the documentary at the beginning of the thread and listen to the info on statins since you're now taking Zocor.
I don't trust statins. I was resistant to getting on them, in fact refused to start them for 6 month from when the doc first recommended it. But after two blood tests in a row with high and worsening numbers, plus my blood pressure creeping up, I gave in. My next appointment, when my A1C scores in the 5s and cholesterol and blood pressure numbers are all normal (yes, I'm that confident of my continuing success over the next three months) plus weight loss to show, I will insist on dropping the zocor as well as reducing the diabetes meds. (I'm on 850mg of metformin 2x/day, plus 2mg glimeperide 1x/day, so I don't think I'll be able to get him to go along with cutting all the meds completely, unless of course I end up low enough that I've already cut them in half on my own.)
1 -
Jesus Christ OP, stop calling everything that agrees with you "better science" and everything that doesn't "outdated". It's tiring and not how a debate works.9
-
I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/2289965 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
8 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
Whats wrong with 75% carbs? The healthiest and longest lasting people in the world are in that range. But again, its the carb that matters.
@psulemon
Just do the math, if he's consuming 75% of his macros in carbohydrate (about 300 grams, he states, which would correspond to a 1600 calorie diet)... let's assume he's eats the DRI of protein for the average sedentary male = 56 g, which would mean about 14% of this macros... then he's got another 11% for fat (insanely, impossibly low btw, no normal human does this and eats palatable food), which translates to about 20 g per day. That's ridiculous. It's absolutely intolerable for a normal human. If he was white knuckling himself to eat this way, his brain tissue would probably shrink and he'd become depressed (as many people on an extreme low fat diet)... The guy could basically eat 1/4 cup of almonds per day for his entire fat allowance. Everything else would have to be fat free!!
She already broke it out for you above and she eats between 1800-2100 calories. And there are plenty of people who eat this way. Many of them are vegans or vegetarians of some variety.
2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.
Most of this is actually nonsense. Do you really think that if people don't follow low carb or keto that we are all weak, hungry, and wasting muscle? Do you really think that everyone who follows keto automatically improves hunger, mood and energy? It's this type of bias which drives arguments because it isn't factual. And it's these biases and lack of knowledge that keeps me away from most of this debates. Too much cherry picking and not enough discussion.
And every diet claims improvements in mood, increased energy, and so much more.. why because most of it is placebo. And the rest is from improving the foods you eat... shocker that you have improved mood when you go from a lifestyle with low nutrient foods and no exercise to one with very high nutrient foods and exercise.
You can be satiated on any type of diet if you know what to eat. You can fail at every type of diet if you don't know what to eat. Hell, how many people do you see posting on the forums about how they are starving, exhausted, and so much more with low carb diets and keto?
Protein is the key to maintain muscle and metabolism. Keto is only muscle sparring if protein levels are at a level to support sustainment of lean body mass and there is some progressive resistance to drive the breakdown of muscle tissue. If protein is low on keto and training is not adequate, you will lose muscle (outside the standard deviation of weight loss).8 -
stevencloser wrote: »I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
seven years ago...0 -
None of this is convincing me to eat more animal fats.0
-
aqsylvester wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't see you mention your A1C before. In some cases, problems can still exist if you remove A1C from the picture. It is entirely possible for the pancreas to have to secrete unusually large amounts of insulin while the fasting blood sugar remains perfectly normal. And it's also possible to be insulin resistant despite being at a normal weight, no excess body fat, no high cholesterol, and leading an active lifestyle.Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
No, if my fasting glucose and A1c are normal, that's certainly an indicator that my pancreas is working exactly like it should and points to insulin sensitivity. I don't need to do extra tests that are not on a standard panel of tests. Also, according to the NIDDK, I don't have the classic risk factors associated with insulin resistance ie. overweight, excess belly fat, inactivity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, medications etc.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx#happens
So according to the experts, looks like I'm good.
^^^THIS
That was my point. Fasting glucose and A1C is a measurement of insulin resistance much further down the road. The progression of the disease starts with elevated insulin levels, as your pancreas does its best to keep your blood glucose normal. It can keep working at it for years. As insulin rises, the cells being to develop insulin resistance, which causes insulin to rise further... a rise in blood glucose only appears after insulin resistance is full blown.
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind. How many years have you been eating like this? Do you still have a libido to speak of? LOL
And the majority of us would be depressed with keto. The point is, its all based on the individual.3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »None of this is convincing me to eat more animal fats.
Me too. Finding out that saturated fat is "not as bad as once thought" is not a green light to gorge on it. It means, don't be afraid of it. Feel free to include it onto your diet the same as any other nutrient, in moderation. As alwyas, IMO, balance is key...6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.
This post is a shining example of just how biased you are toward the keto diet. It works for you, you've been successful and you feel great. Awesome. But to imply that people who simply cut calories are weak and miserable, killing metabolism and wasting muscle while everyone on keto is thriving and the picture of health is laughable.22 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
seven years ago...
What, pray tell, has changed in that time?0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
seven years ago...
What, pray tell, has changed in that time?
Absolutely nothing.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
"Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
seven years ago...
What, pray tell, has changed in that time?
Well, it's the year of the monkey.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions