Keto diet
Options
Replies
-
cstehansen wrote: »ivasmom2011 wrote: »So I'm on the keto diet, I have been on this diet sense January 15th. January 15th I was 205 today February 7th 188!! I get to eat my favorite foods and all of that jazz, my question is anyone on this way of eating do lab results? If What was the outcome?
In response to the initial question, I would recommend reading this thread and the link in it prior to labs so you can have a better perspective on the results:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10513958/better-way-to-look-at-risk-based-on-labs#latest
If you want more in depth on my labs and several other people who have responded with theirs, you may want to look at this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10490291/interesting-dr-follow-up-with-lchf-friendly-doc-for-t2#latest
Additionally, here are a few sites regarding blood lipids I found helpful:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/breakthroughs/859
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-06-13-study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
The info is confusing at best. What is clear is a) the link between diet and cholesterol can't be shown except for a small segment of the population which has some type of genetic pre-disposition. Even Ansel Keys, the man who first initiated this hypothesis later recanted, b) the link between cholesterol and heart disease and other diseases is not as cut and dry as is commonly believed. Many of the numbers need to be broken down further such as there are multiple types of LDL and multiple types of HDL as well as L(p)a which seems to be a larger factor than either of them and triglycerides which, although generally reported in labs, doesn't seem to get the attention it should given the detrimental effects it has on damaging artery walls.
Thanks @cstehansen. I'm going to have to add you to molest ... my list (bad spellchecker!
) of folks who should have their own podcasts.
Here's another riddle for you. In addition to other concerns about the usefulness of the standard fasting lipid profile, is the fasting requirement itself causing mischief (apart from the risk of hypoglycemia for certain diabetics)? For example, circ.ahajournals.org/content/131/19/e471 (time to chuck the fasting lipid profile?).
Thanks again for all the info and insights.
@baconslave1 -
ivasmom2011 wrote: »soechsner09 wrote: »I'll have blood work done again in like April/May so I'm excited to see how that looks. I do know that keto has lowered my blood pressure though. So, that's a win!
I've checked my blood sugar levels in the morning after a fast and it was about 99 which is okay I guess but I was thinking it should be lower. Whenever you get your blood results can you post if they are better on here?
Keto has helped my normalize all of my BG except FBG. My FBG was great while I was losing but once I stopped it jumped back up to prediabetic numbers. It is usually my highest number of the entire day, including after meals.
So, overall my BG is way down. LCHF helped me hugely with that.
Have you hooked the full panoply of tricks and bedtime potions to lower your morning FBG?0 -
cstehansen wrote: »ivasmom2011 wrote: »So I'm on the keto diet, I have been on this diet sense January 15th. January 15th I was 205 today February 7th 188!! I get to eat my favorite foods and all of that jazz, my question is anyone on this way of eating do lab results? If What was the outcome?
In response to the initial question, I would recommend reading this thread and the link in it prior to labs so you can have a better perspective on the results:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10513958/better-way-to-look-at-risk-based-on-labs#latest
If you want more in depth on my labs and several other people who have responded with theirs, you may want to look at this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10490291/interesting-dr-follow-up-with-lchf-friendly-doc-for-t2#latest
Additionally, here are a few sites regarding blood lipids I found helpful:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/breakthroughs/859
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-06-13-study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
The info is confusing at best. What is clear is a) the link between diet and cholesterol can't be shown except for a small segment of the population which has some type of genetic pre-disposition. Even Ansel Keys, the man who first initiated this hypothesis later recanted, b) the link between cholesterol and heart disease and other diseases is not as cut and dry as is commonly believed. Many of the numbers need to be broken down further such as there are multiple types of LDL and multiple types of HDL as well as L(p)a which seems to be a larger factor than either of them and triglycerides which, although generally reported in labs, doesn't seem to get the attention it should given the detrimental effects it has on damaging artery walls.
Thanks @cstehansen. I'm going to have to add you to molest ... my list (bad spellchecker! ) of folks who should have their own podcasts.
Here's another riddle for you. In addition to other concerns about the usefulness of the standard fasting lipid profile, is the fasting requirement itself causing mischief (apart from the risk of hypoglycemia for certain diabetics)? For example, circ.ahajournals.org/content/131/19/e471 (time to chuck the fasting lipid profile?).
Thanks again for all the info and insights.
@baconslave
Thank you for that article. I am just dumbfounded as I read it. Here these.....uh.....people point out that fasting lowers BG and therefore shouldn't be done for diabetics?!?!?!?!?! Maybe the little 5W bulb should go off over their heads to say, "hey, maybe we should look at fasting and or other changes which would naturally lower BG as a treatment." Too much to ask?
Anyway, I do read too much and listen to too many podcasts and watch too many videos on health topics, so I can't remember who it was that said he no longer took fasting lipid measurements. I do remember it had nothing to do with BG, but rather he believed it was a more accurate measurement from a risk perspective to get multiple non-fasted tests. I think it may have been Ted Naiman, but not 100% sure.
Anyway, from a personal standpoint, last August, I went in for blood work but thought it was only for A1c and didn't know cholesterol was being run also so I ate breakfast (a couple of eggs with some almond milk and MCT). The next time in November when I went in I fasted. My triglycerides and HDL were about the same both times (triglycerides about 50 and HDL in the mid 60's), however, my fasted LDL almost doubled from 98 to 191 (if memory serves correctly). Freaked my doctor out.
When I went to the LCHF friendly doc and he ran it with the more complete numbers a couple weeks later, again fasted, I had the same result - tri - 56, HDL - 68, LDL - 185. However, when looking at particle count, Lp(a), sdLDL %, VLDL-C, ratios, etc., he was not concerned at all with my numbers. As I posted in the another thread, using the Reynolds risk model which has been shown to be far more accurate than traditional, my 10 year risk for heart disease is 1% which is the lowest possible score. It doesn't hit double digits (10% on the nose) until I put in that I am 76 years old (currently 46).
That said, starches and sugars tend to jack up triglycerides which are quite atherogenic so using logic, having the typical person on the SAD fast may actually be showing an artificially low risk given most of them follow the guidelines of eating many times a day and are therefore rarely in a fasted state. Most of their time is spent in a fed state - and fed with starches and sugars which raise triglycerides.2 -
cstehansen wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »ivasmom2011 wrote: »So I'm on the keto diet, I have been on this diet sense January 15th. January 15th I was 205 today February 7th 188!! I get to eat my favorite foods and all of that jazz, my question is anyone on this way of eating do lab results? If What was the outcome?
In response to the initial question, I would recommend reading this thread and the link in it prior to labs so you can have a better perspective on the results:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10513958/better-way-to-look-at-risk-based-on-labs#latest
If you want more in depth on my labs and several other people who have responded with theirs, you may want to look at this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10490291/interesting-dr-follow-up-with-lchf-friendly-doc-for-t2#latest
Additionally, here are a few sites regarding blood lipids I found helpful:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/breakthroughs/859
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-06-13-study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
The info is confusing at best. What is clear is a) the link between diet and cholesterol can't be shown except for a small segment of the population which has some type of genetic pre-disposition. Even Ansel Keys, the man who first initiated this hypothesis later recanted, b) the link between cholesterol and heart disease and other diseases is not as cut and dry as is commonly believed. Many of the numbers need to be broken down further such as there are multiple types of LDL and multiple types of HDL as well as L(p)a which seems to be a larger factor than either of them and triglycerides which, although generally reported in labs, doesn't seem to get the attention it should given the detrimental effects it has on damaging artery walls.
Thanks @cstehansen. I'm going to have to add you to molest ... my list (bad spellchecker! ) of folks who should have their own podcasts.
Here's another riddle for you. In addition to other concerns about the usefulness of the standard fasting lipid profile, is the fasting requirement itself causing mischief (apart from the risk of hypoglycemia for certain diabetics)? For example, circ.ahajournals.org/content/131/19/e471 (time to chuck the fasting lipid profile?).
Thanks again for all the info and insights.
@baconslave
Thank you for that article. I am just dumbfounded as I read it. Here these.....uh.....people point out that fasting lowers BG and therefore shouldn't be done for diabetics?!?!?!?!?! Maybe the little 5W bulb should go off over their heads to say, "hey, maybe we should look at fasting and or other changes which would naturally lower BG as a treatment." Too much to ask?
Anyway, I do read too much and listen to too many podcasts and watch too many videos on health topics, so I can't remember who it was that said he no longer took fasting lipid measurements. I do remember it had nothing to do with BG, but rather he believed it was a more accurate measurement from a risk perspective to get multiple non-fasted tests. I think it may have been Ted Naiman, but not 100% sure.
Anyway, from a personal standpoint, last August, I went in for blood work but thought it was only for A1c and didn't know cholesterol was being run also so I ate breakfast (a couple of eggs with some almond milk and MCT). The next time in November when I went in I fasted. My triglycerides and HDL were about the same both times (triglycerides about 50 and HDL in the mid 60's), however, my fasted LDL almost doubled from 98 to 191 (if memory serves correctly). Freaked my doctor out.
When I went to the LCHF friendly doc and he ran it with the more complete numbers a couple weeks later, again fasted, I had the same result - tri - 56, HDL - 68, LDL - 185. However, when looking at particle count, Lp(a), sdLDL %, VLDL-C, ratios, etc., he was not concerned at all with my numbers. As I posted in the another thread, using the Reynolds risk model which has been shown to be far more accurate than traditional, my 10 year risk for heart disease is 1% which is the lowest possible score. It doesn't hit double digits (10% on the nose) until I put in that I am 76 years old (currently 46).
That said, starches and sugars tend to jack up triglycerides which are quite atherogenic so using logic, having the typical person on the SAD fast may actually be showing an artificially low risk given most of them follow the guidelines of eating many times a day and are therefore rarely in a fasted state. Most of their time is spent in a fed state - and fed with starches and sugars which raise triglycerides.
Good points. Speaking of triglycerides, the use of triglycerides (variable) to compute LDL values (stable in the short run) in the standard panel has always perplexed and annoyed me. Does it make sense to you?
The authors are not agitating against fasting for BG control, I don't believe, but rather expressing concern that PCPs who order lipid panels are not sufficiently respectful of the effect of insulin and oral meds with hypoglycemic tendencies when telling patients to fast for 12 hours.. ..0 -
cstehansen wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »ivasmom2011 wrote: »So I'm on the keto diet, I have been on this diet sense January 15th. January 15th I was 205 today February 7th 188!! I get to eat my favorite foods and all of that jazz, my question is anyone on this way of eating do lab results? If What was the outcome?
In response to the initial question, I would recommend reading this thread and the link in it prior to labs so you can have a better perspective on the results:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10513958/better-way-to-look-at-risk-based-on-labs#latest
If you want more in depth on my labs and several other people who have responded with theirs, you may want to look at this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10490291/interesting-dr-follow-up-with-lchf-friendly-doc-for-t2#latest
Additionally, here are a few sites regarding blood lipids I found helpful:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/breakthroughs/859
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-06-13-study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
The info is confusing at best. What is clear is a) the link between diet and cholesterol can't be shown except for a small segment of the population which has some type of genetic pre-disposition. Even Ansel Keys, the man who first initiated this hypothesis later recanted, b) the link between cholesterol and heart disease and other diseases is not as cut and dry as is commonly believed. Many of the numbers need to be broken down further such as there are multiple types of LDL and multiple types of HDL as well as L(p)a which seems to be a larger factor than either of them and triglycerides which, although generally reported in labs, doesn't seem to get the attention it should given the detrimental effects it has on damaging artery walls.
Thanks @cstehansen. I'm going to have to add you to molest ... my list (bad spellchecker! ) of folks who should have their own podcasts.
Here's another riddle for you. In addition to other concerns about the usefulness of the standard fasting lipid profile, is the fasting requirement itself causing mischief (apart from the risk of hypoglycemia for certain diabetics)? For example, circ.ahajournals.org/content/131/19/e471 (time to chuck the fasting lipid profile?).
Thanks again for all the info and insights.
@baconslave
Thank you for that article. I am just dumbfounded as I read it. Here these.....uh.....people point out that fasting lowers BG and therefore shouldn't be done for diabetics?!?!?!?!?! Maybe the little 5W bulb should go off over their heads to say, "hey, maybe we should look at fasting and or other changes which would naturally lower BG as a treatment." Too much to ask?
Anyway, I do read too much and listen to too many podcasts and watch too many videos on health topics, so I can't remember who it was that said he no longer took fasting lipid measurements. I do remember it had nothing to do with BG, but rather he believed it was a more accurate measurement from a risk perspective to get multiple non-fasted tests. I think it may have been Ted Naiman, but not 100% sure.
Anyway, from a personal standpoint, last August, I went in for blood work but thought it was only for A1c and didn't know cholesterol was being run also so I ate breakfast (a couple of eggs with some almond milk and MCT). The next time in November when I went in I fasted. My triglycerides and HDL were about the same both times (triglycerides about 50 and HDL in the mid 60's), however, my fasted LDL almost doubled from 98 to 191 (if memory serves correctly). Freaked my doctor out.
When I went to the LCHF friendly doc and he ran it with the more complete numbers a couple weeks later, again fasted, I had the same result - tri - 56, HDL - 68, LDL - 185. However, when looking at particle count, Lp(a), sdLDL %, VLDL-C, ratios, etc., he was not concerned at all with my numbers. As I posted in the another thread, using the Reynolds risk model which has been shown to be far more accurate than traditional, my 10 year risk for heart disease is 1% which is the lowest possible score. It doesn't hit double digits (10% on the nose) until I put in that I am 76 years old (currently 46).
That said, starches and sugars tend to jack up triglycerides which are quite atherogenic so using logic, having the typical person on the SAD fast may actually be showing an artificially low risk given most of them follow the guidelines of eating many times a day and are therefore rarely in a fasted state. Most of their time is spent in a fed state - and fed with starches and sugars which raise triglycerides.
Good points. Speaking of triglycerides, the use of triglycerides (variable) to compute LDL values (stable in the short run) in the standard panel has always perplexed and annoyed me. Does it make sense to you?
The authors are not agitating against fasting for BG control, I don't believe, but rather expressing concern that PCPs who order lipid panels are not sufficiently respectful of the effect of insulin and oral meds with hypoglycemic tendencies when telling patients to fast for 12 hours.. ..
Short answer - no. This is one reason I changed doctors so I could get one who understood getting a more detailed panel including actual counts. I had to pay out of pocket for part of it, but that was well worth it to me.2 -
If trigs are under 100 and/or HDL is over I think 75, the calculations the "standard model" uses are more or less invalid. Those calculations were not made off of "healthy" numbers...0
-
This is what my day looks like. I'm not a pure keto dieter. I'm more of a Paleo gal. What do you think?0 -
nomorepuke wrote: »
This is what my day looks like. I'm not a pure keto dieter. I'm more of a Paleo gal. What do you think?
@nomorepuke - In general, that breakdown looks fine to me, but what's more important is whether it works for YOU. Are you losing weight or maintaining, whatever you goal is? Do you feel healthier, more vital, better rested, more energetic? Are you avoiding cravings and binge eating? Do you feel it is maintainable? To me, those things are FAR more important than any macro or scale numbers...1 -
ivasmom2011 wrote: »So I'm on the keto diet, I have been on this diet sense January 15th. January 15th I was 205 today February 7th 188!! I get to eat my favorite foods and all of that jazz, my question is anyone on this way of eating do lab results? If What was the outcome?
I'm in a very similar boat as you -I started around early January at 200 lbs, and as of last Saturday I was 188. I'm actually going in this upcoming Monday, the 13th to get my health check with blood work & all. Only thing is that I didn't get a baseline before I started Keto. I have my records from about a year ago though. We'll see what the results show this time around.1
