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?
Options
Replies
-
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.
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!0 -
JanetYellen wrote: »I hope they take a whole foods vegetarian, take away his fruits and veggies and add 40 grams of sat fat a day to replace the calories.
If that person is healthier, then, you switch over.
Why do you insist that they should take away fruits and veggies? Unless you're wanting to sabotage the study in favor of a pro-vegetarian viewpoint.
Now, take that same "whole foods vegetarian" and replace 80g of grains with 40g of sat fat and I almost guarantee the person will be healthier... given that you run the study long enough for their body to remember how to process meat.
The nutrition establishment is full of disinformation regarding fats and cholesterol primarily because they were co-opted by vegetarian/vegan activists in starting in the '70s. We are just finally getting back to the point where science refuses to be overwhelmed by the propaganda.
2 -
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.
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!
Having ketones coursing the your body is not necessary for good health but good for you.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »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.
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!
Having ketones coursing the your body is not necessary for good health but good for you.
Really? Good for me, but not good for my health? What's the distinction? What can you tell me about ketones?
If at the bare minimum ketones allow my fasting blood glucose to run in the 60s... I'm getting health benefits from that alone.2 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »I hope they take a whole foods vegetarian, take away his fruits and veggies and add 40 grams of sat fat a day to replace the calories.
If that person is healthier, then, you switch over.
Why do you insist that they should take away fruits and veggies? Unless you're wanting to sabotage the study in favor of a pro-vegetarian viewpoint.
Now, take that same "whole foods vegetarian" and replace 80g of grains with 40g of sat fat and I almost guarantee the person will be healthier... given that you run the study long enough for their body to remember how to process meat.
The nutrition establishment is full of disinformation regarding fats and cholesterol primarily because they were co-opted by vegetarian/vegan activists in starting in the '70s. We are just finally getting back to the point where science refuses to be overwhelmed by the propaganda.
If I were to believe these kinds of statements then literally every lobby paid every government to keep quiet about all the solid evidence that it's actually unhealthy for you.
Vegetarian lobby, Monsanto, Dairy, Grain, Meat. I've heard them all.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »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.
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!
Having ketones coursing the your body is not necessary for good health but good for you.
Really? Good for me, but not good for my health? What's the distinction? What can you tell me about ketones?
If at the bare minimum ketones allow my fasting blood glucose to run in the 60s... I'm getting health benefits from that alone.
My point was, to each his own. My blood tests and fasting glucose are perfect as well and I don't need to be in ketosis for these results. I'm the "I eat everything diet" which is so very uncomplicated.3 -
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?1 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »
The nutrition establishment is full of disinformation regarding fats and cholesterol primarily because they were co-opted by vegetarian/vegan activists in starting in the '70s. We are just finally getting back to the point where science refuses to be overwhelmed by the propaganda.
If I were to believe these kinds of statements then literally every lobby paid every government to keep quiet about all the solid evidence that it's actually unhealthy for you.
Vegetarian lobby, Monsanto, Dairy, Grain, Meat. I've heard them all.
Not lobbies. The activists entered the field and -became- the "scientists", and brought their biases with them, injecting said bias into their research. Very similar to how anthropogenic global warming got pushed via junk science by "climatologists" who entered the field as environmental activists bent on "doing something" about all the horrible damage they are religiously convinced humankind does to the earth just by existing.
0 -
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!4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »
The nutrition establishment is full of disinformation regarding fats and cholesterol primarily because they were co-opted by vegetarian/vegan activists in starting in the '70s. We are just finally getting back to the point where science refuses to be overwhelmed by the propaganda.
If I were to believe these kinds of statements then literally every lobby paid every government to keep quiet about all the solid evidence that it's actually unhealthy for you.
Vegetarian lobby, Monsanto, Dairy, Grain, Meat. I've heard them all.
Not lobbies. The activists entered the field and -became- the "scientists", and brought their biases with them, injecting said bias into their research. Very similar to how anthropogenic global warming got pushed via junk science by "climatologists" who entered the field as environmental activists bent on "doing something" about all the horrible damage they are religiously convinced humankind does to the earth just by existing.
Oh Jesus Christ.4 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions