 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / October 2010How To Lower Cholesterol on Low-Carb Diet?
How do I lower my cholesterol numbers on a low-carb diet? Legumes seem to help but lower my HDL. (My BMI, fBG, hsCRP are all below normal but I have vitiligo, so there is some auto-immunity issue involved) DATE CHL LDL TG HDL -DIET 02/88 233 167 097 047 -? 02/89 179 117 052 053 -? 03/90 201 ??? 091 ??? -? 04/91 156 092 069 050 -? Probably veggie/fruit diet (not much else). 04/99 219 156 073 048 -? 12/03 447 350 092 079 -Raw veggies & lots of fruits (not much else). 06/04 252 161 051 081 -Raw veggies, less fruits (not much else). 09/04 278 197 051 071 -4 eggs whites per meal, veggies, less fruits. 03/05 291 187 056 093 -3 eggs whites per meal, raw/cooked veggies, -some fruits, berries, OO. 05/05 159 105 105 033 -1lb beans for 6 wks, veggies, 2 or 3 fruits -4 egg whites/day, few nuts, little olive oil, no meat/dairy. 08/05 191 123 073 053 -less beans, mostly green leafy veg, no fruits, -tbs OO per meal, some canned/ fresh salmon. 06/08 400 ??? <50 >100 -Beef tongue, low-carb veggies & fruit. 07/08 201 ??? ??? ??? -Mostly legumes. 09/08 171 ??? ??? ??? -Mostly legumes. 02/09 189 103 224 042 -Legumes (lentils), lots of fruits, veggies, spices, tea 07/09 198 ??? ??? ??? -Mostly legumes, veggies, little fruit, little meat. 08/10 418 ??? ??? ??? -Loads of butter, low-carb veggies, almost no fruit, very little protein. ------------------------- From pubmed.gov Legumes: The most important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities. To identify protective dietary predictors amongst long-lived elderly people (N= 785), the "Food Habits in Later Life "(FHILL) study was undertaken among five cohorts in Japan, Sweden, Greece and Australia. Between 1988 and 1991, baseline data on food intakes were collected. There were 785 participants aged 70 and over that were followed up to seven years. Based on an alternative Cox Proportional Hazard model adjusted to age at enrollment (in 5-year intervals), gender and smoking, the legume food group showed 7-8% reduction in mortality hazard ratio for every 20g increase in daily intake with or without controlling for ethnicity (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99 and RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99, respectively). Other food groups were not found to be consistently significant in predicting survival amongst the FHILL cohorts. PMID: 15228991 Where's the protein? That's not a proper LC diet. | How do I lower my cholesterol numbers on a low-carb diet? | Legumes seem to help but lower my HDL. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] | consistently significant in predicting survival amongst the FHILL | cohorts. PMID: 15228991 >> DATE CHL LDL TG HDL -DIET >> 06/08 400 ??? <50 >100 -Beef tongue, low-carb veggies & fruit. > Where's the protein? That's not a proper LC diet. The diet prior to 6/08 was closest to Atkin's. Most of the meat was beef tongue, veggies were mostly salads with little fruit (mostly berries). For some reason, meats, especially red meats tend to give rhoids, more so in the past then now. In article <a76e73ff-8803-43d4-b3bb-41c34236cc7f@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > >> DATE CHL LDL TG HDL -DIET > >> 06/08 400 ??? <50 >100 -Beef tongue, low-carb veggies & fruit. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > berries). For some reason, meats, especially red meats tend to give > rhoids, more so in the past then now. What gender are you? According to the Framingham study there is no correspondence between cholesterol and CHD, if you are female. If you are male, there is no correspondence between dietary fat and CHD, if you are a male over 50 years of age. The best indicator that I am aware of is Very Low Density Lipids (VLDL), which are basically transport for triglycerides.  Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html > What gender are you? According to the Framingham study there is no > correspondence between cholesterol and CHD, if you are female. If you > are male, there is no correspondence between dietary fat and CHD, if you > are a male over 50 years of age. The best indicator that I am aware of > is Very Low Density Lipids (VLDL), which are basically transport for > triglycerides. I'm male, under 50, but not for long :( I only had my VLDL (was 45, should've been <40) measured for following: DATE CHL LDL TG HDL -DIET 02/09 189 103 224 042 -Legumes, lots fruits, veggies, spices, tea So, I take it that a total chol of 418 on a low-carb/protein, high- saturatedFat diet could be OK. In article <78cf47b4-6215-412a-a312-c48479598694@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > What gender are you? According to the Framingham study there is no > > correspondence between cholesterol and CHD, if you are female. If you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So, I take it that a total chol of 418 on a low-carb/protein, high- > saturatedFat diet could be OK. I have no idea, but the VLDL of 45 would freak me out. Last test I had, put my VLDL at 18 in a range of 5 - 45. Look at <http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/atpiii/calculator.asp> May be comforting, maybe not. There is a very animated debated going on about what causes CHD, yeah, still. I strongly recommend you get the following book from the library, so that you can know what the debate is about. Oh, my total cholesterol is 300. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health ~ Gary Taubes http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/14000334 62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267036694&sr=1-1 p. 171 To understand the implications of this association between small, dense LDL and heart disease, it helps to picture the configuration of the low- density lipoprotein itself. Imagine it as a balloon. It has a single protein‹known as apo B, for short‹that serves as the structural foundation of the balloon and holds it together. It has an outer membrane that is composed of cholesterol and fats of yet another type, called phospholipids. And then, inside the balloon, inflating it, are triglycerides and more cholesterol. The size of the LDL balloon itself can vary, depending on the amount of triglycerides and cholesterol it contains. Thus, as Krauss reported, some people have mostly large, fluffy LDL, with a lot of cholesterol and triglycerides inflating the balloon, and some people have mostly smaller, denser LDL particles, with less cholesterol and triglycerides. In the 1970s, investigators had developed yet another way to quantify the concentration of these circulating lipoproteins, in this case by counting only the number of apo B proteins that provide the structural foundation to the LDL balloon. Because there's only one protein per LDL particle, and because VLDL is also composed of identical apo B proteins, this technique measured the number of LDL and VLDL particles in a blood sample, rather than the cholesterol or triglycerides they contained. As it turned out, the number of apo B proteins, and so the total number of LDL and VLDL particles combined, is also abnormally elevated in heart-disease patients. To understand the implications of this association between small, dense LDL and heart disease, it helps to picture the configuration of the low- density lipoprotein itself. Imagine it as a balloon. It has a single protein‹known as apo B, for short‹that serves as the structural foundation of the balloon and holds it together. It has an outer membrane that is composed of cholesterol and fats of yet another type, called phospholipids. And then, inside the balloon, inflating it, are triglycerides and more cholesterol. The size of the LDL balloon itself can vary, depending on the amount of triglycerides and cholesterol it contains. Thus, as Krauss reported, some people have mostly large, fluffy LDL, with a lot of cholesterol and triglycerides inflating the balloon, and some people have mostly smaller, denser LDL particles, with less cholesterol and triglycerides. In the 1970s, investigators had developed yet another way to quantify the concentration of these circulating lipoproteins, in this case by counting only the number of apo B proteins that provide the structural foundation to the LDL balloon. Because there's only one protein per LDL particle, and because VLDL is also composed of identical apo B proteins, this technique measured the number of LDL and VLDL particles in a blood sample, rather than the cholesterol or triglycerides they contained. As it turned out, the number of apo B proteins, and so the total number of LDL and VLDL particles combined, is also abnormally elevated in heart-disease patients. p.172 This was first reported in 1980 by Peter Kwiterovich, a lipid-metabolism specialist from Johns Hopkins, together with Allan Sniderman, a cardiolo- gist from McGill University. Kwiterovich and Sniderman then collaborated with Krauss on the last of his three papers on the heterogeneity ofLDL. In 1983, they reported that the disproportionate elevation in the apo B protein in heart-disease patients was due to a disproportionate elevation in the amount of the smallest and densest of the low-density lipoproteins. This explained what Krauss had set out to understand: why two people can have identical LDL-cholesterol levels and yet one develops atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease and the other doesn't‹why LDL cholesterol is only a marginal risk factor for heart disease. If we have low LDL cholesterol, but it's packaged almost exclusively in small, dense LDL particles‹the smaller balloons‹that translates to a higher risk of heart disease. If we have high LDL cholesterol, but it's packaged in a smaller number of large, fluffy LDL particles‹the larger balloons‹then our heart-disease risk is significantly lower. Small, dense LDL, simply because it is small and dense, appears to be more atherogenic, more likely to cause atherosclerosis. Small, dense LDL can squeeze more easily through damaged areas of the artery wall to form incipient atherosclerotic plaques. Sniderman describes small, dense LDL as the equivalent of "bits of sand" that get in everywhere and stick more avidly. The relative dearth of cholesterol in these particles may also cause structural changes in the protein that make it easier for it to adhere to the artery wall to begin with. And because small, dense LDL apparently remains in the bloodstream longer than larger and fluffier LDL, it has more time and greater opportunities to do its damage. Finally, it's possible that LDL has to be oxidized‹the biological equivalent, literally, of rusting‹before it can play a role in atherosclerosis, and the existing evidence suggests that small, dense LDL oxidizes more easily than the larger, fluffier variety. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html > ... the VLDL of 45 would freak me out. Last test I had, > put my VLDL at 18 in a range of 5 - 45. If a high VLDL results primarily from excess fruit consumption, would it be OK, since the accompanying antioxidants and phytochemicals would prevent any serious problems. Might this not occur during fall when gorging to store fat for winter? > Look at <http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/atpiii/calculator.asp> > May be comforting, maybe not. The calculator wouldn't take 418. (It expects a number between 130 amd 320) > There is a very animated debated going on about what causes CHD, yeah, > still. I strongly recommend you get the following book from the library, > so that you can know what the debate is about... Thx. > Oh, my total cholesterol is 300. Hmmm. We can start a club :) When we eat excess carbs, it gets stored in adipose, in liver and in muscles. If it isn't cleared, it shows up in blood measurements as high blood glucose. When we eat excess fats, how is it stored? If the amount eaten exceeds that which we can burn, does the body package the extra in LDLs and this shows up in the blood test? When we eat excess protein, how is it stored? I imagine some of it converted to glycogen and glucose by the liver. Some enters cell to be burned. Does the excess mostly stay in the blood? How would we even know we have excess protein? Is there a common blood measurement for this? In article <d9b37de2-9776-4d06-9a35-7ac029992a94@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, > > ... the VLDL of 45 would freak me out. Last test I had, > > put my VLDL at 18 in a range of 5 - 45. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If it isn't cleared, it shows up in blood measurements as high blood > glucose. The problem, in part is called glycation, where sugars are attached to proteins, which inturn can cause cataracts, and condensation of red blood cells that lead to loss of toes, to a whole slew of other undesirable events. Secondly, the BG elicits insulin, which brings its own set of problems. Sorry, I'm not sharper on this. I've read up on it and would have to go back and read Taubes again so that I didn't insert a couple of brain farts into my answers. An easier to read, shorter version can be found in "The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability" by Lierre Keith <http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/160 4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281718588&sr=1-1> Available at better libraries near you. > When we eat excess fats, how is it stored? > If the amount eaten exceeds that which we can burn, > does the body package the extra in LDLs > and this shows up in the blood test? The studies that Taubes presented, showed that people on high fat diets became satiated, and without carbohydrates to encourage their appetites, rarely ate them to excess. I suppose the worst case scenario would be cirrhosis of the liver. > When we eat excess protein, how is it stored? > I imagine some of it converted to glycogen and glucose by the liver. > Some enters cell to be burned. > Does the excess mostly stay in the blood? > How would we even know we have excess protein? > Is there a common blood measurement for this? The test is for ketones in the blood. This, IIRC, can be OK, but it might also be indicative of other problems. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html I thought the ketones were from fat, showing that your body is burning fat rather than glucose. | The test is for ketones in the blood. This, IIRC, can be OK, but it | might also be indicative of other problems. > I thought the ketones were from fat, showing that your body is burning fat > rather than glucose. > > | The test is for ketones in the blood. This, IIRC, can be OK, but it > | might also be indicative of other problems. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003585.htm> What Abnormal Results Mean A positive test may indicate: € Abnormal nutritional conditions € Anorexia € Fasting € High protein or low carbohydrate diets € Starvation € Disorders of increased metabolism € Acute or severe illness € Burns € Fever € Hyperthyroidism € Nursing a baby (lactation) € Postsurgical condition € Pregnancy € Metabolic abnormalities, including uncontrolled diabetes or glycogen storage disease € Vomiting frequently over a long period of time Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html Those are symptoms, not the item detected by the strips. "When glycogen stores are not available in the cells, fat (triacylglycerol) is cleaved to give 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process called lipolysis. Most of the body is able to utilize fatty acids as an alternative source of energy in a process called beta-oxidation. One of the products of beta-oxidation is acetyl-CoA, which can be further used in the Krebs cycle. During prolonged fasting or starvation, acetyl-CoA in the liver is used to produce ketone bodies instead, leading to a state of ketosis. During starvation or a long physical training session, the body starts utilizing fatty acids instead of glucose. The brain cannot use fatty acids for energy because the fatty acids cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. However, the ketone bodies produced in the liver can cross the blood-brain barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into acetyl-CoA and used in the Krebs cycle." | <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003585.htm> | [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | glycogen storage disease | € Vomiting frequently over a long period of time > Those are symptoms, not the item detected by the strips. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into > acetyl-CoA and used in the Krebs cycle." And the question I was answering was,"I thought the ketones were from fat, showing that your body is burning fat rather than glucose." You're welcome to keep free associating, but I answered the question that you posed. > | <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003585.htm> > | > | What Abnormal Results Mean > | A positive test may indicate: > | > | (snip) > | € High protein or low carbohydrate diets (snip) Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html And you were answering: | When we eat excess protein, how is it stored? | I imagine some of it converted to glycogen and glucose by the liver. | Some enters cell to be burned. | Does the excess mostly stay in the blood? | How would we even know we have excess protein? | Is there a common blood measurement for this? The test is for ketones in the blood. This, IIRC, can be OK, but it might also be indicative of other problems. Which gave me the impression that you were saying that ketones measured the protein in the blood as the prior poster was asking for a test for excess protein. || Those are symptoms, not the item detected by the strips. || [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] ||| € High protein or low carbohydrate diets | (snip) > Those are symptoms, not the item detected by the strips. These are not sypmtoms, they are causes. Ketones are probably the natural fuel for the brain, as our 2 million year old bodies have only had access to substantial grain, a part from seasonal fruit, for the last 10,000 years. > "When glycogen stores are not available in the cells, fat (triacylglycerol) > is cleaved to give 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > | glycogen storage disease > | € Vomiting frequently over a long period of time Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html > Those are symptoms, not the item detected by the strips. Eating excess protein does not lead to ketones that I have ever read. Through glycation proteins are converted to glucose and glucose turns off the production of ketones. > "When glycogen stores are not available in the cells, fat (triacylglycerol) > is cleaved to give 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into > acetyl-CoA and used in the Krebs cycle." Level one, cutting the fat into the fatty acids and glycerol - Two glycerols are combined to make a glucose. About 10% of the energy from fat is in the form of this glucose. I tend to think of it as establishing a background for glucose that's well above zero. Level two, burning the fatty acids for fuel - You described the two paths. The acetyl-CoA path does not generate any ketones that end up in the urine and that's how fat can be burned on non-ketotic diet plans. There's a speed limit to it. Marathon training works to increase that speed limit. The ketone path is used as an additional method and so it means when there are ketones in the urine your body is burning fat faster than the limit of the acetyl-CoA method. It means faster. > When we eat excess protein, how is it stored? Cell growth uses protein. Otherwise there's comparatively little ability to store protein. It's easy to find claims that the body can store zero protein other than as lean mass but that seems to be a circular argument - Protein equals lean so it's a definition. But if you think of lean in terms of muscle mass then it stops being a circular argument and also stops being true. Cells can grow and shrink and that is some sort of storage mechanism for protein. The body can store a very small amount of carbs as glycogen, a couple of days of less. The body can store vast amounts of fat. How of protein can be stored is obscured by claims that the amount is zero but it isn't large. Muscle loss starts happening fast in stavation diets. Since muscle loss is lower on low carb systems that's yet another reason to understand that ketosis is the result of a success predator diet not the result of a starvation diet. The fact that ketosis happens during starvation does not mean it equals starvation. Sleep happens during starvation so anyone who sleeps is starving, right? > I imagine some of it converted to glycogen and glucose by the liver. > Some enters cell to be burned. > Does the excess mostly stay in the blood? > How would we even know we have excess protein? > Is there a common blood measurement for this? Protein not used by the cells (including some very difficult to determine amount of storage that is limited and slow to build) is burned as fuel into glucose. It's why people on high protein diets see a rise in blood sugar. Amino acids have nitrogen - amonia, urea, uric acid. Any test for these nitrogen products in the urine will show it. If there's any amonia at all something is wrong. It's supposed to get converted long before it makes it to the kidneys. > When we eat excess fats, how is it stored? It's stored as new fat but there's something that you're missing - While low carbing it takes a vast amount of extra dietary fat to force new storage. While low carbing it's easy to eat fewer calories and lose stored fat because there are neither carb cravings nor fat cravings. While low carbing it is also easy to eat enough to not lose anything. Calories do matter. While low carbing there are several reasons why it is difficult to eat so much fat that new fat gets added to the body's store. > If the amount eaten exceeds that which we can burn, > does the body package the extra in LDLs > and this shows up in the blood test? If you are forcing new fat into storage your triglycerides will be high. Reason one - While low carbing fat tends to turn off the appetite for fat. This is something many find hard to believe so I recommand that you try it some time. First do it in your imagination. A stick of butter plus the same amount of flour and sugar is a batch of cookies. Some of us might not be able to stop if we start eating it. A stick of butter straight is a completely different thought. Imagine eating a stick of butter straight. Then imagine doing it daily for a week. Next do it in actual practice. Figure out how many calories you have for breakfast most days. Then find a type of liquid oil you find pleasant and figure out how much volume it takes for that many calories. For me it came out roughly a fluid ounce or a shot glass. Now drink that as your breakfast each day. Nothing else just the oil so there's no net change in your calories. Feel free to chase it with calorie free liquid that is not sweetened in any way so you don't get the cookie effect. When I did this I had a coffee. In my experience the first day was fine. The second day I didn't look forward to it but I drank it. As each day past my reaction got stronger and stronger. Within a week I couldn't even swallow it by holding my nose. It is really true that in the absence of carbs fat turns down the appetite for fat. It's self limiting. Reason two - While on a ketotic diet or other low carb system the insulin level in the blood is low. Insulin moves fat into storage. With low insulin there's no hormone pushing fat into storage. it will not flow that direction without being forced by an overdose, but that does not happen because of what I described as reason one. Glucagon moves fat out of storage. While eating low carb the higher the percentage of dietary fat relative to dietary protein the higher the glucagon level in the blood. Increasing dietary fat literalling increases the pressure the hormonal pressure to move fat out of storage. So what if you eat extra protein to mask the effect of fat to be able to move it into storage? That's why every low carb plan out there mentions portion control. You can do it, but on a properly executed low carb plan there's no hunger so there's no physical drive to do it. It becomes easy to decide to not overeat. That's one of the biggest miracles of low carbing - There's no physical drive to overeat. Doug Freyburger;427695 Wrote: > jay wrote:- > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > becomes easy to decide to not overeat. That's one of the biggest > miracles of low carbing - There's no physical drive to overeat. Low-carb diets have already been shown to bring about weight loss bu the new trial suggests that they could also have an additional benefi for obese people by cutting heart disease risk through reducin inflammation -- kennyjoyy >Low-carb diets have already been shown to bring about weight loss but >the new trial suggests that they could also have an additional benefit >for obese people by cutting heart disease risk through reducing >inflammation. My cholesterol improved when I became more rigorous about counting carbs -- good chol up, bad chol down. I eat lots of high-fat stuff, and I don't count calories. Oh, and I lost six inches off my hips. ?;^) I do have a friend who had to stop low-carbing because of her cholesterol readings, so I guess it has different effects on different people. It's not an across-the-board thing. SignatureWe are becoming a country that believes the rich have earned their money but the well educated have not earned their intellectual superiority. This leads to a nation that idolizes Kardashians. Joel Stein, TIME, 8/23/10 Not necessarily different people, perhaps different timing. It's my understanding that it tends to go up at first, then come down after a few months. Not that it really matters, anyway, as there is current research showing cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks. It's inflammation that triggers deposits. | My cholesterol improved when I became more rigorous about counting | carbs -- good chol up, bad chol down. I eat lots of high-fat stuff, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | cholesterol readings, so I guess it has different effects on different | people. It's not an across-the-board thing. > Not necessarily different people, perhaps different timing. It's my > understanding that it tends to go up at first, then come down after a few [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > | cholesterol readings, so I guess it has different effects on different > | people. It's not an across-the-board thing. Also it would be interesting to know the actual numbers before starting LC, how long she was on, etc. The statement " A friend had to stop LC because of her cholesterol readings" could mean a lot of things. Including just telling a Dr they were doing LC and the Dr telling them that with their chol history, LC was going to make it worse. > Not necessarily different people, perhaps different timing. It's my > understanding that it tends to go up at first, then come down after a few > months. Not that it really matters, anyway, as there is current research > showing cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks. It's inflammation that > triggers deposits. The 1993/1999 editions of the Atkins book claimed that by 6 months in about 80% of folks see better cholesterol numbers. The 2002 edition claimed that by 2 months in "most" see better cholesterol numbers. So it's not a sure thing that low carbing will cause improvement, but it is a sure thing that you need to wait half a year before the tests start to actually mean anything because of how the numbers go in the first few weeks. Patience. > > Not necessarily different people, perhaps different timing. It's my > > understanding that it tends to go up at first, then come down after a few [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to actually mean anything because of how the numbers go in the first few > weeks. Patience. My understanding is that LDLs and HDLs will go up on a low-card diet. THe thing is that the principal indicators for CVD are high "Very Low Density Lipids" (VLDL) and low HDL. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html > > Not necessarily different people, perhaps different timing. It's my > > understanding that it tends to go up at first, then come down after a few [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to actually mean anything because of how the numbers go in the first few > weeks. Patience. The statements attributed to Atkins above obviously refute your conclusion. ??? Who are you talking to and what conclusion? ||| Not necessarily different people, perhaps different timing. It's my ||| understanding that it tends to go up at first, then come down after [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | The statements attributed to Atkins above obviously refute your | conclusion. > ??? Who are you talking to and what conclusion? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > | The statements attributed to Atkins above obviously refute your > | conclusion. Who wants to lower their cholesterol, and why? For women over 50, there is no connection between cholesterol and CVD. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html > ??? Who are you talking to and what conclusion? It doesn't make sense but that's how trader4 reacts to me. He does a knee jerk reaction to many of my posts. I eventually put him in my kill file when he called me a liar so I would not have seen his post if you had not quoted it. Let's see how it works by doing three 1 line summaries - Atkins said to wait 6 months then see how the cholesterol test goes. (Editions 1993/1999). Doug said to wait 6 months then seen how the cholesterol test goes. (Post this week and many other occasions). Trader4 said that the Atkins statements disagree with mine. (Alrighty then). Thanks for reminding me of why I eventually added him to my kill file. My general advice on how to lower cholesterol on low carb diet - Follow the directions including the parts you are tempted to ignore. And my advice re cholesterol, only worry about it if you can't control your worrying. I have read enough about recent research to think it's all a scam to sell statins. But if you do worship your behind the times doctors, low carb will help. | It doesn't make sense but that's how trader4 reacts to me. He does a | knee jerk reaction to many of my posts. I eventually put him in my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | My general advice on how to lower cholesterol on low carb diet - | Follow the directions including the parts you are tempted to ignore. > > ??? Who are you talking to and what conclusion? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Trader4 said that the Atkins statements disagree with mine. (Alrighty > then). Ahhh, if that were in fact what all of what you actually posted. However in your "summary" abouve, you conveniently left out this line: "The 2002 edition claimed that by 2 months in "most" see better cholesterol numbers. " Which contradicts your conclusion: "So it's not a sure thing that low carbing will cause improvement, but it is a sure thing that you need to wait half a year before the tests start to actually mean anything because of how the numbers go in the first few weeks." If by two months, Atkins said cholesterol is already improving for most people, it doesn't seem to me that it's a sure thing you must wait 6 months for the tests to mean anything. Is it likely to be even more improved at 6 months than at 3? Yes. But that doesn't equate to the measurements at 3 months being meaningless. Suppose someone has very high triglycerides. Those plummet within a couple weeks on LC and would surely show a marked change at 3 months. Capiche? > Thanks for reminding me of why I eventually added him to my kill file. Glad to be there. I'm sure I'm in good company. You added me because you can't stand me pointing out when you misquote Atkins and when challenged you can't produce a single page reference from an Atkins book to back up your bogus claims. Instead, a couple months ago, you had the gall to compare yourself to him and claim your "data", allegedly collected from anonymous internet posts made your claims just as valid as his. And don't act like I'm the only one who's noticed what you do. > So it's not a sure thing that low carbing will cause improvement, but it > is a sure thing that you need to wait half a year before the tests start > to actually mean anything because of how the numbers go in the first few > weeks. Patience. The faulty premise here is that lower is better. Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, but certain patterns of lipids are markers of metabolic status. LDL cholesterol is what all your adrenal steroids are made from, including your sex hormones. Under different conditions you need more or less to handle stress (cortisol is made from it), balance electrolytes, etc. Low HDL and high TGLs are the big dangers, not TC or LDL. VLDL is a bad sign in terms of metabolic status. Only drug sellers stand to gain by the goal of lowering TC or LDL. Susan Try convincing your friends of that. I preach consistently, I'm sure people are tired of me, and post articles that support your/my/the correct information. Did manage to keep my SO off of statins. So many people believe that their doctor knows everything which, even if he/she keeps up with current research is pretty impossible. | x-no-archive: yes | [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Susan > Try convincing your friends of that. I preach consistently, I'm sure people > are tired of me, and post articles that support your/my/the correct > information. Did manage to keep my SO off of statins. So many people > believe that their doctor knows everything which, even if he/she keeps up > with current research is pretty impossible. I convinced my friend, a PhD who evaluates research for a living, and my husband and one of my doctors. I'd rather convince Obama, since his cronies, the Clintons and Daschle have him going quite the opposite, deadly, Ornish/Pritikin direction. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Susan I have some "friend" posting a how to go Vegan on my Facebook page. Any advice on how to deal with that? Lierre Keith managed Veganism for 20 years, but most people come to their senses a lot faster, as she points out. SignatureThe Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money is good, or is it the reverse? >I have some "friend" posting a how to go Vegan on my Facebook page. Any >advice on how to deal with that? Email them a picture of Gaga in her meat dress. ?;^) SignatureWe are becoming a country that believes the rich have earned their money but the well educated have not earned their intellectual superiority. This leads to a nation that idolizes Kardashians. Joel Stein, TIME, 8/23/10 > I have some "friend" posting a how to go Vegan on my Facebook page. Any > advice on how to deal with that? Just say "if we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made of meat." That usually does it. :-) Susan > How do I lower my cholesterol numbers on a low-carb diet? According to the 1993 edition of the Atkins book about 80% of folks see good cholesterol numbers after 6 months. According to the 2001 edition of the Atkins book most folks see good cholesterol numbers after 3 months. The way to lower your numbers is to stop bouncing wildly from plan to plan and try one systematically for 6 months or longer. > > How do I lower my cholesterol numbers on a low-carb diet? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The way to lower your numbers is to stop bouncing wildly from plan to > plan and try one systematically for 6 months or longer. The cholesterol measured below was after starting Atkins sometime before Christmas of 07 (a period of at least 8 months). During that Christmas, I was visiting my sister and I remember eating a entire roasted chicken (without skin, prepared at home) almost every day with salad and few fruits. Later I switched mostly to beef. DATE CHL LDL TG HDL -DIET 6/14/08 400 ??? <50 >100 -Beef tongue, low-carb veggies & fruit. Been switching diets to cure health problems which started 01, peaked in 07 and since have been subsiding. As you said, maybe I just needs to hang in longer. I would say fructose/fruit is the culprit. But you should also include the level of your physical activity. Exercise helps to bring the cholesterol down, sedentary lifestyle with fructose is a cholesterol booster. Add some seed oils to it and you had better start looking for a good health/life insurance ... Taka > I would say fructose/fruit is the culprit. But you should also > include the level of your physical activity. Exercise helps to bring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Taka I think it's rather odd that the cholesterol numbers vary so greatly. You're going from a period where total chol was below 200, to over 400. I'd be suspicous of that last reading. Also, why do you only have total chol for a lot of the readings? All my routine chol screenings always have total, ldl, hdl, and triglycerides. On low carb, triglycerides drop like a rock. Usually total chol decreases and hdl increases. Drinking alcohol will cause a quick rise in triglycerides too. I've never seen this kind of wide variation in my own personal experience regardless of what I eat. It's widely acknowledged that diet is only a modest component of your total chol picture anyway. Genetics plays a bigger role. > I think it's rather odd that the cholesterol numbers vary so greatly. You are not alone. Others, including a relative, who is a doctor, has told me the same. > You're going from a period where total chol was below 200, > to over 400. I'd be suspicous of that last reading. The change was due to a drastic change in diet. The same has occurred before. > Also, why do you only have total chol for a lot of the readings? > All my routine chol screenings always have total, ldl, hdl, and triglycerides. I frequenlty donate blood and they only provide total cholesterol. Other times, the tests were done at during health screenings, not at doctor's office. The time it registered 400, they couldn't believe it either. They did the test again and got 392 instead. The person before me had a normal reading. > On low carb, triglycerides drop like a rock. > Usually total chol decreases and hdl increases. On low carb, my TG decreases and HDL increases, just as say. It seems I need a high amount of fermentable fiber to bring total down. > Drinking alcohol will cause a quick rise in triglycerides too. I used to get dark circles under my eyes from consuming small amounts of red wine. Haven't tried again recently. > I've never seen this kind of wide variation in my > own personal experience regardless of what I eat. > It's widely acknowledged that diet is only a modest component > of your total chol picture anyway. Genetics plays a bigger role. Yes, it could be genetics. I used to have xanthelasmas (cholesterol plaques on eye lid) before making drastic changes in diet. My cousin who ended up having her colon removed due to "UC" (later diagnosed as "Crohns") still has them. > > I think it's rather odd that the cholesterol numbers vary so greatly. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > They did the test again and got 392 instead. > The person before me had a normal reading. Wasn't this at the end of Summer when the days are getting shorter (and temperature going down)? Shorter light period signals the coming Winter and the body starts preparing for it by increasing cholesterol production naturally. Increasing cholesterol in cellular membranes makes them more resistant to freezing temperatures. Also pregnancy (and cancers) consume lot of cholesterol so sudden drop may signal either of them. Taka > > On low carb, triglycerides drop like a rock. > > Usually total chol decreases and hdl increases. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > who ended up having her colon removed due to "UC" (later diagnosed as > "Crohns") still has them. > But you should also include the level of your physical activity. > Exercise helps to bring the cholesterol down, I don't believe exercise is the culprit. I try to maintain a moderate level of exercise. During the past year, I have been walk about 1 or 2 miles in the mornings and usually in the evenings. Some days I'll do light resistance exercises. Occassionally, some short sprints or burpees which leave me feeling lethargic while on low-carb. > I would say fructose/fruit is the culprit... sedentary lifestyle with fructose > is a cholesterol booster. Add some seed oils to it and you had better > start looking for a good health/life insurance ... Over the past decade, my intake of seed oil has been low. In general, I don't use oil to prepare meal; rather steam or pressure cook. I have tried butter, OO, coconut oil and high-oleic oils for short period but they didn't suit me. I may have used the equivalent of one or two bottles of canola oil during the last decade at home. It was only near the begining of this year that I found I could consume butter oil (clarified butter) and lots of it :) There have been periods where I have eaten lots of fruits (10+ per day). They can really mess up my cholestrol readings, but I can't say for sure that they caused any permanent harm. >> According to the 1993 edition of the Atkins book about 80% of folks see >> good cholesterol numbers after 6 months. According to the 2001 edition [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > roasted chicken (without skin, prepared at home) almost every day with > salad and few fruits. Later I switched mostly to beef. When I named Atkins I meant what Atkins actually is when you follow the actual directions in the actual book. What you described bears no more resemblence to actual Atkins than Yogi Bear cartoons resemble actual grizzly bears in the wild. It doesn't fit any option in any of the 4 phases of the process in any of the 1972, 1993, 1999, 2001 versions of the Atkins book or the new re-write by the team at the Atkins Center. Had you actually tried Atkins you would have eaten a much larger variety of foods and especially more quantity and more varied low carb veggies. Further you would not have removed the skin as the Aktins plan as of 1972-1999 included explicit instructions to not avoid fat and by 2002 fat avoidance was only allowed under circumstances you most certainly did not arrive at. A whole roast chicken including the skin is a ridiculously large amount at one meal but depending on its size it might work as all of your protein sources for all of your meals and snacks in a day. Didn't it get boring really fast with so little variety? > DATE CHL LDL TG HDL -DIET > 6/14/08 400 ??? <50 >100 -Beef tongue, low-carb veggies & > fruit. Tongue has a much higher fat percentage and that brings it closer to what Atkins actually is. It's delicious, too. It still sounds boring to me. I get tired of tongue if I've had it for 3 meals in the same fortnight. Here's a simple minded explanation of why low carbing causes triglycerides to plummet in the first few weeks and why for most people by 2 months and for 80% of people by 6 months their other numbers move towards optimal. It's simple minded because it focuses on one of the body's many uses for cholesterol and because the different types of cholesterol have uses that overlap more than in my explanation. Cholesterol in general and triglyceride in specific is the body's fat transportation mechanism. It is used to move fat into storage driven by insulin, out of storage driven by glucagon, out of the digestive track by digestion, through the liver by routine circulation, to the cells by routine circulation. Moving new fat into storage in fat cells is slow so whenever anyone is gaining new fat it should be expected that their triglycerides are high. Burning fat as the body's primary fuel is fat so whenever anyone is burning fat as their primary fuel it should be expected that their triglycerides start to plummet. Low carb diets do cause the body to burn a higher percentage of fat. Ketotic low carb diets like the first two phases of Atkins keep you burning fat as your primary fuel for almost the entire time you are losing weight. Because the liver is constantly sweeping the bloodstream for fat like in the loss phases of Atkins I think it also has a chance to clean up the other types of cholesterol. Low carbing is a successful predator diet that some mistakenly describe as a starvation diet. I guess folks who use such a discription never kept any dogs or cats so they never smelled the breath of a predator who has eaten a successful predator diet. Low carbing is also a marathoner's metabolism because it's burning fat as its primary fuel. The rate is so much higher for actual marathoners anyone who plans on running a marathon needs to do a careful training plan but the parallel still applies. A marathon is a pound of fat in a few hours; ketotic low carbing is anywhere from a pound of excess fat a month to several per week. > Been switching diets to cure health problems which started 01, peaked > in 07 and since have been subsiding. As you said, maybe I just needs > to hang in longer. Whatever plan you try actually do what the plan says to do, and stick with it for 6+ months. Then evaluate how you're doing and decide if you want to stick with it. No Yogi Bear cartoon mockeries of what plan you claim to be on like you describe above. No flailing of a few weeks on one unusual plan then switching to a few weeks on some extremely different plan. You had good reasons at the time for flailing about. Now you have time to try someting for real. Step out in faith! > >> According to the 1993 edition of the Atkins book about 80% of folks see > >> good cholesterol numbers after 6 months. According to the 2001 edition [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > by 2 months and for 80% of people by 6 months their other numbers move > towards optimal. I agree that cholesterol and triglycerides do tend to move toward better readings for most people following LC diets. But the use of the word optimal could leave the impression that it will bring them close to optimal. I haven't seen any studies that show anything like that. I have seen studies that show that after 6 months there is usually modest lowering of total cholesterol, almost always a significant decrease in trig, usually a increase in HDL, and LDL stays about the same, sometimes goes up, sometimes down a bit. In short, the profiles do improve, but aren't approaching optimal, at least not for most people that have numbers that are significantly away from optimal to begin with. Also, most of the studies I've seen were of the several months to a year duration, with paticipants still at relatively low carb levels and continuing to lose weight. I haven't seen much as far as long term results, ie of where people are at a couple of years later when in maintenance and again at higher carb levels, like possibly 80-100g. It's not unreasonable to think that trig could rise again somewhat as carbs levels reach maintenance levles. The one thing that is clear is that contrary to popular misconceptions, LC isn't going to send most people's chol numbers throught the roof. As for the explanation as to why trig decreases when you cut out high carbs, I think the simple answer is that high levels of carbs are quickly converted to triglycerides on their way to being stored as fat. Lots of carbs, lots of triglcerides. > It's simple minded because it focuses on one of the > body's many uses for cholesterol and because the different types of [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How do you determine what is optimal? Is it the number suggested by drug company research? Are you sure it is the same for everyone? | I agree that cholesterol and triglycerides do tend to move toward | better readings for most people following LC diets. But the use of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | quickly converted to triglycerides on their way to being stored as | fat. Lots of carbs, lots of triglcerides. Hi, I think your article its very important and interesting,good work thanks for sharing! -- angelinadiaz 15 to 30 grams of fenugreek that is then cooked and eaten might be something you'd want to consider. And pantethine is a vitamin form you might look at as well. 10 years ago when I was taking pantethine, my conventional Doc thought that blood lipids were excellent. But then I was 10 years younger so YMMV. And then there are issues of dose and cost. Trig |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.