"Life Without Bread"

[dugdeep]

What I'm trying to say is, that this might well be the case, but the treatment will most likely be a Paleo Diet, some substitution of vital minerals and vitamins, detoxing the body, reducing leptin resistance etc. ... all things that a lot of us are trying to achieve anyway. And if in that context the cholesterol goes up, it probably doesn't matter.

Hi nicklebleu. I don't disagree with you - the Paleo diet could very well turn out to be the solution. BUT, and this is a big "but", can someone afford to make that assumption? This is one's health we're dealing with here. I think Kresser's point, and I agree with him here, is that you can't just ignore these things and assume they're going to turn out for the best because you assume the solution is what you're already doing. One can't assume that a cholesterol level of over 300 "probably doesn't matter". It needs to be investigated. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

[quote author=nicklebleu]
Same with familial hyperlipidaemia ... I would be quite convinced, that the numbers would come down on a diet program as advocated in this thread, maybe not acutely so, but over time (due to epigenetic shift of gene expression). One would have to experiment of course on the right mix of fats, which might be quite challenging.[/quote]

Maybe, but again, this is an assumption. We have no idea how familial hyperlipidaemia reacts to the paleo diet. We have no data to go on.

[quote author=nicklebleu]
Would I advocate statins for famiial hyperlipidemia? That's a hard one, but probably not, maybe only if all else fails ...

I am not 100% convinced of my stance at the moment, but that's how I integrate the available evidence at this stage. But given new data I will gladly incorporate this ...
[/quote]

I hear you, I just think maybe I'm a little more prone to caution than you are. If I was only dealing with my own health, I might take the same l'aissez faire type attitude because I tend not to get bent out of shape about these sorts of things (even when maybe I should!). But I would hesitate to tell someone "don't worry about it" when it comes to getting abnormal results on medical testing (after thoroughly investigating the validity of "normal", of course). The way I see it, if you tell someone not to worry about it, and they listen to you, and it turns out they actually had a big problem, the consequences are at least partially on you.

Remember that Kresser is a clinician with hundreds, if not thousands, of patients and experience. I don't know if it's wise to go against his advice based on a few assumptions about how great this diet is :). Not that he's infalable, not by a long shot. But a counter-argument needs to be based on data.

The bottom line is that there could be something wrong causing Gertrudes' cholesterol numbers to be so high, and I think she's doing the right thing in digging for answers. In the end you might be right, but that needs to be discovered, not assumed, IMO.

 

[nicklebleu]

Dugdeep,

I totally agree with you - we need to go from the data we have and not drift into wishful thinking.

The problem is, that the data at this stage does not support the hypothesis that high colesterol levels have any impact on your overall mortality. The data is somewhat ambiguous and further studies might show this to be false.

The other problem is that there is not much in the way of treatment apart from a ketogenic diet, low-fat high-carb SAD or statins. And of all these three treatment modalities only number one seems to work at this stage.

The other thing that I have to agree with is - that given the uncertainty of the data (and I don't think that this will be resolved anytime soon, given that the industry is quite happy with the status quo selling heaps of statin drugs) - I maybe should not have given the advice to Gertrudes, the way I did.

I certainly think it is a good idea to check, if there is anything else that is wrong - even if the therapy will be exactly the same - a ketogenic diet, supplements, detox and the lot.

Sofar I haven't seen any compelling data to change my mind, if I have overlooked it, I am more than happy to have a look at that.

Thanks for you input!

 

[Turgon]

However, after several weeks of being able to take my morning walk with my dog which before I changed diets lasted from one to three hours, now I can walk only for about an hour before becoming totally exhausted. I've spent several weeks sleeping throught the afternoons and walking up feeling that I have 100 pound sandbags strpped to my arms and legs.

Hey webglider, thanks for the update. Many of us have gone through feelings of tiredness in the beginning of transition. May I ask what supplements you're taking? Are you for example taking enough salt, potassium, L-Glutamine, L-Carnitine (which will help your body's energy producing factories (mitochondria) to use the fats as energy)? I know that these supplements helped me greatly with overcoming the tiredness, and some pains I experienced in the beginning.

And don't worry too much about having eaten an apple, try to add some more veggies instead, like green beans, if you feel like you need some more carbs. You might also want to eat more fat, if you think you could have more. Fwiw.

@Webglider, I'd just like to point out this article which was posted near the beginning of this thread on transitioning to a low carb diet. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229352-Tips-Tricks-for-Starting-or-Restarting-Low-Carb-Pt-I which was also posted by Laura here in case you want to read up on any subsequent discussion that may have taken place after the posting. :)

Over the first few days to few weeks of low-carb adaptation, your body is laying off the carbohydrate worker enzymes and building new fat worker enzymes. Once the workforce in your body is changed out, you start functioning properly on your new low-carb, higher-fat diet. The carbs you used to burn for energy are now replaced to a great extent by ketones (which is why this time is also called the keto-adaptation period) and fat. Your brain begins to use ketones to replace the glucose it used to use pretty much exclusively, so your thinking clears up. And the fatigue you used to feel at the start of the diet goes away as ketones and fat (and the army of enzymes required to use them efficiently) take over as the primary sources of energy. Suddenly you seem to go from not being able to walk out to get the morning paper without puffing and panting to having an abundance of energy. Because of this low-carb adaptation period, we never, ever counsel our patients to start an exercise program when they start their low-carb diets because a) we know they'll be too fatigued to do it, and b) we know that in a short time they will start exercising spontaneously to burn off the excess fat on their bodies once the skids are greased, so to speak.

 

[SeekinTruth]

While I certainly agree that decisions should be made based on data (including self experimentation data), and that very high cholesterol numbers should be looked into, I have a problem with the data presented to support that many problems can arise from high fat / low carb eating. Monkey data to induce MI is irrelevant -- as this is a TOTALLY unnatural diet for monkeys.

The Inuit examples are a problem as well, because as many assumptions are being made from the pathologist's findings as anything else. There's just no way to know how the data relates to any cause-effect relationships. How would anyone interpret these findings without making a huge amount of assumptions -- almost exclusively assumptions?

Volek and Phinney have about 5 decades of experience between them with actual living people (Gedgaudas has extensive experience as well). While Kresser and Cordain (and anybody) are certainly right to say that nothing that is out of range to a great extent (and sustained over a long enough period of time) should be ignored, there's really no solid, conclusive data that the high fat/low carb diet poses a danger in any way about the problems they are concerned about. There's a lot of "yes, but..." things said without making the issues any clearer.

The issue of high fat vs. high protein is crucial. I see it as very similar to being gluten free. Just like in the case of gluten, either you are in ketosis or you're not. The only way you can get into and remain in ketosis is to have the carbs very low and raise the fat to compensate (and keep the protein to a level where it won't be converted to sugar and knock you out of ketosis). There's no other way. So eating high protein and safe starches, etc. conversations are talking about totally different things if the threshold of ketosis is violated -- they are not talking about ketogenic diets, and thus muddying the waters more than clearing anything up.

Being leptin resistant and warm adapted are much more likely problems to look into and take care of (such as being in dark within about an hour or so after sunset and meal timing, etc.) to see if things normalize. Although there's still unanswered questions with Kruse's material, people who are leptin resistant are seeing results within a couple of months, for example. I agree with one thing about what Kruse says: sleep is one of the most important things to make assessments from. If you're sleep is really screwed up, you can have many problems even with a very good diet, until the sleep issue is resolved.

I also think Kruse is really onto something with his concept of correcting mismatches -- sleep cycles being one of them. Being warm adapted being another, although I'm not too concerned with the longevity issue as much. I'm more looking at this (while there is still not enough data) from the quality of life perspective for now, rather than if I'm going to live to be over a 100 years old (while still healthy).

The problem with total cholesterol numbers is the large swings in short periods of time with no known cause for the fluctuations. Sure very high numbers should not be totally ignored, but taking many data points (a whole bunch of blood tests over a period of, say, a few months) would make the test results much more meaningful. Only if it is relatively consistently way out of range, would it be meaningful to investigate further. Again, this would be based on meaningful data, rather than assumptions and worries. If it doesn't prove to be consistent, then what exactly would we be looking further into?

Then there is the glaring issue that no direct relation to eating fat and cholesterol to blood cholesterol/lipids has ever been established to my knowledge. So if there's consistent blood test results WAY out of range (e.g. total cholesterol consistently over 275), it should be looked into to see what might be going on. But it can't have any connection to eating high fat (of the health variety -- from healthy, properly fed animals), since there's never been any data that correlates diet to high blood lipids (other than high carbs especially including grains).

So I'm all for more data to clear things up, but much of what's being presented as a possible concern is not meaningful data and is making things less clear rather that more clear -- kinda muddying the waters. Meaningful data is the starting point to eliminating assumptions.

 

[Gertrudes]

Thanks for the food for thought everyone, it is much appreciated.

Yes, that's the message I got too. But Cordain's version of the paleo diet has always emphasized 'lean meats', which is why many in the paleo community like to distance themselves from him somewhat, OSIT. I think the wider context to the interview is a disagreement between Phinney/Volek and Cordain about whether an ideal diet should be low carb/high fat or low carb/high protein and Cordain was bringing up the Inuit as evidence that high fat may not be as great as Phinney/Volek are claiming. This is what I got out of it, anyway. The comments have a short response from Phinney.

I don't really know his previous work and you'll surely have a more comprehensive view of his perspective, however from this particular interview he seems to be more against a high fat diet if combined with inflammatory foods, and when in the absence of organ meat. Note that he even mentions that if we eat organ meat, from what I understand in the absence of plant foods, we'll be in great shape.

Here is an interesting response to Lordain's post by Stephan Guyenet

I just found this interview via Matt Metzgar’s blog. Thanks for posting, and thanks to Dr. Cordain for doing the interview. I’d like to make a few points in response to the interview.

Inuit did have atherosclerosis, agreed, and Dr. Cordain stated that they probably weren’t having MIs– also agreed, since they currently still have a very low rate of MI despite eating a partially Westernized diet. Could have to do with the omega-3s. However, to attribute the atherosclerosis on their high-fat diet is premature. They ate a diet that was all-around extreme and could have been atherogenic in many ways, for example due to magnesium deficiency. I do agree with Dr. Cordain that the Inuit diet– and any all-meat diet– is probably not optimal for humans.

The idea that saturated fat raises cholesterol and leads to CHD is poorly supported by the scientific literature as a whole. If this mechanism of LDL receptor downregulation was happening in the long term, why is it that there’s typically no correlation between SFA intake and serum cholesterol in observational studies (particularly when PUFA intake is similar across SFA groups)? For example, the physician’s health study (free full text, see table 1):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7049/84?view=long&pmid=8688759

The Masai and the Samburu have low to normal cholesterol on a diet that provides 2/3 of calories as animal fat rich in palmitic acid. The vast majority of observational studies to date have found no association between saturated fat intake and heart attack risk. If SFA elevate LDL, and high LDL increases the risk of heart attacks, what gives? The explanation is that the studies Keys, Hegsted, Krauss etc. used to determine the effects of SFA on cholesterol in humans were all short term. SFA elevates cholesterol and LDL in the short term, and it seems to revert in the long term (>1 yr). This has been seen in highly controlled animal studies as well, so it’s probably not just a problem with measurement accuracy or diet adherence in the human studies. For example:

http://circres.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/6/658

The study in monkeys Dr. Cordain referenced used megadoses of added cholesterol to produce atherosclerosis. This gave the monkeys cholesterol levels of 800-900 mg/dL. That’s higher than you see in most familial hypercholesterolemia patients, and it can not be produced in animals or humans by saturated fat feeding. Peanut oil was also apparently more effective at producing heart attacks than lard in that study (perhaps due to the peanut lectin, which Dr. Cordain has written about before).

When you try to give animals atherosclerosis using saturated fat without megadosing them with purified cholesterol, it doesn’t work (which is why cholesterol is generally added in these studies). In most studies and most species including several primates, it doesn’t elevate their LDL relative to monounsaturated fat (like olive oil) and it doesn’t give them atherosclerosis. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20032571
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492629
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1728820

In the second study, palm oil was used, which is extremely rich in palmitic acid. The palm oil group showed less lesion development than the MUFA group and had similar LDL.

Does eating a high proportion of saturated fat have some kind of negative effect on the human body? I don’t know. I can’t say for sure that it doesn’t. I just haven’t seen any convincing data that it does yet.

Thanks to Dr. Cordain for his work on health, nutrition and the Paleolithic diet which I admire.

Stephan Guyenet, Ph.D.
University of Washington

I haven't yet been able to look at the studies he attached though.

Monkey data to induce MI is irrelevant -- as this is a TOTALLY unnatural diet for monkeys.

Yes, I was also thinking of that.

The Inuit examples are a problem as well, because as many assumptions are being made from the pathologist's findings as anything else. There's just no way to know how the data relates to any cause-effect relationships. How would anyone interpret these findings without making a huge amount of assumptions -- almost exclusively assumptions?

Yes, there are many other factors that could have induced atherosclerosis, and Stephan Gyuenet briefly addresses that above.

 

[aragorn]

Thanks for the latest posts about cholesterol, LDL, etc. I've been wondering about these things a lot lately, since I had surprisingly high LDL levels (320mg/dl) at a check up some months ago. I'm going to test myself again in a few weeks and I think I'll ask them to check the thyroid hormones too, just in case. But I do feel better than in January - I've been doing the cold showers for a few weeks too, and it DOES help with energy levels and clarity.

 

[webglider]

Quote from dugdeep

Quick note for webglider: coconut oil (or MCT oil) increases the amount of ketones in the blood, even if you're not in ketosis and can be very helpful with the transition. If you tolerate it, you might want to start adding lots of it to your diet, at least until your body gets into fat burning mode. This has been given as advice by both Mark Sisson and Paul Jamminet, I believe, as ways of avoiding or minimizing "low carb flu".

Thank you dugdeep. I appreciate this information.

Quote from Seekin Truth:

I just want to remind you, webglider, about the cold showers. It's not clear if Cold Thermogenisis / cryo therapy is good for cancer -- right now it seems to be contraindicated, at least for cryogenic chamber therapy. So be careful, perhaps have a wait and see attitude to see if more information becomes available (or actively search for it yourself).

Thanks Seekin Truth for the possible red flag.

I did a little research for Cold Thermogenisis and found that it's is in the process of being tested. I was wondering if I should sign up for a trial. Don't much trust the NCI though. It's exciting but a lot to think about.

I don't think it's the same procedure that has been described on Sott.

quote from the following site:

http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/surgery/cryotherapy.jsp

What is cryotherapy?

Cryotherapy, also called cryosurgery, uses extreme cold to freeze and kill cancer cells. It's also used to control pain and control bleeding. All cells, including cancer cells, contain water. When cryotherapy freezes the cells, the water turns to ice crystals. These ice crystals, along with the cold itself, destroy the cancer cells.

Cryotherapy is used to regularly treat certain cancers and other lesions. For example, dermatologists apply liquid nitrogen directly to the skin to kill certain early-stage skin cancers and other skin lesions that could potentially turn into cancer (called pre-cancerous lesions). Cryotherapy also is used to treat some forms of cervical, prostate, and bone cancer.

When cryotherapy is used to treat cancers in the body, one or more small needles, called cryoprobes, deliver either liquid nitrogen or argon gas directly to the cancer tissue. Ultrasound, computerized tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to put the cryoprobes in exactly the right place. People who have cryotherapy usually get a local anesthetic in the area where the cryoprobes will be inserted as well as a mild sedative.

How is cryotherapy used to treat breast cancer?
Right now, cryotherapy is an experimental treatment for breast cancer. Scientists are studying whether cryotherapy might be a good alternative to breast cancer surgery, as well as the types of breast cancer cryotherapy would treat most effectively. If you're interested in being part of a study on cryotherapy for breast cancer, visit the National Cancer Institute's clinical trials search page and search for a breast cancer treatment trial on cryotherapy or cryosurgery.

 

[nicklebleu]

What is cryotherapy?

Cryotherapy, also called cryosurgery, uses extreme cold to freeze and kill cancer cells. It's also used to control pain and control bleeding. All cells, including cancer cells, contain water. When cryotherapy freezes the cells, the water turns to ice crystals. These ice crystals, along with the cold itself, destroy the cancer cells.

Cryotherapy is used to regularly treat certain cancers and other lesions. For example, dermatologists apply liquid nitrogen directly to the skin to kill certain early-stage skin cancers and other skin lesions that could potentially turn into cancer (called pre-cancerous lesions). Cryotherapy also is used to treat some forms of cervical, prostate, and bone cancer.

When cryotherapy is used to treat cancers in the body, one or more small needles, called cryoprobes, deliver either liquid nitrogen or argon gas directly to the cancer tissue. Ultrasound, computerized tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to put the cryoprobes in exactly the right place. People who have cryotherapy usually get a local anesthetic in the area where the cryoprobes will be inserted as well as a mild sedative.

How is cryotherapy used to treat breast cancer?
Right now, cryotherapy is an experimental treatment for breast cancer. Scientists are studying whether cryotherapy might be a good alternative to breast cancer surgery, as well as the types of breast cancer cryotherapy would treat most effectively. If you're interested in being part of a study on cryotherapy for breast cancer, visit the National Cancer Institute's clinical trials search page and search for a breast cancer treatment trial on cryotherapy or cryosurgery.

webglider,

This type of cryotherapy is something else than the cryotherapy mentioned by Jack Kruse or earlier in the post.

The above is also called cryosurgery - where cancer growths are frozen with a scalpel-like device and thus killed. It is a type of surgery also often used to remove skin growths by simply freezing them, which kills the cells, so ultimately they just fall off.

I hope this clarification helps!

Mod: quote tags fixed

 

[Gertrudes]

Thanks for the latest posts about cholesterol, LDL, etc. I've been wondering about these things a lot lately, since I had surprisingly high LDL levels (320mg/dl) at a check up some months ago. I'm going to test myself again in a few weeks and I think I'll ask them to check the thyroid hormones too, just in case. But I do feel better than in January - I've been doing the cold showers for a few weeks too, and it DOES help with energy levels and clarity.

Mmmmm....this makes me think that perhaps what may be going on is that, as suggested by a couple of researchers (Stephan Guyenet and I think also Dr. Lutz, amongst others), cholesterol levels CAN go up when transitioning to a paleo diet. However, after a period of adaptation that can take a year (perhaps more?), they will start to drop.
My LDL levels were in the range of 287 in September, and are now at 212. I should also mention that I have tested my cholesterol twice, spaced by 7 days, and got the same results.

My guess is that that adaptation period can take more then a year. Whilst several researchers mention a period of weeks to enter ketosis many of us took longer. In my case it took something between 2 to 3 months. Indeed, we may have missed a few things at the time that could have sped up the process, but I also think that such complex inner adaptations can take a long time, and a change in our cholesterol levels is no exception.
I will test again around August and compare. It would be interesting to see whether they also drop in your case Aragorn.

 

[dugdeep]

Dugdeep,

I totally agree with you - we need to go from the data we have and not drift into wishful thinking.

The problem is, that the data at this stage does not support the hypothesis that high colesterol levels have any impact on your overall mortality. The data is somewhat ambiguous and further studies might show this to be false.

True, it doesn't look like high cholesterol has an impact on anything, necessarily. I think that we need to look at cholesterol levels as an effect not a cause. Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. They are correlated. So if cholesterol is high, its time to start investigating why it's high. That graph that Gertrudes posted a few pages back (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/O-Primitivo-Cholesterol.jpg) shows that overall mortality starts to rise once cholesterol levels get above 240. That doesn't mean cholesterol is killing people. It just means there's a correlation.

The other problem is that there is not much in the way of treatment apart from a ketogenic diet, low-fat high-carb SAD or statins. And of all these three treatment modalities only number one seems to work at this stage.

That's not necessarily true. One thing cholesterol does in the body is pinch hit as an antioxidant when antioxidant levels are low. So if the body isn't producing enough glutathione, it may pump up cholesterol production as a protective mechanism. LDL is also a repair protein that helps to repair microtears in the arterial lining. If there's a lot of arterial damage, this can cause LDL levels to rise. There are ways of addressing these problems directly through targetted nutritional therapies (supplementation) that would never be addressed simply by continuuing a low carb diet. That's why it's important to get to the root cause of the problem.

The other thing that I have to agree with is - that given the uncertainty of the data (and I don't think that this will be resolved anytime soon, given that the industry is quite happy with the status quo selling heaps of statin drugs) - I maybe should not have given the advice to Gertrudes, the way I did.

I certainly think it is a good idea to check, if there is anything else that is wrong - even if the therapy will be exactly the same - a ketogenic diet, supplements, detox and the lot.

Yup, I think so too. But I think that the diet isn't the only thing that can be changed to address health problems. Supplementation can vary to a huge degree to address any number of health concerns. Maybe something will require B12 supplementation, just as a random example. Now one could sit there self assured that their diet is providing enough B12 because they're eating their eggs and organ meats, but if HCL (stomach acid) is low, that dietary B12 will never get absorbed. These are the kinds of things that can be supplemented and adjusted even within the diet itself. So I don't think we should generalize and say the only thing we can ever do to address health concerns is go on a ketogenic diet. There's still infinite variability within that to explore.

Just my 2 cents on the issue. :)

 

[SeekinTruth]

webglider, I just wanted to reiterate what nicklebleu said: I meant full body cryotherapies/cold thermogenesis, NOT local cryo treatments. Sorry for the confusion, should try to be clearer in my communications.


dugdeep, I agree with what you're saying (from personal experience, as well as scientific data) that supplementation can be very important -- ONCE you've pinpointed what's going on -- for specific health problems, as well as general health and long term adaptation (or re-adaptation, really) to a ketogenic diet. But I just want to make clear that the most useful/relevant/meaningful scientific data accumulated from the late 19th Century to the present shows that in the vast majority, a ketogenic diet is the way to optimal health. No sugar burner populations have ever been found to be as healthy as those who are in permanent nutritional ketosis.

This goes back to the 19th Century anthropological studies, includes Weston Price's research findings from the 20th Century, and comes to the present with clinical studies that are not corrupted by special interests. Also, over the last year or two, there's been quite a lot of meta studies, many posted here in the forum and in articles on SOTT, which show that overall the higher the blood cholesterol the less morbidity and mortality from all causes, and vice versa.

And as you mentioned, cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, but not only that. I think it's really important to emphasize another point you made that LDL is a repair mechanism for micro-tears in arterial lining. It's used as an emergency measure to repair damaged tissue. The real question, then, is what's causing the lesions that LDL is being used to repair. (According to Linus Pauling and associates, it's chronic, low level scurvy/lack of Vitamin C. But I think their findings are also much more relevant
to those consuming high carbs, depleting Vitamin C and all other antioxidants and their recycling at much faster rates.)

From the data, it's quite complicated, but inflammation, glycation/oxidation, and many other mechanisms are implicated (which would include antioxidant deficiencies because of the oxidative stress, etc.). But all of these are connected to high carbohydrate consumption and other related issues. The more carbs one consumes, the more oxidation in the body, the more antioxidants are used up, the more chronic inflammation present, the more metabolic derangement, the more biochemical/hormonal imbalances with cascades of negative effects, etc. So all underlying issues are connected to deranged metabolism (and toxic metabolic byproducts) and many related imbalances that are corrected in the long term only by a ketogenic diet, with whatever other aides (supplements, etc.) to make the transition (not only into ketosis, but all the other adaptations that take effect after being in ketosis for a while).

As Gertrudes mentioned, there's so many things going on during this period of adaptation/transition -- and the period is different for different people, and it can take quite a while to settle down -- that it's very difficult to say anything concrete about what's going on until the transition is fully complete or nearly so. It would be great if someone with high blood lipid panel results could undergo some or all of the most meaningful lab tests (mentioned in this thread and the related books, etc.) to see what may be indicated. But I think even those tests are going to be less meaningful while in the middle of transitioning, even if someone can afford the time and money and is inclined to really try to get to the bottom of things with comprehensive lab tests.

So what are the most relevant tests/indicators to look into and what, if any, steps could be taken based on such tests to deal with underlying issues? I think these are important questions, and I don't currently have any definitive answers. Finally, I'd like to get other members' feedback on how many blood lipid tests in what period of time (e.g. minimum 4 every 3 weeks, as an arbitrary example) would be minimum to get a good picture, if any of the lipid panels are considerably out of range consistently. Then there's the issue that the ranges of what's "normal" are not based on what's healthy, but just a statistical reflection of everyone who's taken blood tests. Just some more thoughts on the matter, FWIW.

 

[beetlemaniac]

Thanks for the informative posts everyone. All the years of pharma pushing their "extremely effective" statins have made things just that much more confusing to the group of people who seem to respond to ketogenic diets with higher serum cholesterol levels. It adds a much unwanted emotional component to the whole lipid analysis which may be making people resort to measures like hormones or added carbs. Not to say that hormones are totally unnecessary. I think most people who do go paleo without the guidance of a group may find this issue really daunting, considering how doctors respond to these "anomalies".

I botched the conversion to US values the last time I posted my lipid results. They were actually much higher:

6 Jan 2012
Total: 15.9 mmol/L - 615 mg/dL
LDL: 13.1 - 506 mg/dL
HDL: 2.31 - 89 mg/dL
Trig: 1.12 - 99 mg/dL

5 March 2012
Total: 11.9 mmol/L - 460 mg/dL
LDL: 8.9 - 344 mg/dL
HDL: 1.96 - 76 mg/dL
Trig: 2.2 - 195 mg/dL

I started with the USD and gradually moved to the keto diet with the new info we got from The New Atkins and other books. I haven't been fully clean throughout, however. Looking back it still hasn't been a year since I started on the high fat diet. Looking at my journal I think the fat adaptation started around July 2011. The levels seem to be going down but as SeekinTruth says, until I get another data point I won't really know where this is heading. The next time I check I will test for other markers as well. I'm able to do free tests at a clinic so I should try to get the whole set. What I've heard (mainly from Dr Kruse) Thyroid, Testosterone, Vit D and maybe even B12 may tell us something. Reverse T3 thing would be interesting but they don't have it here. Probably won't have much to go on, but at least it'll be some data.

Since I followed the diet threads I've been really just playing it by ear, until I got my lab results... then I realised that I didn't really know a thing about what I was doing to my body, diet and otherwise, and I've become a bit more proactive in reading and at least trying to get to a proper level of understanding. So in a way it's a good kick in the arse for me.

 

[webglider]

Quote from Turgon:

@Webglider, I'd just like to point out this article which was posted near the beginning of this thread on transitioning to a low carb diet. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229352-Tips-Tricks-for-Starting-or-Restarting-Low-Carb-Pt-I which was also posted by Laura here in case you want to read up on any subsequent discussion that may have taken place after the posting.

Thank you Turgon. This is very helpful and a great resource.

quote from Nicklebleu

This type of cryotherapy is something else than the cryotherapy mentioned by Jack Kruse or earlier in the post.

The above is also called cryosurgery - where cancer growths are frozen with a scalpel-like device and thus killed. It is a type of surgery also often used to remove skin growths by simply freezing them, which kills the cells, so ultimately they just fall off.

I hope this clarification helps!

quote from Seekin Truth

webglider, I just wanted to reiterate what nicklebleu said: I meant full body cryotherapies/cold thermogenesis, NOT local cryo treatments. Sorry for the confusion, should try to be clearer in my communications.

I apologize. I started researching adverse effects of cyrotherapy and found cyrosurgery and then focused on that and then mixed the two together in my post. I was the one who caused the confusion not either of you. I'll be more considerate in the future.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

We have a Wellness program at work, if we do a blood test and fill out a health questionnaire, we get a free day off work. I did the blood yesterday and already have my results. I have FIVE "stop signs" which means results that are abnormal. They are:

Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c or A1c) Desired range: 4.8-5.6 My results: 6.0 (high)

Anion gap Desired range: 8.1-16.0 My results: 17.0 (high)

Cholesterol (Chol) Desired range 100-199 My results: 234 (high)

Low-density Lipoprotein (LDL) desired range 0-99 My results: 111 (high)

C-Reactive Protein, Cardiac desired range 0.00-3.00 My results: 4.90 (high)

Although I've given up sugar, the Hemoglobin is telling me my average blood sugar is too high.
The Anion Gap thingy seems to indicate I've got way too much acid.
The C-reactive protein means I've got too much imflammation and is a precursor to heart problems. Last year's result was 0.35 and this year I've gone up to 4.90!!!

This is all the cholesterol stuff:

Cholesterol (Chol)
234 (H)

Triglycerides (Tg)
61

High-density Lipoprotein (HDL)
111

Very-low-density Lipoprotein (VLDL)
12

Low-density Lipoprotein (LDL)
111 (H)

I'm not doing something right, obviously. :/

 

[Gaby]

I'm not doing something right, obviously. :/

Your triglycerides and HDL sounds enviable. It is your HDL, your "good cholesterol", which is contributing in your high cholesterol levels.

Your LDL doesn't look bad either, it was not too long ago when the range was lowered to a ridiculously low because supposedly high cholesterol means a heart attack and a good reason to prescribe a statin drug. Check out your ranges of cholesterol here:

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/medicine/cholesterol-range.htm

Your ratio is good!

The other tests do point out to inflammation, and perhaps you can talk about your symptoms and brainstorm with people here. I would check vitamin D levels which I suspect might be very low as well.

Your "caramelized" protein levels (HbA1c) are high though your levels are still considered in normal range depending on the country. This could be because either you are having too many carbs (too many "safe starches" and "safe sweeteners"?) or too much protein. This is explained very well in a synthesized way on Primal Body Primal Mind, and some think that the verdict is still out for this one (i.e. Dr. Kruse in his Cold Adaptation series), but here is a synthesis of the setbacks of too much protein FWIW:

Protein: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
By Dr. Ron Rosedale | Published: November 21, 2011

http://drrosedale.com/blog/2011/11/21/ron-rosedale-%E2%80%93-protein-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

This is why it is recommended in PBPM to eat a high fat, moderate protein and restricted carb diet.