It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



High Cholesterol Message Board


High Cholesterol Board Index


[QUOTE=Lenin]..... (I guess I can take my tongue out of my cheek now lest I perforate it.) :D .... [/QUOTE]
lol .... But just to get this into perspective, you can store 100-150grams of carb as glycogen. Which translates to 400 - 600 calories. But someone weighing, 70 kg and with only 5% body fat is would be carrying 3.5kg of fat around, which converts to 31,500 calories ....

Clearly we have evolved to use fat as the primary fuel. There is no need to "fat load". This enormous store of energy is pretty permanent. And it is in our interests to make the best possible use of it. The glucose that glycogen gets turned into is like turbo-fuel. We need it for extreme anaerobic exercise. And we would be in trouble without. But relying on glucose as the main source of energy and allowing the fat burning capability to fall into disuse doesn't make much sense.

Lenin, I know this works for me, simply because my blood glucose doesn't jump up and down the way it used to when I ate lots of carbohydrate. My blood sugar still drops during exercise. But it declines gently. And I don't have to carbo-load before, during or after exercise to avoid hypoglycemia. This can only mean that I am getting more of my energy from keytones. I am on a mission to make that fat burning pathway as efficient as possible. And anyone who persists with this approach will get similar results.

Consider for a moment where we came from and how things worked in the past. Our paleolithic ancestors used to expend enormous amounts of energy over extended periods of time (much longer that a marathon) hunting big animals, like wooly mamoths. We can be pretyy sure that they didn't carbo-load, simply because concentrated carbs were not available. But they did exceedingly well on the fat they ate, to the extent that their success took us to the top of the food chain. And it is odd that the human species is turning it's back on what worked so well during our formative years.


[QUOTE]Can you share info about the diet you follow with us? ....[/QUOTE]
HubbleRules,

My diet is very simple, and Lenin won't like this lol.... I don't eat carbs with meals. And I don't restrict fats (except trans fat) at all. In fact, I eat as much saturated fat as I can. My main challenge with this way of eating has been to maintain body weight. And I have to keep my energy store topped up!

My protein consumption at meals has probably not changed much. The protein from bread, for example, has been replaced with protein from eggs. I am now supplementing with a protein shake after workouts, but that is because I am trying to build muscle.

For breakfast, I normally eat 3 eggs, lots of cheese (the full fat stuff) and a sausage or some salami. This meal contains a lot of calories and sets me up well for the rest of the day. The virtual absence of carbohydrates means that my blood sugar is not significantly affected and, more importantly, I don't get hungry a few hours afterwords.

After gym workouts, I recover with a protein shake, which is 23 grams of whey protein powder in 250ml of full-fat milk. I don't eat much for lunch - maybe some fruit if my blood glucose is on the low side. I am still working on this. I need to find an easy high-fat meal to take to work with me to keep the calories up. After work, I have a low-carb beer (5grams of carb) and snack on peanuts (lots of them!). For supper, we have a protein (chicken, sausages, meat, fish) and a salad. I eat an extra sausage/piece of chicken etc and leave out the carb.

The diet is not ketogenic in that I rarely go into ketosis. But I have certainly opened up some fat burning pathways and reduced my reliance on glycogen/blood glucose. This certainly makes a lot of sense for a diabetic, or anyone with some degree of glucose intolerance. In fact, people without glucose tolerance also do better on this way of eating.

I was concerned about what eating this way would do to cholesterol. But I have found that, while LDL went up a bit to start with, it is now back where it started. HDL has gone way up and triglycerides have come down. So my heart attack risk is very low (4% during the next 10 years, according to the NCEP calculator). The numbers from my last lipid panel are :

Total Cholesterol 257
LDL 136
HDL 98
Triglycerides 106

The test was done after a fatty breakfast, and triglycerides are probably a lot higher than they would otherwise be. But they are still pretty low. The higher-than-desirable TC is partially because of high HDL, which increased substantially after cutting carbs, reducing insulin and increasing fats.

Cheers,

Mark
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Okay..then I have a question. I'm 51 and have had high cholesterol for a few years now. Total right now is 260, LDL is 157 and HDL is 75. Family doctor put me on a strict low-fat diet plus exercise for the next 3 months to see if it helps. Triglycerides are 136.

I've never been on any meds to lower cholesterol. My parents both suffer from this and are now on meds but they are in their 80's. My husband has high LDL and is on meds. My daughter who is 22 had TC of 208 I think it was. In any event, our family doctor wants our LDL to get to at least 100.

We are active. My dh is an avid bicycle rider, my daughter has been dancing for years (though this past year her work schedule limited her time on this) and I walk, and have been walking an average of 5 hours a week.

What do you think? Will the diet help? Will we need meds in the end? Oh..and none of us are overweight.

I don't want meds. I'm asthmatic and take something for that, I have a dissected carotid artery and take aspirin for that, I just finished an aggressive regimen of chemo and radiation for breast cancer...NO MORE MEDS!

Advise...:confused: [/FONT]
[QUOTE=ravdeb][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]..... Total right now is 260, LDL is 157 and HDL is 75. Family doctor put me on a strict low-fat diet plus exercise for the next 3 months to see if it helps. Triglycerides are 136.

.....our family doctor wants our LDL to get to at least 100.

We are active. My dh is an avid bicycle rider, my daughter has been dancing for years (though this past year her work schedule limited her time on this) and I walk, ....., I just finished an aggressive regimen of chemo and radiation for breast cancer...:confused: [/FONT][/QUOTE]
Your cholesterol actually isn't that high. And, IMHO, you have got to be careful that you don't shoot yourself in the foot here. Going on a low-fat, and of neccesity, high-carb diet may reduce your LDL somewhat. But it will definitely increase your triglycerides and lower that very healthy HDL. The net benefit is dubious, to say the least. Especially in view of your medical history.

Tumours thrive on carbohydrate and insulin. So a high-carb diet is not the way to go if you are trying to get rid of cancer. And, as cholesterol and CoQ10 are powerful naturally produced anti-oxidants, taking a statin is the last thing you want to do. It would compromise your body's self defense mechanism, increasing your susceptibility to a relapse.

Bear in mind that your liver produces as much cholesterol as it is told to. And the more stress your body is subjected to, the higher cholesterol levels are likely to be. Cholesterol also increases with age because your body needs to do more repairs and maintenance. If cholesterol goes up, we really should acknowledge that our bodies find it neccessary to do this and try and figure out why it is happening.

As far as getting LDL, to 100 is concerned, I wonder where your doctor got that figure from. Average LDL is about 130. And, bearing mind that half the people who have heart attacks have low cholesterol anyway, I really can't see the point.

Mark
[QUOTE=Lenin]...I asked you what YOU defined as "low cholesterol"...you avoided answering that. Certainly YOU must know what YOU define as low cholesterol.

[QUOTE]Average LDL is about 130. And, bearing mind that half the people who have heart attacks have low cholesterol anyway [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Low cholesterol is anything below average. And high cholesterol is anything above average. I though I hade that covered in the first sentence, which gives the average as 130.

The assertion that cholesterol levels are a poor indicator of heart disease is based on findings of electron beam tomography studies that show a very weak link. Here is the conclusion to the study I was thinking about when I posted.

[QUOTE][I]There was no correlation between either calcium percentile or score and any lipid measurement[/I]. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the shortcomings of employing NCEP guidelines to identify asymptomatic women with subclinical CAD, particularly women >55 years, and suggests increased utilization of EBT for primary prevention in the female population.

[I]Hecht HS, Superko HR., Electron beam tomography and National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines in asymptomatic women., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001May;37(6):1506-11[/I][/QUOTE]

Here is another one :

[QUOTE]Calcified plaque progression by electron beam tomography was evaluated in 176 aggressively treated asymptomatic patients. Similar plaque progression was noted irrespective of baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, including those with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dl

[I]Hecht HS, Harman SM., Relation of response of subclinical atherosclerosis detected by electron beam tomography to baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels., Am J Cardiol. 2004 Jan 1;93(1):101-3.[/I][/QUOTE]

And yet another one :

[QUOTE]Lipid control was defined according to criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program. Two-way analysis of covariance was used to examine the relation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and risk group to change in CAC volume score. Control of levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides was also examined in relation to progression of CAC. After adjustment for other risk factors and baseline CAC volume, CAC progression was similar between those with adequate and those with inadequate control of LDL cholesterol and across categories of optimal, intermediate, and higher risk LDL cholesterol

[I]Wong ND, Kawakubo M, LaBree L, Azen SP, Xiang M, Detrano R., Relation of coronary calcium progression and control of lipids according to National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines., Am J Cardiol. 2004 Aug 15;94(4):431-6.[/I][/QUOTE]





All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 AM.





© 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!