Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

do triglycerides cause insulin spike?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So the big problem with TG is that are body produces bad LDL to transport it?

    The Scientist - thanks again. You are one really smart paleo scientist.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jackson44 View Post
      So the big problem with TG is that are body produces bad LDL to transport it?

      The Scientist - thanks again. You are one really smart paleo scientist.
      You are starting to ask (very good) complicated questions. These questions have answers, but the science that is out there right now hasn't really found them yet. All we know if that elevated TG, and elevated LDL/VLDL (relative to HDL) is bad news. We have good information about what makes these things go out of whack (carbs, especially fructose), and some of the chemistry of how it works. We also know that when these number get messed up, people are more likely to have health problems. What we don't know is exactly what causes the final result we care about (heart disease is one example).

      For example: imagine that you have never seen a car before and want to know how it works, but can't open it up to look at all the parts (we can't see all the "parts" of a cell - proteins are too small to observe directly). What would you see? After a long time of watching and observing cars, you might see that certain things like increased exhaust smoke, elevated operating temperature, and knocking noises in the engine compartment all correlate with mechanical failure in the future, but you would know exactly what caused the failure, because you haven't taken apart the engine to see exactly how it works.

      When talking about our bodies, we are dealign with something many thousands of times more complex than a car, and we just don't know exactly how things work yet on a biochemical level. We have a few important pieces of the puzzle worked out. Things like how energy is metabolized in mitochondria and how neurotransmitters signal is relatively easy because they have acute, shot-term effects. Things like TG levels leading to heart disease are incredibly hard to figure out because they don't cause an acute effect – the problems take decades to show up.

      Comment


      • #18
        My triglycerides were almost 1000 about 5 years ago, they put me on a drug called Lopid to bring it down. I stayed around 200 while taking the max dose of Lopid for about 4 years. During that time I developed fatty liver disease, pre-diabetes, and high BP.

        I found Primal Blueprint, quit eating crap, lost 30 pounds in 3 months and was off all meds with 6 months. My trigs are now in the 30-40 range. Liver perfect.

        One problem with SAD is all the alcohol and HFCS which overloads the liver and causes lots of circulating trigs somehow. Clearing diet clears the liver and good health follows!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
          Things like TG levels leading to heart disease are incredibly hard to figure out because they don't cause an acute effect – the problems take decades to show up.
          Who are you??? I like your thoughtful answers. Hope you stick around for a while!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by otzi View Post
            Who are you??? I like your thoughtful answers. Hope you stick around for a while!
            I do research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at a large research hospital, and teach Genetics and Anatomy and Physiology courses at a nearby university. I read posts around here on occasion and am frustrated with the confusion, but am usually too busy to respond. I have a long relaxing weekend on my hands and thought it seemed like a good time to jump in.

            Comment


            • #21
              I was wondering the same thing about who you are! Lucky for me, I got to learn from you and caught you on the long weekend. Glad you jumped in and hope you respond more.

              Again, much appreciation for the time you are taking to answer my questions.

              Thank you!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
                I do research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at a large research hospital, and teach Genetics and Anatomy and Physiology courses at a nearby university. I read posts around here on occasion and am frustrated with the confusion, but am usually too busy to respond. I have a long relaxing weekend on my hands and thought it seemed like a good time to jump in.
                Thank-you so much for jumping in! Your intellectual honesty is a breath of fresh air. So many folks here and on other forums are well intended for sure, but they often make strong unequivocal statements which are simply not true or at least not proven. This happens quite frequently in discussions about lipidogy and heart disease.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
                  Thank-you so much for jumping in! Your intellectual honesty is a breath of fresh air. So many folks here and on other forums are well intended for sure, but they often make strong unequivocal statements which are simply not true or at least not proven. This happens quite frequently in discussions about lipidogy and heart disease.
                  I know what you mean – scientists are often not much better. They just have more complicated unjustified claims. The tendency toward confirmation bias is difficult to avoid. I know that I have to consciously tell myself to avoid it frequently. That said, communicating science to people is enjoyable for me, so I am happy to help. The people here are at least much more sincere and interested than many of the students that show up in my classes.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
                    I do research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at a large research hospital, and teach Genetics and Anatomy and Physiology courses at a nearby university. I read posts around here on occasion and am frustrated with the confusion, but am usually too busy to respond. I have a long relaxing weekend on my hands and thought it seemed like a good time to jump in.
                    What is it you see here mostly that causes confusion? We see so much bro-science, it's hard to separate from reality sometimes.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by otzi View Post
                      What is it you see here mostly that causes confusion? We see so much bro-science, it's hard to separate from reality sometimes.
                      A forum like this is a difficult place for scientific discussion for one big reason: (almost) nobody here has actually thoroughly read and understood the scientific literature related to the topic they are discussing. It is just one big game of telephone where everyone is trying to repeat what they heard from someone else. Even if what they read is correct, and they understood it (which is often not the case), they now have to apply that information to new problems which is nearly impossible to do if you don't know the science inside and out. I made it through 4 years of a PhD learning how to dissect these experiments and now my full time job is dependent on me thoroughly reading all the relevant science about lipid metabolism – and I still feel like I am still scratching the surface sometimes.

                      The good news is that using the evolutionary filter that the paleo approach suggests seems to align with the actual data in nearly all cases. So... understanding the science behind it all is interesting and important, but we can get by without for now and be alright.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
                        A forum like this is a difficult place for scientific discussion for one big reason: (almost) nobody here has actually thoroughly read and understood the scientific literature related to the topic they are discussing. It is just one big game of telephone where everyone is trying to repeat what they heard from someone else. Even if what they read is correct, and they understood it (which is often not the case), they now have to apply that information to new problems which is nearly impossible to do if you don't know the science inside and out. I made it through 4 years of a PhD learning how to dissect these experiments and now my full time job is dependent on me thoroughly reading all the relevant science about lipid metabolism and I still feel like I am still scratching the surface sometimes.

                        The good news is that using the evolutionary filter that the paleo approach suggests seems to align with the actual data in nearly all cases. So... understanding the science behind it all is interesting and important, but we can get by without for now and be alright.
                        Man... TRUTH.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Eh, I'm willing to let people make their claims, unbiased, biased, uneducated, educated, or what all have you.

                          If I have any questions about the basis of the claims being made by anyone, I am not so lazy that I can't attempt to at least do some basis research into the matter on my own. I think the biggest problem with scientific discussion here is not the claims people make being uneducated, but the unwillingness of some of the people to question this.

                          They want us to encapsulate the answers to them in quick, perfect, little bullet points that make the aswer 100% clear with absoultely no confusion. But frankly, this is impossible. People have to be willing to go out and do a little research for themselves and be willing to question the answers we (even the most qualified amongst us) give them. If they don't, then they will not be getting everything from this forum that is has the potential to offer them.

                          Imagine that... Maximizing benefits and discussion and education takes a little effort.
                          "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                            Eh, I'm willing to let people make their claims, unbiased, biased, uneducated, educated, or what all have you.

                            If I have any questions about the basis of the claims being made by anyone, I am not so lazy that I can't attempt to at least do some basis research into the matter on my own. I think the biggest problem with scientific discussion here is not the claims people make being uneducated, but the unwillingness of some of the people to question this.

                            They want us to encapsulate the answers to them in quick, perfect, little bullet points that make the aswer 100% clear with absoultely no confusion. But frankly, this is impossible. People have to be willing to go out and do a little research for themselves and be willing to question the answers we (even the most qualified amongst us) give them. If they don't, then they will not be getting everything from this forum that is has the potential to offer them.

                            Imagine that... Maximizing benefits and discussion and education takes a little effort.
                            I hate to be cynical, but I just don't agree. I don't think that the average person has the combination of time/resources/education/intellect to really make an educated decision based on the science. There is just too much of it and it is too dense. It really comes down to which "expert" they are going to trust, and what makes them feel the best when they apply the advice they decide to try out.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
                              I hate to be cynical, but I just don't agree. I don't think that the average person has the combination of time/resources/education/intellect to really make an educated decision based on the science. There is just too much of it and it is too dense. It really comes down to which "expert" they are going to trust, and what makes them feel the best when they apply the advice they decide to try out.
                              With PubMed, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia I can find a lot of facts. I can spend hours researching topics like cold thermogenesis, uncoupling proteins, or insulin sensitivity. Trouble is, you can find a study to support just about anything and you often find conflicting studies, or even old studies that have been invalidated. I don't feel having these assets at my fingertips makes me a scientist or doctor, it makes me well informed, but I admit sometimes I get to chasing things down and end up deep in a rabbit hole I have a hard time getting out of.

                              Appreciate you stopping by and maybe enlightening us on a few subjects.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by otzi View Post
                                With PubMed, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia I can find a lot of facts. I can spend hours researching topics like cold thermogenesis, uncoupling proteins, or insulin sensitivity. Trouble is, you can find a study to support just about anything and you often find conflicting studies, or even old studies that have been invalidated. I don't feel having these assets at my fingertips makes me a scientist or doctor, it makes me well informed, but I admit sometimes I get to chasing things down and end up deep in a rabbit hole I have a hard time getting out of.

                                Appreciate you stopping by and maybe enlightening us on a few subjects.
                                Ortiz, I feel exactly the same way. I am not a scientist but I am a chemical engineer and have some appreciation for the scientific process, data analysis and biochemistry. When I first discovered MDA I thought I had found the source of fundamental truth and knowledge about my main interest which is the connection between serum cholesterol and heart disease. It took quite a while to figure out that the fundamental knowledge I am seeking does not exist. I am concerned when people come here, post their lipid numbers and ask if they should be concerned. They get responses like "don't worry, your ratios are great" or "total cholesterol doesn't mean anything" or "you probably have big, fluffy LDL's which are totally harmless". Unless you really dig in as you discussed, you may be inclined to assume this feedback is 100% reliable because it is often stated in such unequivocal terms. You almost never hear someone frame a response the way The Scientist did. Heck, I almost did the LDL-P test by LipoScience and actually posted about my unenlightened CW doctor who did not recommend that test because it is not reliable. I listened to Dayspring, et al and they seemed so confident in their views and seemed to be such experts. They had me totally bamboozled.
                                Last edited by Artbuc; 11-24-2012, 02:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X