Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Latest blood panel numbers - yikes!!

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    You're insulin resistant because you never eat carbohydrate. Sugar and starch make you insulin sensitive...
    T2D just need to eat more carbs?

    I find the idea of insulin sensitivity being directly correlated to carbohydrate consumption a specious assertion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
      T2D just need to eat more carbs?

      I find the idea of insulin sensitivity being directly correlated to carbohydrate consumption a specious assertion.
      Yes, and a lot less fat. Especially oxidized, rancid fat from heated nut meals.

      Your body is going to burn the fuel you give it in the greatest quantity. How do you expect his body to metabolize glucose efficiently when he never consumes carbohydrate? It's stuck in an endless loop of fat oxidation. He probably has terrible CO2 numbers because his mitochondria are so tired from burning such an inefficient source of fuel all the time. Fat isn't a good energy source compared to glucose. Fat's most efficient function is sticking to your ribcage.

      The OP is at a solid weight because his calories are under control, but blood numbers show a clear problem. In my opinion, he is clearly insulin resistant with that terrible fasting BG number and since his body is working overtime trying to desperately get the glucose his brain needs to function, it is dumping huge quantities of fat into his bloodstream to fuel the rest of his body. Because fat is so inefficient, it is dumping A LOT of fat just to get his body to function and because his brain is so glucose starved, there is none left to fuel his muscles, so fat has to compensate.

      I smell high levels of lactate in the bloodstream!
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm not saying we should not avoid PUFAs and oxidized fats. I'm just saying that the assertion that one fixes insulin resistance by eating more carbs is inherntly flawed.

        How do you expect his body to metabolize glucose efficiently when he never consumes carbohydrate?
        Insulin resistance involves a bit more than the efficient metabolism of glucose. It's not all about shuttling energy to cells, it also comprises fat storage and cell damage (esp. to the endothelium).

        You can't have it both ways, Choco. Someone with insulin resistance needs to lose weight and to fix their insulin metabolism. You say that the only way to lose weight is via caloric deficit; so, fine. But if one achieves that through a HF macro, and loses weight, then insulin sensitivity returns. You cannot choose when to promote certain macros. The oft-used metaphor of the key and lock has the lock mechanism (cell) distorted and unreceptive to the key (insulin) because of overweight; when the weight is lost, the receptivity returns.

        In the meantime, if a person has a messed up insulin sensitivity, shoveling carbs in will just exacerbate the problem because the insulin will be trying to send that to the cells, and the cells will refuse delivery; where to go? To adipose tissue, and on the cycle continues.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
          I'm not saying we should not avoid PUFAs and oxidized fats. I'm just saying that the assertion that one fixes insulin resistance by eating more carbs is inherntly flawed.
          There is more than one type of insulin resistance.

          There is metabolic syndrome - which is caused by PUFA, not carbohydrate. This is the blood sugar issues diabetics have.

          Then there is physiological insulin resistance, which is simply your body's natural response to a high fat/low carb diet. When you consume lots of fat and no carbohydrate, your body is forced to become more efficient at burning fat (and it has to because it is a less efficient source of energy). Since your ability to oxidize fat increases, your ability to oxidize sugar decreases. This results in high fasting blood glucose.

          I'm hoping the OP fits into #2, which judging by his height and weight, he probably does. This is simply fixed by eating carbs at the expense of fat so you start burning glucose preferentially again - like you're supposed to.

          Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
          Insulin resistance involves a bit more than the efficient metabolism of glucose. It's not all about shuttling energy to cells, it also comprises fat storage and cell damage (esp. to the endothelium).

          You can't have it both ways, Choco.
          Yes you can because you're not realizing there are many causes of insulin resistance, and not all are indicators of some severe disease. You don't need to have an improperly functioning metabolism to be insulin resistant because metabolic syndrome is not the only time insulin resistance may plague you. The OP probably doesn't have metabolic syndrome but is almost certainly insulin resistant.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #20
            thank you for the back and forth on this Finnegans Wake and ChocoTaco. Lots to learn.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm not disagreeing that PUFA can lead to insulin resistance, but once insulin resistant the advice to consume carbohydrate is IMO specious. Fix the insulin resistance, then reintroduce carbohydrate.

              And with that, I am out. I've seen too many protracted "discussions" between you and other posters. I've put my opinion down, and you yours. You have many valuable opinions, but pissing matches don't much interest me. As others have noted, variously and often, your dogmatic approach may well work for the n=1 that is Choco, but not necessarily for others. I think at the very least it would behoove you to couch your dietary advice as opinion rather than prescription, or to offer your take on the science without dietary prescription at all.

              Peace.

              Comment


              • #22
                So now I'm confused guys ... I thought the entire premise of LCHF was to live in a constant state of fat metabolism as opposed to carb metabolism. I haven't seen anything in Mark's or Robb Wolf's literature suggesting the mix that Choco is describing, or warning about the dangers of monosaturated fats like nuts and olive oil.

                @Choco - I've also never heard about baked almond flour being toxic - citation?
                It's not like a sit around pounding nuts all day; I make an almond-flour pizza maybe twice a month and snack on nuts once in a while. Closest thing I could find is that there's not much data on heated nuts: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/are-n...#axzz2QGz7DEgN

                200g of glucose a day for my brain? I thought the brain required more like 120g. I definitely eat (or drink) more than 50g a day, so I doubt my brain is really lacking. (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-m...#axzz2QGz7DEgN).

                I don't eat THAT much chicken. If you see my past 3 days, I actually had mostly beef. I do take omega-3 fish oil supplement - why wouldn't I? Helps achieve better 6:3 ratio.

                Also, what are some safe starches/carbs that you eat on a daily basis?

                @Finnegan - I probably am insulin resistant, but wasn't aware its such a bad thing. Any suggestions on fixing that without just eating more carbs?
                Last edited by rmbrich; 04-12-2013, 11:28 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'm not advocating LCHF or any particular macro ratio prescriptively. I will say that, from my experience, when I started Primal I went LCHF during the week (M-F) and allowed myself some carbs on weekends (as my 20%). I can't recall my exact triglyceride before and after, but in addition to losing about 25# my triglycerides were substantially improved, well under 100. Results may vary, of course.

                  Part of my push towards better health was not weight loss, per se. It was constantly having elevated BP readings and new warnings from my GP over the creep towards pre-diabetes. As I lost weight, I've seen my BP and serum glucose readings normalize, albeit slowly. What I found was that my diet, above, helped me lose the crazy sugar swings - afternoon crashes, moodiness - and I could and still do go without breakfast and/or lunch. I don't plan to IF, I just don't miss it, and I'm not crazy hungry or any of it, which indicates to me that some of the insulin resistance issues have been corrected. Since then, I've been a little less stringent over macros and will eat more fruit, tubers, and even some white rice. It doesn't seem to have pushed me back toward anything unhealthy. You will have to try it out for yourself and see what works, but for me and many others here whose starting point was less than perfect (i.e., not workout warriors worrying about body fat % or something), LCHF has had a place at least initially as a corrective.

                  Now, I don't worry about what starches I eat on a daily basis. I just meal plan healthy meals sticking to the basic ideas of Primal, and find myself less inclined to care about the cheat days (Wooo, let's go wild on pizza! is less compelling when you're getting healthier). I had a couple of plums and an apple I didn't get to eat for breakfast because I got caught up in a work whirlwind, so I had some coffee with a little bit of coconut oil in it. I'm not doing bulletproof coffee every day or for some miracle weight loss, it just tasted good with the coconut, and it actually helped tide me over till lunch. Then I had a salad with salmon, HB eggs, tomatoes, cucumber, and homemade buttermilk ranch dressing. Then I ate the plums but saved the apple. It wasn't even a very big salad by my standards, but with all the protein and fat is was very filling.

                  I don't much worry about the PUFAs in nuts, as I don't eat them often, as you apparently do. I don't worry about olive oil in my diet one bit. And I might use almond flour in baking once in a great while, with little concern. I just don't think it's a big deal, really, to use it or not to use it.

                  My brain works fine whether fueled by glucose or ketone bodies. Cf.: Google ketogenic diets for epilepsy and brain cancer - you can fuel the brain fine ketogenically, and the benefit e.g. for someone with brain cancer is that cancer cells can only be fueled by glucose, so that's interesting. This is a rather personal subject for me, as my FiL had (and died of) brain cancer; very late in the game, he took my advice and went keto and saw the tumors shrink by almost 50%. Unfortunately, the cancer won despite that. But as to the point of fueling the brain with glucose, there are many here (Paleobird) who suffer no ill effect without that much glucose for the noggin.

                  There's a lot of conflicting opinion. Science is science, but how you adapt it to your particulars is the art.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
                    I'm not disagreeing that PUFA can lead to insulin resistance, but once insulin resistant the advice to consume carbohydrate is IMO specious. Fix the insulin resistance, then reintroduce carbohydrate.
                    You're not understanding. If this is physiological insulin resistance, which is probably is and not metabolic syndrome, the way to fix it is by eating more carbohydrate and eating less fat.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rmbrich View Post
                      So now I'm confused guys ... I thought the entire premise of LCHF was to live in a constant state of fat metabolism as opposed to carb metabolism. I haven't seen anything in Mark's or Robb Wolf's literature suggesting the mix that Choco is describing, or warning about the dangers of monosaturated fats like nuts and olive oil.
                      That's because they're, frankly, clueless and are largely promoting a product. Your ideal metabolism is glucose metabolism, not fat metabolism. They couldn't be more wrong on this point. Robb's come around a lot on the issue but Mark is too biased for his own good on this point.

                      A constant state of fat metabolism is quite unhealthy for the human condition.

                      I'll get into the rest later when I have some time.
                      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 04-12-2013, 12:01 PM.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Mark's take.

                        An interesting prescription: If you took a glucose tolerance test while on a low carb or ketogenic diet, you would fail. If you need to take such a test (and you want it to be accurate), increase your carbohydrate intake to ~150g for a few days and then take the oral glucose tolerance test. The few days of increased carbohydrate intake will apparently let your body adapt to increased carbohydrate availability and your physiological insulin resistance will go away.

                        Detail on this very subject from Hyperlipid, with some very interesting exchanges in the comments:

                        JohnN said: Hello Peter, A very nice post. The term "insulin resistance" is curious in the absence or very low level of insulin but I know what you mean. Shouldn't we say: without insulin, muscle cells withdraw the glucose transporters and resort to burning fat instead?

                        Peter said: Hi Johnn, I'd certainly agree, insulin resistance is probably not the correct term, but you would still be labelled diabetic if you took an OGTT in this state.

                        Which is what the link just before this one suggests. So before testing serum glucose, perhaps easing off LCHF to "normal" carbohydrate levels of 150 g./day reactivates the insulin response and avoids a false SG reading?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Very interesting ... I may try some more carbs for 3-4 days before my real blood test at the doc and see what the numbers look like.

                          Still, I don't think any of this explains the 341 Trigs number I got.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rmbrich View Post
                            Still, I don't think any of this explains the 341 Trigs number I got.
                            Yeah, it seems freakishly high. But remember, it could be anomalous. If you plot your numbers to a graph over time, it could be proven as an outlier. Just keep eating good food, and doing the right lifestyle things, and it should correct over time.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              Your ideal metabolism is glucose metabolism, not fat metabolism.
                              I disagree with this statment, the ideal metabolism uses BOTH fat and glucose! Glucose as a fuel is only ramped up around meals because the body don't want to store carbohydrates as fat, so it burn as much as possible off as energy/heat. The preferred fuel for low intensity activities is fat for most of the body and glucose for the brain and nerve tissue. When doing high intensity work the body switches over to using glucose as a reserve fuel, and when doing low intensity activities the body, except brain and nerves, run 100 % on fat but with high intensity anaerobic work it run almost 100 % glucose...
                              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                              - Schopenhauer

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Did I understand correctly that these numbers were NOT from a regular blood test but from some quick machine? That may account for your weird numbers.

                                There's no reason for your trigs to be that high based on how you eat. And that LOW HDL is most worrying. As I'm sure you know, 40 is minimum for heart health (mine is typically 95-110).

                                My advice would be to get a standard blood panel, and if the numbers are similar, have a long talk with your doctor. My concern is that if you have these numbers the way you're eating, there may be some other physical problem that is causing this that you are unaware of.

                                By the way, exercise is NOT the 'best' way to raise HDL. It's omega 3s that helps the most.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X