Paleo/Primal for 6 months, blood glucose / cholesterol up?!
I recently had some blood work done after having been following the paleo/primal diet for approximately 6 months (the first three months of which included dairy, but I had since dropped that as well). My only divergence would be the grass-fed whey I take in 3x/week to attain the 1g/lb of protein and help recover from a 5x / week training schedule (heavy lifting, cross-fit, sprints, etc.). I'm a 26 y/o male, 6'1" and 190lb. I'm quite lean, and have never felt better since starting the diet. The problem is, my blood work indicates a general worsening of a number of health barometers that has me concerned and frustrated.
I used to be a 400g/CHO per day guy - consuming mass amounts of cereal, oatmeal, breads, pastas, etc. to fuel my 6-mile/day runs AND daily body-building-like weight training sessions. Since that point in time, I've cut carbs down to around 100/day, increased my protein and fat intake (lots of eggs), and changed my training methods significantly - as mentioned above.
Here is my blood work. Any feedback would be truly welcomed and appreciated! What's going on?
Glucose - 100 mg/dl **probably my biggest concern / shock
Cholesterol (Total) - 197 mg/dl
Triglycerides - 66 mg/dl
HDL - 64 mg/dl
VLDL - 13.2 mg/dl
LDL - 119.8 mg/dl
Even with the increase, none of those numbers are a problem. They increased within the normal range, I wouldn't be concerned. To get a better understanding of your cholesterol and why it's not a big deal, read Griff's Cholesterol Primer http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread4723.html
That was awesome - thanks so much for the link!!! Any ideas regarding the glucose - as I can now safely put the cholesterol issue to rest after calculating using the "Iranian" method, and verifying some of my ratios?
Normal fasting glucose is 70-125 mg/dl, so you're in the clear there too
>> Normal fasting glucose is 70-125 mg/dl, so you're in the clear there too
eh, the 101-120 range is considered pre-diabetic; I wouldn't call it "normal". 100 is somewhat borderline, but it isn't anything to panic about. It's quite possible that on a different day, his reading might have been in the 90s, which is close to normal. One useful site I found recommends aiming for a fasting reading of 83 mg/dl or below:
Healthy fasting blood sugar levels
This site says: "Though most doctors will tell you any fasting blood sugar under 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/L) is "normal", there are several studies that suggest that testing with a fasting blood sugar in the mid 90 mg/dl (5 mmol/L) range often predicts diabetes that is diagnosed a decade later."
Again, the 100 reading isn't terrible, just something to keep your eye on.
Last edited by healthseekerKate; 03-20-2011 at 09:29 AM.
100 converts to 5.6 mmol/L that is NOT diabetes or even pre-diabetes. Even the high end of 125 is 6.9 mmol/L which isn't considered hyperglycemic. Homeostatic blood glucose levels are 4-6.1, those are the optimal levels for body function. Now some people can function on even lower then that or stay consistently at the higher end. Each person is different. To obtain a diagnosis of diabetes a patient must have a level in excess of 125 consecutively for multiple screenings.
And pre-diabetes progressing to diabetes a decade later would indicate Type II diabetes which is a 95% preventable (through diet/exercise) disease. The genetic components of Type II aren't typical you have it or you don't, it's a combination of genetic mutations that contribute to symptoms that cause Type II, the mutations themselves do not cause Type II.
While the OP may want to remember their number for the next time, to compare where their levels are, it's a little fear-mongering to hint at being pre-diabetic for ONE fasting glucose level that's mid range on acceptable levels.
Thanks bionicsamm - that makes sense.
Any idea why this number would go up on a fairly strict paleo diet - particularly based on where I'm coming from at this time last year - which was a diet heavy in grains/dairy and carbs in general (easily 350-400g/day)....
I would have thought based on the dramatic change in diet - this number, above all others, would have dropped considerably.