Have you had high cholesterol – How successful have you been in lowering your numbers .

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, BigStar said:

Another straw man argument. @scubascuba3once came up the with the brilliant eating too much cheese can make you fat.

Jeez, argumentative much?

Here's a link to explain what I meant by 'too much'. 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by save the frogs

[KhunLA]

21 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Jeez, argumentative much?

Here's a link to explain what I meant by 'too much'. 

 

Again, 1 size doesn't fit all.

 

Return to hospital after my 'procedure', and sent to therapist.  She wanted to check my BP under stress, just after exercise, suggest a treadmill for 6 minute and walk as fast as I'm comfortable doing.

 

I pointed out, I don't do impact aerobics (herniated discs) and asked about a stationary bike, which they did have and agreed on.  Finally set up so I could actually fit on it (damn short legged people), and away I go.

 

Holy Krap, 1st gear-ish on a 21 gear bike.  So I adjusted the tension, and pedaled away.  She & assistant are like 'whoa, where you going, too much, don't try to impress us' ... I'm like ... really, I do 30-50kms a day when cycling, and this is normal speed for me.  Wife is laughing ... you people have no idea what this old guy can do on a bike.

 

Assistant (male) hopped on after I was done, and he couldn't spin the pedal, tension, as was too much for him ... ????  Needless to say, I didn't return to her therapy for a follow up, as she stated, most don't.

 

When crappy weather and I feel like using the stationary at the house when bored, I do that for 20 minutes.  Work up a good sweat.

 

My back keeps me from impact aerobics, where others may have issues with their ankles or knees.  Or if just starting out, still carrying too much weight to stress out their joints ... so '1 size does not fit all'.

Edited December 25, 2022 by KhunLA

[scubascuba3]

3 hours ago, BigStar said:

It depends, but they may tend to lead to insulin resistance over time. I've given some references above somewhere. The obese and diabetic all started off with "no problem." 

If they monitor along the way it won't lead to obesity or diabetes. Often these people on extreme Keto and IF type diets were obese, probably high BP, which made them switch to an extreme diet, no need to if you eat a balanced diet and don't let yourself get fat

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, BigStar said:

Owing to an insulin drop from the previous spke . . .

 

so continuing the cycle of spikes and drops

 

I agree. And it's even nicer not feeling hungry between meals, feels even better.

 

If I were you, I'd get an OGTT, which you haven't had. Couple of things you're doing good, like staying away from junk food. And you're in effect calorie restricting and burning off some, maybe a lot, of the carbs via exercise, given the supposed VO2max of 50. We have another member doing much the same thing, and taking berberine. Once a pre-diabetic, if he stops exercising, he gets fat. 

The exercise guys who get fat when they stop exercise usually have terrible eating and drinking habits, mainly too much

[scubascuba3]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Same here, as seems no matter what you state, unless agreeing completely with BS & his expert, you're wrong.  Went a step further and simply ignored, as the few he hasn't chased off may have something interesting to add.

Very true, it could be because his diet is just beef steak and diet coke, he might be a nicer person if he carbs up ????

[matador007]

Check out NaturalNews.com for Cholesterol or any ailment, just search at top.

For example: https://www.naturalnews.com/search.asp?query=High+Cholesterol

 

Its showing a few articles that Cholesterol is not necessarily a bad thing.  That said, as some other posters wrote, healthier food in gets you on the right track.

 

Cheers to a good & healthy 2023 !

[connda]

Yes I do.  I don't worry about it.  If you do worry about it, link the medical studies which conclusively prove (i.e., statistical significant) that high cholesterol - by itself - causes heart attacks.  Best of luck.

Now - high cholesterol and certain lifestyle choices (smoking for instance) - different story.  Damage your circulatory system and - yep - cholesterol will fill in that damage. 

If you're worried though?  Keep taking the statins.  Just get your liver and kidneys checked regularly.
"Statins are perfectly safe!!!" 
Ok!  I said, keep taking them.

[connda]

Just now, connda said:

Yes I do.  I don't worry about it.  If you do worry about it, link the medical studies which conclusively prove (i.e., statistical significant) that high cholesterol - by itself - causes heart attacks.  Best of luck.

Now - high cholesterol and certain lifestyle choices (smoking for instance) - different story.  Damage your circulatory system and - yep - cholesterol will fill in that damage. 

If you're worried though?  Keep taking the statins.  Just get your liver and kidneys checked regularly.
"Statins are perfectly safe!!!" 
Ok!  I said, keep taking them.

Get your Covid vaccinations and boosters regularly too.
Safe and Effective! 

[BigStar]

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Jeez, argumentative much?

Here's a link to explain what I meant by 'too much'. 

 

Right. Don't become an elite runner. Our forum members will all keep that in mind in their attempts to lose weight and control their metabolic syndromes.

 

So I think this relieves them of any responsibility for their own conditions, and there's just no choice but to be weak and sick.????

 

Thank you. Let's all check our doc appts.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by BigStar

[BigStar]

3 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

If they monitor along the way it won't lead to obesity or diabetes.

If they do that, then they'll cut down on the sugar and carbs and therefore the spikes. That would definitely be a good thing. Or they could just cut down in the first place and not worry much about monitoring. ????

Edited December 25, 2022 by BigStar

[Rimmer]

Argumentative baiting post removed

[Mark Nothing]

The objective of healthcare is to maximize profits using the facade of caring for the health and vitality of the patient.  Disregard the test results as self serving nonsense.

 

I threw my last physical results in the garbage. I no longer believe in the bogus test results, breakthrough discoveries, wild unfounded theories, tablets with side affects and other sales gimmicks designed to juice their bottom line profits.

 

Instead I learned how to manage and maintain the human body and immune system at optimal levels with common sense.  Most ailments result from what you are eating or what is eating at you. So quit poisoning yourself and control your mental state.

 

 Enjoy your life and don't take the test results too seriously.

 

[jerrymahoney]

2 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Enjoy your life and don't take the test results too seriously.

... or, enjoy your test results and don't take your life too seriously.

[save the frogs]

5 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Very true, it could be because his diet is just beef steak and diet coke, he might be a nicer person if he carbs up ????

Interesting theory. Extremely low carb may make people highly irritable and argumentative on internet forums.

Have a banana, people!

[scubascuba3]

23 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Interesting theory. Extremely low carb may make people highly irritable and argumentative on internet forums.

Have a banana, people!

a friend of mine is a runner and other runners were convinced he should go low carb, anyway he tried it, didn't work for him, switched back to high carb after talking to me and is much better all round now, energy, performance, mood

[save the frogs]

not sure long distance running is a good idea. 

i think it decreases muscle mass. and possibly increases risk of heart attack.

anyway, i will quit the thread because this conversation will go on forever. 

 

[BigStar]

22 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Interesting theory. Extremely low carb may make people highly irritable and argumentative on internet forums.

I don't follow an extremely low carb diet or a so-called extreme diet. Nor am I in the least irritable, but in fact quite mellow with every reason to be. Now, one might as well argue that a low-fat diet makes people stupid and so claim that others are irritable, but I wouldn't do that.????

 

Yawn. Nor is my life "hard" in any way, enjoying my life at the beach. Now, to throw out a bone, it was a little harder during COVID 'cause the Russian hotties weren't enhancing the scenery as before. But they're back, so all's good. Had a nice walk out there today. 

 

Having a laugh at the nonsense here is merely part of the fun. I chuckle through most of my posts, unless some rare poster is actually making a useful, informative, evidence-based point or is seriously asking for help. Maybe ask your gut to help you lighten up.

 

Lies, demonizing, and further personal attacks will be reported for attitude adjustment. Seen it work wonders. Enough's enough. If your gut doesn't like to be contradicted by scientific studies, too bad. Suck it up, or rather in.

 

Come up with some verified, informative information other than the meaningless "follow your gut," whose efficacy you haven't and are afraid to verify. Quite a lot of gut followers in Thailand over the years, though.

 

 

It's always an option. While I'm at it, I'll dispense again with the usual straw man, or whinge, that "individual differences aren't taken into consideration." Oh, they always are in low carb. Here's our anti-christ himself, Gary Taubes, in Why We Get Fat:

 

. . . there’s no one-size-fits-all prescription for the quantity of carbohydrates we can eat and still lose fat or remain lean. For some, staying lean or getting back to being lean might be a matter of merely avoiding sugars and eating the other carbohydrates in the diet, even the fattening ones, in moderation: pasta dinners once a week, say, instead of every other day. For others, moderation in carbohydrate consumption might not be sufficient, and far stricter adherence is necessary. And for some, weight will be lost only on a diet of virtually zero carbohydrates, and even this may not be sufficient to eliminate all our accumulated fat, or even most of it. . . .

 

Note the principle SHOULD apply elsewhere as well but often doesn't:

 

A blanket recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains, as Oz prescribes and now Weight Watchers and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, ignores this aspect of human variability completely. It assumes that people who are predisposed to fatten can tolerate the same foods and benefit from the same very mild dose of carb-restriction that the naturally lean can.

     --Gary Taubes

 

Advice to diet and get fit by any knowledgeable, responsible authority always takes into account individual differences. And it's universally good advice.

 

Maybe the objection really amounts to it doesn't take into account individual laziness and pig-headedness? And the blood lipid markers always show a normal range. Range. Insisting you're healthy while your markers say you're in risk territory, or not even knowing what they are, is always up to you, but does seem foolish to me.

 

I don't at all mind agreeing to disagree. Why should I? I'm good. 

 

22 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Have a banana, people!

Sounds singularly appropriate.

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by BigStar

[BigStar]

21 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

a friend of mine is a runner and other runners were convinced he should go low carb, anyway he tried it, didn't work for him, switched back to high carb after talking to me and is much better all round now, energy, performance, mood

Friend of mine isn't a runner, went on low carb, lost 20 kg, energy, mobility, mood, well-being all improved markedly. COVID hit, went back on high carb, had heart attack, still in hospital trying to recover.

 

Little comforting anecdotes, the real coin of this realm. Let's all go over to

 

https://reddit.com/r/lowcarb/

https://reddit.com/r/keto/

https://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php

 

And copy in a few hundred anecdotes from there.

 

BTW, amid all the noise and hostility, the few curious might take a look here:

https://reddit.com/r/lowcarb/wiki/faq

 

 

[save the frogs]

3 hours ago, BigStar said:

I don't follow an extremely low carb diet or a so-called extreme diet. Nor am I in the least irritable,

Generally speaking, I am in agreement that low-carb is healthy.

The only exception being fruit. 

I started eating a considerable amount of fruit, which as you know is high carb.

So I don't consider myself low-carb anymore, but I don't eat other types of carbs (apart from cheat meals).

So we are generally in agreement.

Fruit seems controversial. Many experts warn against fruit due to high carb content, high fructose levels, and high glycemic index.

And my main point was despite the risks of high glycemic index and high carbs being a problem, low carb diets lacks electrolytes.

Low carb diets are low in magnesium, potassium.

Low carb diets lack Vitamin C. There's no Vitamin C in meat, eggs ...

That was my main point.

I will not repeat it ad nauseum and engage in an endless ping pong match.

Not will I quote scientific literature. Any adult should be able to use google to look things up.

Apart from this one video.

You can see both doctors very nervously discussing fruit due to its hugh sugar content. But one doctor admits that one study showed that consumption of fruit did not negatively impact metabolic syndrome. 

 I suppose you can restrict yourself to low-glycemic berries, but I don't. 

Peace out.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by save the frogs

[BigStar]

On 12/25/2022 at 8:13 PM, save the frogs said:

anyway, i will quit the thread because this conversation will go on forever. 

You’re ba-a-ack. BTW, this isn't an airport, so you really don’t need to announce your departure. Reminds me a bit of our Leaving Thailand malcontents always making a series of extended announcements with fanfare and self-satisfying parting shots.

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Generally speaking, I am in agreement that low-carb is healthy.

Good. Laudably intelligent.

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The only exception being fruit. 

I started eating a considerable amount of fruit, which as you know is high carb.

So I don't consider myself low-carb anymore, but I don't eat other types of carbs (apart from cheat meals).

So we are generally in agreement.

If you actually knew anything about low carb diets, you'd know that fruit isn't an exception. Low carb is defined by amount, not type. Any substitutions are possible, if not necessarily in your own self-interest.

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Fruit seems controversial. Many experts warn against fruit due to high carb content, high fructose levels, and high glycemic index.

The warning is merely that high glycemic fruits make it more difficult to maintain a low carb count. True. CR diets will say the same thing in reference to calories.

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

And my main point was despite the risks of high glycemic index and high carbs being a problem, low carb diets lacks electrolytes.

This was never among any of your points, let alone a main point. Nor must low carb diets lack electrolytes, unless of course you perversely choose foods lacking them. Wrong.

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Low carb diets are low in magnesium, potassium.

Low carb diets lack Vitamin C. There's no Vitamin C in meat, eggs ...

That just all depends on your low carb food choices. You can certainly meet estimated daily requirements, if unofficially estimated, by choosing low carb foods with larger amounts of those minerals.

 

Low carb doesn't mean eating only meat and eggs.???? I dunno what ". . ." means, but obviously not all those veggies included, even mandated, in low carb. And fruits are included, of course.

 

So the problem comes down to a familiar one on the forum: you don’t know what a low carb diet is, while making nonsensical, false claims about it.

 

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I will not repeat it ad nauseum and engage in an endless ping pong match.

Not will I quote scientific literature. Any adult should be able to use google to look things up.

It's better not to repeat false claims at all, so we're especially grateful. I wouldn't call it a match. Your main point's been refuted. 

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Apart from this one video.

You can see both doctors very nervously discussing fruit due to its hugh sugar content. But one doctor admits that one study showed that consumption of fruit did not negatively impact metabolic syndrome. 

No, you can't see that with objective vision. The imagined nervousness is merely projection on your part. It’s a rapid, intense discussion typical of Peter Attia interviews. He's quite aggressive.

 

And they’re discussing fructose, not sugar per se. The issue is fructose added into junk food vs natural fructose from fruits (not fruit juice). Overall, the conclusion to that will be inevitable.

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

But one doctor admits that one study showed that consumption of fruit did not negatively impact metabolic syndrome. 

Not an “admission” (laughable) but merely a statement of results gained from a particular study relevant to the discussion about fructose.

 

Attia didn’t drill down to the specifics of the study so that the naive and gullible  un“able to use google to look things up” wouldn’t be misled. ‘Course, they probably couldn’t understand it if they did look it up, making Attia’s omission doubly unfortunate.

 

But I looked it up and read it in full. You can find an abstract here:

The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial

 

and then go find the full text in .pdf form.

 

It’s overall a good study, unlike the silly Mediterranean diet study referenced earlier in this thread.

 

But the conditions are very narrow: the participants were all on a low isocaloric diet for weight loss. What that meant was that since the “moderate” group got more fructose (from fruits), the “low” group had to make up the non-fructose calories in some other way. And that was by eating more cereal. A lot more, like 26% more. What cereal? Didn’t say. Could be Cap'n Crunch. Calories remained the same, but the "low" group ended up with higher glycemic levels. Oh.

The study admits this limitation:

In addition, patients in the very low fructose diet had a higher glycemic index and glycemic load, as this was necessary to maintain equivalent carbohydrate content. Diets with high glycemic load result in higher postprandial insulin concentration, which has been associated with hunger and overeating [20]. In our study, glycemic load was confounded with diet groups and caloric intake; and therefore, it was not possible to discern its specific effects.

 

Right. And this is rather glossed it over in the conclusion to the study.

 

In conclusion, diets low in fructose from added sugars result in a significant improvement in weight, blood pressure, metabolic syndrome parameters, serum sICAM-1, and quality of life scores.

 

Both low carb calorie-restricted diets performed well in the secondary measures. ‘Course, most calorie-restricted diets would do the same, though low carb generally does better.

 

Then this:

 For weight loss achievement, a moderate natural fructose diet was superior to a low-fructose diet.

 

This was interesting, but wrong. Not “a” moderate natural fructose diet, but this particular one, in which fruit stood in for cereal, a starch. The caloric value of the fruit had to be chosen in such a way as to keep the “moderate” total calories very nearly the same as in the low fructose diet.

 

Such a diet may offer greater benefits than other energy-restriction diets, as it does not entail the restriction of total carbohydrate intake and hence may be more sustainable.

 

Misleading, though it admits it’s limited to “energy-restriction” diets. It did entail the restriction of substituting fruit for a starch, and the "low" group did have “a higher glycemic index and glycemic load.”

 

So: fruit calories would be better than cereal calories, or "lower glycemic" wins.

 

That makes sense: more nutrients, more fiber, more anti-oxidants. In this study, a lower glycemic load. More sustainable? Would people consistently choose fruit over their beloved cereal? More likely, they’ll just eat both.????

 

So, that’s all cleared up. Fairly useless, come down to it, but a vindication for better nutrition, as would be predicted, starches being at the bottom of the scale. ????

 

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 I suppose you can restrict yourself to low-glycemic berries, but I don't. 

Up to you, who cares? Nobody said you had to and low carb diets don't mandate it.

 

I do when the choice is easy because berries, besides low on the glycemic index, are at the top of the heap for nutrition and flavonols. The frozen 1kg bags are very convenient and relatively cheap. For the overweight or obese trying to lose weight, they--and fruits such as olives, avocados, and tomatoes--are by far the best choice until they get their weight down and can add more carbs as their metabolism can take them. Atkins himself made this point.

 

I’m rather a creature of habit, as many living a fitness lifestyle are. I noticed Dan Go, a reputable guru in the new paradigm, tweeted today:

 

All of the fittest people I know (who are not pro athletes) are doing the same workouts, eating the same foods & sleeping well.

 

They’re focused on doing the boring things consistently.

 

Variety can be highly overrated, esp. when your glucose is under control.

Edited December 27, 2022 by BigStar

[save the frogs]

you actually took the effort to look into the study.

you are more ambitious than i am.

since you scrutinize and read more than the average person, you should do fairly well with your health.

most people are not taking any time or effort. 

 

[TheFishman1]

I was taking a cholesterol pill every night before I went to sleep, but then in the morning I was getting like cramps like Charley horses in my leg after I go to bed in a few minutes, he went away, but it was an extreme a lot of pain, so I started taking 

—CoQ10 it within two days. I’ve absolutely no pain in my legs I would wake up in the morning. The doctor switched me to a different cholesterol medicine. I noticed when I stopped taking the CO Q 10 the pain will start again in my legs like severe Charlie horses every morning.