ADVERTISEMENT

1 Year on Keto/Low Carb the results are in...

Friggin dopamine rush from bad carbs is by design; gets you addicted to 'em.

No lie, I smoked for weeks on end in college but could quit whenever I wanted. I drank for months on end (nearly every day of the week) with no addiction issues, I eat some delicious biscuits and gravy and I don’t ever want to stop.

It is what it is, my addition, I finally just said eff it and stayed 99% away from all of it.
 
Yes, it helps with triglycerides, it also helps in raising HDLs. This is where I need help. My LDLs are good.

Honestly if your HDLs are low and your Triglycerides are high chances are you have a high LDL-p count which is bad regardless of what your LDL-c number is saying.

LDL-c isn’t necessarily bad if it is high or good if it is low. If your LDL-p count is high that is bad as it means you have a lot of small LDL particles floating around and small dense LDL partials don’t get recycled in the liver as quickly as large fluffy LDL particles and thus are subjected to further oxidation and glycation which leads to inflammation which leads to them becoming more likely to cause CVD.

It might not be the fish oil that is helping but more fats (fish oil is a fat) in general that are helping. Reduce your carb intake, increase your fats (via mostly healthy fats) and stop eating processed foods and my guess is your lipid profile will Improve greatly.

see link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441126/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69
I eat some delicious biscuits and gravy and I don’t ever want to stop.
I have that addiction also and it is joyous
.
giphy.gif
 
For sure but dude, I love carbs like an alcoholic loves booze and I love booze/being tipsy but I can stop drinking at any time, can’t stop eating delicious carby foods and sweets if I start up.

Seems like you have a diet that works for you. I just don't think there is anything specific to that diet that is an advantage over other diets performed correctly.

Just lower the amounts of these things - mostly junk food/snacks. Keto or not.

Honestly this turns out to be true for me with calorie counting. I skip breakfast, eat a limited lunch but for supper I don't really eat all that much less than I would have before I started dieting. But of course after that I'm usually done. Of course if I have a day where I've eaten low calorie for both lunch and supper I can have a little bit of snacks at night. But even that has to be limited.
 
Seems like you have a diet that works for you. I just don't think there is anything specific to that diet that is an advantage over other diets performed correctly.



Honestly this turns out to be true for me with calorie counting. I skip breakfast, eat a limited lunch but for supper I don't really eat all that much less than I would have before I started dieting. But of course after that I'm usually done. Of course if I have a day where I've eaten low calorie for both lunch and supper I can have a little bit of snacks at night. But even that has to be limited.

The reduction in insulin secretion and insulin circulating in the body provides substantial benefits in a few areas; 1. Weight loss 2. Satiety 3. Inflammation reduction (high/constantly elevated levels of insulin is shown to go hand and hand w inflammation throughout the body and this state is particularly bad for cardiovascular health).

If you are a person w T2 diabetes, insulin resistant/metabolic syndrome, or just have high levels of inflammation then this eating strategy is very beneficial as it is anti-inflammatory in nature. Fasting will work as well but frankly most people are not gonna be able to pull that off, especially if they are still getting a lot of their calories from carbohydrates.

If someone isn’t broken metabolically then just eating clean regardless of macronutrients is probably enough but if decades of eating a Standard American Diet has done some metabolic damage (FYI - numbers coming out that around 65% of adults over 45 have some level of metabolic syndrome...meaning their metabolic system has been damaged) then this approach is showing to be very beneficial towards many.
 
@Joes Place bc I do think you are naturally curious/interested in this sort of stuff, this kind of backs up my hypothesis on what is likely happening in my particular case with LDL-c count and how that is likely changing the makeup of my LDL particle size (increasing the size of LDL particles) and decreasing my LDL-p count. This article even suggest that higher LDL-A particles (large in size particles) lowers ones risk of CVD. It also shows that having a combo of low/normal/well regulated triglycerides and high HDL indicates a larger makeup of LDL-A particles and lesser amount of LDL-B which is a very good thing.

We know that an unhealthy diet can cause high triglycerides, while a healthy diet generally leads to low triglycerides.

One interesting note is that sometimes low triglyceride levels can occur with high LDL levels (which often indicate a higher heart disease risk). If low triglyceride levels lower heart disease risk, but high LDL levels increase it, what can cause this inconsistency?

There are two types of LDL particles that should be taken into account when calculating heart disease risk:

  • LDL-A particles are larger, less dense, and lower your risk.
  • LDL-B particles are smaller, denser, and increase your risk.
When you have low triglyceride levels but high LDL levels, it could indicate that you have a diet filled with healthy fats.

Healthy fats will not only cause an increase in good cholesterol (HDL) but can also change the type of the LDL particles in the blood. Therefore, those high LDL levels may not actually be a bad thing.

Instead, it is more likely that they are LDL particles that have become larger and less dense from the intake of healthy fat. Low triglycerides and high HDL levels in the blood will generally support this idea.

https://www.healthline.com/health/low-triglycerides#causes

Moral of the story: If you get tested as having high cholesterol or high LDL "bad" cholesterol and your doctor wants to put you on a statin you may benefit by having a particle density/count test of your LDL particles to see if you really need to add a drug that sometimes have unfavorable side effects and in many cases don't reduce your risk of CVD/events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
@Joes Place bc I do think you are naturally curious/interested in this sort of stuff, this kind of backs up my hypothesis on what is likely happening in my particular case with LDL-c count and how that is likely changing the makeup of my LDL particle size (increasing the size of LDL particles) and decreasing my LDL-p count. This article even suggest that higher LDL-A particles (large in size particles) lowers ones risk of CVD. It also shows that having a combo of low/normal/well regulated triglycerides and high HDL indicates a larger makeup of LDL-A particles and lesser amount of LDL-B which is a very good thing.

We know that an unhealthy diet can cause high triglycerides, while a healthy diet generally leads to low triglycerides.

One interesting note is that sometimes low triglyceride levels can occur with high LDL levels (which often indicate a higher heart disease risk). If low triglyceride levels lower heart disease risk, but high LDL levels increase it, what can cause this inconsistency?

There are two types of LDL particles that should be taken into account when calculating heart disease risk:

  • LDL-A particles are larger, less dense, and lower your risk.
  • LDL-B particles are smaller, denser, and increase your risk.
When you have low triglyceride levels but high LDL levels, it could indicate that you have a diet filled with healthy fats.

Healthy fats will not only cause an increase in good cholesterol (HDL) but can also change the type of the LDL particles in the blood. Therefore, those high LDL levels may not actually be a bad thing.

Instead, it is more likely that they are LDL particles that have become larger and less dense from the intake of healthy fat. Low triglycerides and high HDL levels in the blood will generally support this idea.

https://www.healthline.com/health/low-triglycerides#causes

Moral of the story: If you get tested as having high cholesterol or high LDL "bad" cholesterol and your doctor wants to put you on a statin you may benefit by having a particle density/count test of your LDL particles to see if you really need to add a drug that sometimes have unfavorable side effects and in many cases don't reduce your risk of CVD/events.

So, is the "take home" here, that the combo of low triglycerides + good HDLs offsets higher LDL levels? Or do you need the breakdown, specifically on the LDL A/B patterns? The A/B profile doesn't appear to be a standard panel test at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
So, is the "take home" here, that the combo of low triglycerides + good HDLs offsets higher LDL levels? Or do you need the breakdown, specifically on the LDL A/B patterns? The A/B profile doesn't appear to be a standard panel test at this point.

Yeah...the breakdown of LDL A/B is not on the standard lipid panel and probably should be if someone has a standard lipid panel that shows high LDL, hell unless it is really expensive it probably should just be part of the standard panel.

Also as the article previously provided and others I have read elsewhere suggests that low or better put controlled (not suggesting ultra low just not high or not even approaching high) with the combo of high HDL suggests a healthy lipid pattern and one where LDL particles will trend more towards LDL-A vs LDL-B improving ones overall CVD risk profile.

If I was someone that fits this type of lipid panel profile I would certainly want to get a LDL particle breakout test before signing up to take any statins.

My doc didn't seem worried about my LDL count at all and suggested that with my HDL count where it was things looked just fine. He knows I am a low carber so it seems as if he has some knowledge in how that can change one lipids, glucose (said he ordered the A1C test bc he suspected my fasting blood glucose might be high bc of eating low carb) and other profiles. The urinalysis was a new test for me and I suspect partially it was to look at a kidney function test but more so to look for any signs of infection or potential cancers (my dad in treatment now for stage 4 prostate cancer), also having me ship some poo to a lab for colon cancer check...I guess I am now at that age.
 
Last edited:
The urinalysis was a new test for me and I suspect partially it was to look at a kidney function test but more so to look for any signs of infection or potential cancers (my dad in treatment now for stage 4 prostate cancer), also having me ship some poo to a lab for colon cancer check...I guess I am now at that age.

Important Insurance Safety Tip:

You CAN get ColoGuard, in lieu of the colonoscopy, and some insurers will fully reimburse for that - but CHECK because only certain labs run that test and if your insurance doesn't use that lab, then you get to pay for it ($600 or so cost). In contrast, colonoscopy is 100% preventive/paid for by insurance from any in-network provider.

Insurance Safety Tip II:

IF you end up with a 'positive' on ColoGuard (pre-cancerous polyp it detects), then a followup colonoscopy is no longer coded as "preventive", it is diagnostic/interventional, and will NOT be covered by most insurance as preventive, so it goes against your deductible. As most of those run $600-$1500, you'll pay for it out of pocket.

Basically, the 'safe route' financially is to just to the colonoscopy, because even if they remove a polyp, it is $0 cost to you. With ColoGuard it's $0 if your insurance is contracted with the right labs, and ONLY IF the test result is 'negative'.

Keep track of those PSAs, as eventually you're going to see them elevate - any individual value isn't as important as seeing big spikes, so a good idea to track them year-year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Important Insurance Safety Tip:

You CAN get ColoGuard, in lieu of the colonoscopy, and some insurers will fully reimburse for that - but CHECK because only certain labs run that test and if your insurance doesn't use that lab, then you get to pay for it ($600 or so cost). In contrast, colonoscopy is 100% preventive/paid for by insurance from any in-network provider.

Insurance Safety Tip II:

IF you end up with a 'positive' on ColoGuard (pre-cancerous polyp it detects), then a followup colonoscopy is no longer coded as "preventive", it is diagnostic/interventional, and will NOT be covered by most insurance as preventive, so it goes against your deductible. As most of those run $600-$1500, you'll pay for it out of pocket.

Basically, the 'safe route' financially is to just to the colonoscopy, because even if they remove a polyp, it is $0 cost to you. With ColoGuard it's $0 if your insurance is contracted with the right labs, and ONLY IF the test result is 'negative'.

Keep track of those PSAs, as eventually you're going to see them elevate - any individual value isn't as important as seeing big spikes, so a good idea to track them year-year.

Track PSAs for sure, especially now, and they have all registered just at or under 1 the previous few years. My pop's got a reading of 142, one of those old timers that just never went to the doctor and in his words "I have just never been sick before so never went", totally different generation and mindset. Good news is after his 6 chemo he was sitting at .35 on his PSA reading and he is now doing radiation treatment as well as a low dose oral chemo pill he will be on the next two years. He seems to be doing well and his PSA velocity downward via his treatments (chemo and hormone) is very encouraging according to medical literature.

Good tip on the poop box.
 
Track PSAs for sure, especially now, and they have all registered just at or under 1 the previous few years. My pop's got a reading of 142, one of those old timers that just never went to the doctor and in his words "I have just never been sick before so never went", totally different generation and mindset. Good news is after his 6 chemo he was sitting at .35 on his PSA reading and he is now doing radiation treatment as well as a low dose oral chemo pill he will be on the next two years. He seems to be doing well and his PSA velocity downward via his treatments (chemo and hormone) is very encouraging according to medical literature.

Good tip on the poop box.

I had an uncle who was the same way- never went to the doctor to track anything - always healthy otherwise, and ended up with metastatic prostate cancer. Ended up in a hospital bed for the last 6+ months of his life.
 
I had an uncle who was the same way- never went to the doctor to track anything - always healthy otherwise, and ended up with metastatic prostate cancer. Ended up in a hospital bed for the last 6+ months of his life.

They weren't able to identify any cancer spread to his bones (he had some scans and biopsies) or further than regional lymphnodes and even then they were not 100% sure what they were seeing was cancer in the regional lymphs. His stage was as high as it was bc the cancer cells seemed to encompass every his entire prostate and did reach the seminal vesicle, he was originally staged at 2 but they upped it to 4 based on his score and the spread of the cancer cells within his prostate. His doctors seem very hopeful and he seems to be doing very well physically and emotionally.
 
Haven’t gone through the white paper, but heard this referenced on a podcast this week. Certainly I am not advocating staying fat past 40.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...h/weight-gain-loss-premature-death/index.html

In what he described as a limitation of the research, Pan said that the study did not include an analysis of the reason for later-in-life weight loss. One factor that could play a role was whether the weight loss was intentional or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Just had my annual physical and after having been low carbing it for nearly a year now (11 months to be specific) so what have I ruined my health or improved it. Lets look at some of my health markers and I will let you decide.

Weight: Down 45 pounds

Result = Improved

Blood Pressure - Typical Measurements
Before: Entering High Category typically 130+/85+
Now: Normal Just under 120-/75-

Result = Improved

Cholesterol
Before
Total: 176
HDL: 62
LDL: 98
Triglycerides: 78
Total Cholesterol/HDL-C Ratio: 2.8
LDL/HDL Ratio: 1.6

Now
Total: 216
HDL: 76
LDL: 121
Triglycerides: 96
Total Cholesterol/HDL-C Ratio: 2.8
LDL/HDL Ratio: 1.6

Results = Push (HDL jumping matches LDL jump although I suspect that this is actually a benefit as my guess is I have changed my LDL profile from having many small LDL partials now mostly large LDL particles but since I have not had a partical density test performed I will keep it as a Push).

Note: I had 2 separate cholesterol measurements in between these. One was higher than it was now (that was during a huge weight loss sprint I was currently in) and one was lower. All along my ratios have stayed very close to what is shown as the before which shows cholesterol varies quite a bit but it appears your body is adept at regulating your ratios as needs within the body change. I have read that your body is responsible for 80%+ of your cholesterol production with the rest being dietary, so it makes sense that your body would make an adjustment on what it is producing based on what it is getting from diet.


Fasting Blood Sugars and A1C

Before
Fasting: 86 (morning appointment)
A1C: Not Tested

After
Fasting: 101 (morning appointment)
A1C: 4.9 (tested per my request)

Results = Slight Advantage

Why a slight Advantage? That fasting blood sugar level would throw up red flags for most but it is a result of what is called Physiological Induced Insulin Resistance. Healthline.com states: Low-carb diets reduce the harmful insulin resistance linked to metabolic disease, though they may induce a harmless type of insulin resistance that spares blood sugar for your brain.

What is happening here is the dawn effect of increased blood sugars is lasting longer as insulin levels are kept much lower thus blood sugars stay higher a bit longer bc of these overall lower insulin levels. The A1C number of 4.9 may not be considered excellent but then again maybe it is, anything 5.0 and under is shown to be very positive in terms of cardiovascular health. I honestly think my A1C would have been much higher before making this switch in my eating habits but obviously I have no proof. Less insulin running around also means less inflammation which is a very good thing for cardiovascular health.

Liver Function Tests = Push (no major changes, if lower numbers are better they have lowered a bit but were never high)
Thyroid Function Tests = Push (no major changes, if lower numbers are better they have lowered a bit but were never high)

Inflammation Markers = Advantage
No specific blood measurements for this but based on what we are seeing above; good glucose control, lower insulin levels, higher HDL, and generally felling 10 times better in my joints I can tell my body has lost a lot of inflammation it once held on to.

The Final Results: Outside of missing out on some awesome tasting foods (there are still a lot of awesome tasting foods you can still eat though) I don't see any negative consequences of eating a more clean diet that severely restricts carbohydrates/sugar intake and replacing much of those calories with higher quality and saturated fat foods. You will likely loose weight (my wife choose to eat the same way, didn't have a lot to lose like I did but went from 135-140 pounds before at 5'5" and now fluctuates between 120-125, not bad for 40+ years old) without a change in exercise habits. Your blood sugar control will likely improve, your insulin levels and thus your inflammation markers will get better and you will feel better as a result, your blood pressure will likely improve and with all of those things happening it is likely that your cardiovascular health will get better. Hell if you are a diabetic T2 you are likely to need less medication/insulin, you will likely be able to decrease/get off blood pressure meds, you will likely have to buy new smaller clothing, and finally you will likely get banged more often.

Only down side if if you want to get super pumped or are in a high impact/explosive sport you will want more carbs but post 40 I really don't GAF about that stuff anymore and frankly none of you guys here are elite athletes. Athletic sure but you all ain't competing in our next Olympics.

One other side benefit, is you will get loose on booze a bit quicker and with much less quantity, boozing is an area I just have not given up however I have moved from drinking mostly beers to now mostly red wine and bourbons...the red wine uptake also helps with getting banged by Mrs unIowa more frequently.

Come at me HROT medical chirpers.

Great job! Have you considered a statin for the cholesterol?
 
Congrats. Might as well share since I have updated data.

May/June of 2018 345 pounds
Did a lot of months of strict keto but more protein and lower fat.
Switched up to high protein, moderate carbs (around 100g), lower fat.
Now, I basically have a calorie number I want to hit.

Currently at 200. I weight every day, average it out and have maintained around there for a long time. Lowest weight was 176, mostly around 185.

BP: 108/65
Total Cholesterol: 192
HDL: 75
Tris: 66
LDL: 104
NonHDL: 117
Ratio: 2.6
Fasting Glucose: 78

Waist down to 34. Shirt went from 4XL to M or L. Most importantly, I can play all day with my sons, I feel comfortable, I'm not embarrassed in public, etc.
 
Great job! Have you considered a statin for the cholesterol?

Oh boy, here we go. Better keep reading on in the thread if you want to learn a bit more about cholesterol.

Or just watch this for a small bit of what has been discussed regarding cholesterol:

It appears the biggest benefit one gets out of a statin is they appear to be anti-inflammatory, the actual reduction of cholesterol may or may not actually be of that much benefit from one person to the next.
 
Congrats. Might as well share since I have updated data.

May/June of 2018 345 pounds
Did a lot of months of strict keto but more protein and lower fat.
Switched up to high protein, moderate carbs (around 100g), lower fat.
Now, I basically have a calorie number I want to hit.

Currently at 200. I weight every day, average it out and have maintained around there for a long time. Lowest weight was 176, mostly around 185.

BP: 108/65
Total Cholesterol: 192
HDL: 75
Tris: 66
LDL: 104
NonHDL: 117
Ratio: 2.6
Fasting Glucose: 78

Waist down to 34. Shirt went from 4XL to M or L. Most importantly, I can play all day with my sons, I feel comfortable, I'm not embarrassed in public, etc.


giphy.gif
 
Congrats. Might as well share since I have updated data.

May/June of 2018 345 pounds
Did a lot of months of strict keto but more protein and lower fat.
Switched up to high protein, moderate carbs (around 100g), lower fat.
Now, I basically have a calorie number I want to hit.

Currently at 200. I weight every day, average it out and have maintained around there for a long time. Lowest weight was 176, mostly around 185.

BP: 108/65
Total Cholesterol: 192
HDL: 75
Tris: 66
LDL: 104
NonHDL: 117
Ratio: 2.6
Fasting Glucose: 78

Waist down to 34. Shirt went from 4XL to M or L. Most importantly, I can play all day with my sons, I feel comfortable, I'm not embarrassed in public, etc.
Awesome job!!!
 
Congrats. Might as well share since I have updated data.

May/June of 2018 345 pounds
Did a lot of months of strict keto but more protein and lower fat.
Switched up to high protein, moderate carbs (around 100g), lower fat.
Now, I basically have a calorie number I want to hit.

Currently at 200. I weight every day, average it out and have maintained around there for a long time. Lowest weight was 176, mostly around 185.

BP: 108/65
Total Cholesterol: 192
HDL: 75
Tris: 66
LDL: 104
NonHDL: 117
Ratio: 2.6
Fasting Glucose: 78

Waist down to 34. Shirt went from 4XL to M or L. Most importantly, I can play all day with my sons, I feel comfortable, I'm not embarrassed in public, etc.
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Holy Shit.....that's fantastic!!!
 
In what he described as a limitation of the research, Pan said that the study did not include an analysis of the reason for later-in-life weight loss. One factor that could play a role was whether the weight loss was intentional or not.

read that and agree it’s an important note, but what is underlined includes e word “could,” which is anything but a definitive reason. With that being pointed out, it leads me to believe (without reading entire study), that there are some issues with the scope of such study...what all they looked at and took into account (admittedly so by the study itself). It is certainly the opposite of what I preach to friends and family.

the podcast I was listening to only briefly discussed, and brought it as a comical argument to their main point (mainly discussing the advantages former active/athletic people have when “rejoining” the morning competitive lifestyle years later).
 
Last edited:
Wow, man! The results are gorgeous! Congratulations! More advantages than disadvantages. And I understand perfectly what you're talking about. I've been following the keto diet for over a year now, and I feel great. I feel so much better than before I started. This is because we eat a few carbohydrates. From all the four types of the keto diet, I chose the basic one, i.e., the simple keto diet that relies more on fats such as butter, vegetable oils, etc. Besides the fact that I lost weight, my body feels much, much better. I am so satisfied :)






__________________________________________
The link: https://ar.mevolv.com/ketodiet-نظام-الكيتو/
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT