Low carb and lipids

[donheff]

Fun LCHF maintenance treat:

1 serving 5% Greek yoghurt
1 tsp liquid sugar sub (ex: liquid Splenda)
1/2 tsp vanilla

Add unsweetened berries, other flavor extracts and 1/2 square chopped 85% chocolate
(I like raspberries, DH's fave is peppermint extract)

+1 I've been eating that for years. I just stir in a pack of powdered Splenda.

 

[audreyh1]

Haven’t tried that. I’m not much of a desserts/sweets person except for dark chocolate!

 

[Lakedog]

Well. I'm joining you in the boat bmcgonig! I got my lipids back today.

I had my lipids done a couple of weeks before I started on the ketogenic diet, and then again after 90 days on the ketogenic diet.

• Dramatic drop in triglycerides as expected. It dropped 40% - down to 85. Still a little above the 80 target my doc wants.
• HDL stayed the same - a bit of a surprise. Although last time it was up 10 compared to last September and the highest I had ever seen.
• LDL up 30 points! Surprise - oops.

So - LDL and thus total look worse. However, the triglycerides/HDL ratio is much improved. It dropped from 2.25 to 1.37. I'm very happy with that.

After going LCHF, my triglycerides dropped to a low of 25 but usually stay in the 35-45 range now. HDL rose from high 40s to low 80s, so my trig/HDL ratio is typically in the 0.35 to 0.5 range.

LDL did increase 25-30 points and remains higher than before going LCHF but total is below 200.

 

[RAE]

After going LCHF, my triglycerides dropped to a low of 25 but usually stay in the 35-45 range now. HDL rose from high 40s to low 80s, so my trig/HDL ratio is typically in the 0.35 to 0.5 range.

Wow, less than 0.5 is amazing.......very impressive. Mine is typically around 0.7 or 0.8, but I do eat more carbs than someone on a typical LCHF diet.

 

[tmm99]

I have been reading this thread with interest although I'm not low-carbing. I have low-carbed in the past, and I even did the LFHF diet for a while a couple of years ago.

I've received my blood test results recently, and I have a question.

I have been eating everything I see the last several months (including starchy carbs), and my A1C went up from 5.7 when I was semi-lowcarbing to 6 (prediabetic range). Despite that, my triglycerides went down to 40 (very low), and my HDL was 59 which put my Tri/HDL ratio in a nice and low range at 0.68... But this doesn't make any sense, does it? Isn't the triglycerides supposed to be high if you're insulin resistant like myself with A1C in the prediabetic range?

 

[audreyh1]

I have been reading this thread with interest although I'm not low-carbing. I have low-carbed in the past, and I even did the LFHF diet for a while a couple of years ago.

I've received my blood test results recently, and I have a question.

I have been eating everything I see the last several months (including starchy carbs), and my A1C went up from 5.7 when I was semi-lowcarbing to 6 (prediabetic range). Despite that, my triglycerides went down to 40 (very low), and my HDL was 59 which put my Tri/HDL ratio in a nice and low range at 0.68... But this doesn't make any sense, does it? Isn't the triglycerides supposed to be high if you're insulin resistant like myself with A1C in the prediabetic range?

That is interesting. In your case, yes, it would seem that your triglycerides should be high. People vary in how their lipids work.

However, your A1C has clearly been sounding the diabetes warning bell (via pre-diabetes indication), so you know what you are risking......

And diabetes itself increases CVD risk dramatically.

 

[Golden sunsets]

I am a bit nervous about transition to maintenance. Far less is written about that.

Plus one on that thought. That's where I always inevitably stumble, although the last time I was on a low carb diet I notice that my weight stayed the same for three years in a row at my annual physical. I'm hoping that I know a lot more now then I did then and will choose carbs selectively, rather than just going off low carb entirely.

 

[RAE]

I've received my blood test results recently, and I have a question.

I have been eating everything I see the last several months (including starchy carbs), and my A1C went up from 5.7 when I was semi-lowcarbing to 6 (prediabetic range). Despite that, my triglycerides went down to 40 (very low), and my HDL was 59 which put my Tri/HDL ratio in a nice and low range at 0.68... But this doesn't make any sense, does it? Isn't the triglycerides supposed to be high if you're insulin resistant like myself with A1C in the prediabetic range?

From what I've read, the TG/HDL ratio works best as a predictor/indicator of cardiovascular disease when the TG number is above 40. In any case, though, your TG/HDL ratio is probably fine.....it's the A1C I would be concerned about. 6.0 indicates some degree of insulin resistance. A lot of the stuff I read indicates that you really want to be at about 5.5 or below, if at all possible. If I were you I would really make an effort to cut back on the carbs, particularly refined grains and anything with added sugar.

 

[RAE]

Plus one on that thought. That's where I always inevitably stumble, although the last time I was on a low carb diet I notice that my weight stayed the same for three years in a row at my annual physical. I'm hoping that I know a lot more now then I did then and will choose carbs selectively, rather than just going off low carb entirely.

Yeah, I think choosing carbs selectively is the key. There is really nothing evil about carbs, per se.......I think the things you really want to avoid are anything made from refined grains, and anything with added sugar. If you stick with whole foods that contain carbs (like root veggies, berries), I don't think you can get into too much trouble (as long as you are not consuming those things in excessive quantities). At least, that has been my experience.

 

[tmm99]

From what I've read, the TG/HDL ratio works best as a predictor/indicator of cardiovascular disease when the TG number is above 40. In any case, though, your TG/HDL ratio is probably fine.....it's the A1C I would be concerned about. 6.0 indicates some degree of insulin resistance. A lot of the stuff I read indicates that you really want to be at about 5.5 or below, if at all possible. If I were you I would really make an effort to cut back on the carbs, particularly refined grains and anything with added sugar.

I'm at the point where I'm giving up on low-carbing as low-carbing lowers my A1C to about 5.7 but never better, and I'm too afraid to eat a lot of fat as it raises my cholesterol and my doc last time wanted to put me on statin. Doing low-carbing off and on for years, and I am simply tired of not being able to eat a lot of fruit or Japanese rice, etc, so that's more of what I'm doing now. I'm physically very active, and that allows me to be able to eat more carbs after excercises, but if I lower the carbs too much with only a moderate amount of fat, I'd lose too much weight. (I am not overweight. 5'5" 128lbs) Anyway, these are all my excuses, and I know that, but I don't see a lot of downside in taking a small amount of Metformin and actually asked my doc to put me on it after the last blood test, but he doesn't want to yet as he usually waits two high A1C's in a row, so that's where I'm at.

I

 

[tmm99]

That is interesting. In your case, yes, it would seem that your triglycerides should be high. People vary in how their lipids work.

However, your A1C has clearly been sounding the diabetes warning bell (via pre-diabetes indication), so you know what you are risking......

And diabetes itself increases CVD risk dramatically.

Yes, I thought it was strange too, especially because my TG was on a high side (90) when my A1C was lower (5.7). I guess 1.7 ratio isn't still bad, but worse than my new ratio...

 

[RAE]

I'm at the point where I'm giving up on low-carbing as low-carbing lowers my A1C to about 5.7 but never better, and I'm too afraid to eat a lot of fat as it raises my cholesterol and my doc last time wanted to put me on statin. Doing low-carbing off and on for years, and I am simply tired of not being able to eat a lot of fruit or Japanese rice, etc, so that's more of what I'm doing now. I'm physically very active, and that allows me to be able to eat more carbs after excercises, but if I lower the carbs too much with only a moderate amount of fat, I'd lose too much weight. (I am not overweight. 5'5" 128lbs) Anyway, these are all my excuses, and I know that, but I don't see a lot of downside in taking a small amount of Metformin and actually asked my doc to put me on it after the last blood test, but he doesn't want to yet as he usually waits two high A1C's in a row, so that's where I'm at. I

I hear your frustration, but you may want to consider a couple things that we've been discussing for a while on a couple of these LCHF threads:


- eating fat typically does not cause total cholesterol (TC) and LDL-C to rise (in most people); lots of recent studies bear that out. You do want to eat the right kind of fats (olive oil, butter, coconut oil) and avoid the industrial seed (jug) oils, though.

- The lipid hypotheses of heart disease has been pretty much disproven (i.e., that blood cholesterol causes heart disease), although a lot of doctors continue to promote it. Insulin resistance is probably a much bigger concern for most people, as it leads to metabolic syndrome and a whole host of health problems (diabetes, heart disease, etc).

I'm not a doctor, just someone who has done a lot of reading on these topics, including a lot of the papers published over the last decade or more. Keep in mind that the lipid hypothesis of CVD is kept alive by the drug industry and others in health care because statins are are tremendously profitable. People over age 60 actually live longer if their TC is on the high side, but your doctor will probably never tell you that. Blood glucose and insulin resistance, on the other hand, are definitely things you want to keep under control for good health.

 

[audreyh1]

From what I've read, the TG/HDL ratio works best as a predictor/indicator of cardiovascular disease when the TG number is above 40. In any case, though, your TG/HDL ratio is probably fine.....it's the A1C I would be concerned about. 6.0 indicates some degree of insulin resistance. A lot of the stuff I read indicates that you really want to be at about 5.5 or below, if at all possible. If I were you I would really make an effort to cut back on the carbs, particularly refined grains and anything with added sugar.

They might also want to have their fasting insulin checked as it’s very likely high. That would be an indication of insulin resistance. The body fights hard, usually for years and even decades, to maintain blood sugars by releasing more and more insulin. Once A1C rises above 5.7 it’s losing that fight and diabetes is likely to develop as a result.

 

[audreyh1]

I'm at the point where I'm giving up on low-carbing as low-carbing lowers my A1C to about 5.7 but never better, and I'm too afraid to eat a lot of fat as it raises my cholesterol and my doc last time wanted to put me on statin. Doing low-carbing off and on for years, and I am simply tired of not being able to eat a lot of fruit or Japanese rice, etc, so that's more of what I'm doing now. I'm physically very active, and that allows me to be able to eat more carbs after excercises, but if I lower the carbs too much with only a moderate amount of fat, I'd lose too much weight. (I am not overweight. 5'5" 128lbs) Anyway, these are all my excuses, and I know that, but I don't see a lot of downside in taking a small amount of Metformin and actually asked my doc to put me on it after the last blood test, but he doesn't want to yet as he usually waits two high A1C's in a row, so that's where I'm at.

I

That is indeed a quandary for you. It’s pretty much impossible to do low carb for lower blood sugar without high fat. You can focus more on monounsaturated fat if you like, (avocados, nuts, olive oil), but you need the fat.

Fear of fat is why a lot of people fail on low-carb diet. They end up eating too much protein which also contributes to higher blood sugar.

Fats from natural food sources are healthy. It’s been shown time and time again through extensive studies and controlled trials that there is no association between fat (even saturated fat) in the diet and CVD and all cause mortality, even though many medical professionals will swear otherwise.

 

[tmm99]

That is indeed a quandary for you. It’s pretty much impossible to do low carb for lower blood sugar without high fat. You can focus more on monounsaturated fat if you like, (avocados, nuts, olive oil), but you need the fat.

Fear of fat is why a lot of people fail on low-carb diet. They end up eating too much protein which also contributes to higher blood sugar.

Fats from natural food sources are healthy. It’s been shown time and time again through extensive studies and controlled trials that there is no association between fat (even saturated fat) in the diet and CVD and all cause mortality, even though many medical professionals will swear otherwise.

We switched to olive oil about a year ago for cooking pretty much everything with lower heat. Use of butter as well as consumption of red meat has decreased considerably. We do use some store-bought dressings, but mostly we make our own with olive oil. (I do eat mayo with canola oil though.) My LDL was still up until I used Beta-Sitosterol which lowered my LDL from 142 to 80. (I have put myself on this again since my last blood test.) I read cholesterol debunking articles and such in the past, but I am still on the fence to say for sure who is right.

I did do keto also, so I have eaten a lot of fat at one point, but I don't enjoy eating like that for too long. I see Ha, Al and now you sticking with it, and it's quite admirable. Even low-carb, I'm just tired of not being able to eat watermelon, or sweet potatoes, or bananas, or Japanese rice (basmati rice doesn't raise my BG as much, but basmati rice to me doesn't even taste like rice) or sandwiches with two slices of bread, etc.

I'm from Japan and I was raised eating a lot of vegetables and some starchy food with a smaller portion of protein (much less protein than what we eat here). The amount of fat they consume is quite low compared to what we consume here too. I miss that way of eating for the last several years (I do enjoy a bigger portion of protein...) and if I can do that with a small amount of Metformin without minimal side-effects, I'll like to take that route... I've used a glucose meter to check my BG levels for the last 15-18 years? So I know what food raises/doesn't raise my BG, but lately, I just want to eat a sandwich. Or rice with sashimi. Eating 1/4 cup (dry) oatmeal with two eggs just doesn't fill me up either. (And I don't want to add a lot of fat (even if it's olive oil) to carbs. Eating a lot of carbs with a lot of fat is bad IMO.

 

[AllDone]

The idea that elevated blood cholesterol levels are not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease is simply wrong. A small, self-referential group of non-researchers makes that claim but they don't have any supporting data, no matter how loud they are. Here's a good explanation, you can follow the links in the article for more information.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-nonsense-the-rise-of-the-cholesterol-deniers

There is a mountain of evidence about cardiovascular risk and lipids, even if several journalists have declared it all wrong. Here's a policy statement from the American Heart Association written by researchers who disagree with Nina Teicholz and Gary Taubes:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

The statins are all generic now. Nobody is making huge profits selling them anymore.

The best way to reduce your cholesterol and A1C is to lose weight by any diet that you can stick to. High saturated fat diets won't lower cholesterol quite as well as low fat diets (and saturated fats make insulin resistance worse), but if they are the only way that you can lose weight, they're better than not losing the weight. Increasing soluble fiber in your diet can be quite effective too..

However, what would I know. I spent years studying biochemistry, pathology, physiology, and medicine, so clearly I'm less well informed about the physiology of the human diet than Gwyneth Paltrow and Gary Taubes!

 

[trumpeting_angel]

1- in response to the OP, this also happened to me. My cholesterol/triglycerides profile has always been good, but after 6 months in a low-carb diet things went bad. Overall cholesterol went from 200 to 250, and the only reason it was as high as 200 was my stellar HDL. I just stopped eating that way.

2- the dietary cholesterol debate rages on. Conventional medicine says to avoid too many eggs, red meat, saturated fat. Some studies find no relationship, but a recent large-scale study indicted eggs while controlling for all sorts of other variables.

I don’t know the answer. I strive for moderation in general, and plenty of vegetables, fruit, and fiber with reduced meat consumption. And exercise.

 

[RAE]

The idea that elevated blood cholesterol levels are not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease is simply wrong. A small, self-referential group of non-researchers makes that claim but they don't have any supporting data, no matter how loud they are.

No supporting data? Non-researchers? Here's a recent (2018), peer-reviewed comprehensive review of recent studies on cholesterol and CVD that concludes (after reviewing a lot of the data) that the hypothesis that high TC or LDL-C causes atherosclerosis and CVD has is false. They explain pretty clearly how and why they reached this conclusion. The authors are all either MDs and/or medical researchers. If you can tell me how the conclusions reached in this review are somehow flawed, I'm willing to listen......

(and this is just one published paper debunking the diet/cholesterol hypothesis.......I could cite many others, also authored by medical researchers).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391?scroll=top&needAccess=true

 

[audreyh1]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-nonsense-the-rise-of-the-cholesterol-deniers

That article is about eating fat and saturated fat and how it might affect heart health, and there are many controlled medical trails, even huge ones like the Women's Health Initiative, that demonstrate that there is no association between dietary fat and heart disease and no mortality benefit of eating the low-fat diet that is normally prescribed for health.

The AHA in their 2013 statement concluded that all but 4 trials conducted in the 1960s! were too flawed to be included in their determination of dietary fat and coronary risks. They ignore modern science. They can't let go of their flawed past. They've had a long relationship with the food and pharmaceutical industries. Gary Taubes write a fascinating blog entry about their elimination of scientific data. Vegetable oils, (Francis) Bacon, Bing Crosby, and the American Heart Association

Using silly name-calling language like "cholesterol deniers" is not going to make the science go away.

I'm glad there are scientific journalists uncovering the poor evidence base of the old dietary guidelines and the industry influences. There are plenty of medical doctors and scientists on board as well, including people like Dr. Ludwig from the Harvard School of Public Health and lipids expert Dr. Krauss who actually worked for the AHA at one time to update their dietary guidelines to be in-line with modern science but they wouldn't accept his recommended changes.

I've noticed that The Guardian often runs stories decrying "cholesterol deniers", but at least they do occasionally publish the opposite point of view.

And excuse me, but Sir Rory Collins mentioned in the article is quite notorious. All the time he insisted that only a very small number of people were experiencing side effects from statins, and demanded retractions of articles criticizing statins that he labeled "dangerous", his department was receiving royalties from a test he co-invented called "Statin-Smart", that predicts how susceptible an individual might be to statin side effects. And the company marketing the test claims that 29% of statin users will experience muscle pain, weakness or cramps. How messed up is that?

It's a real problem that Sir Collins department holds a huge amount of industry statin trials data under non-disclosure agreements, that only his team is allowed to see, so no one can independently verify the results they publish.

UK cardiologist Dr. Malhotra gave a fascinating presentation to the European Parliament last year and relates the story starting around 21:55 to about 31:12.

 

[Fynen]

Low carb diet

Great idea following a low carb diet. There's a great deal of information about the diet on Youtube. The best advice givers are, in my opinion, Dr's Volek and Phinny. They've made numerous videos, which are a bit dry, but scientific and fact filled.

I seem to remember that they said that people's cholesterol profiles will vary by individual. Also that the profile will improve as your body adapts. I suggest that you eat more fat, especially of the liquid fats, like olive oil. Contrary to what you may hear, fats will not raise your blood fat lipid level if you are on a ketogenic diet. This is because your metabolism will be burning the fat for energy, instead of storing it.

I know you said that you follow a low carb diet and not a ketogenic diet, but it appears that you are very close to full ketosis. You can test for ketosis easily with urine test strips looking for ketones. Any purple color showing is good enough. To increase ketones a person would eat more fat and hold carbs as low as possible. I've controlled my type 2 diabetes for 15 years now with a ketogenic diet. My doctor is very impressed and has asked me for details of my diet.

 

[Old Microbiologist]

There is a great deal of skepticism about the assumed link of elevated cholesterol and heart disease. We have believed this dogma for a very long time and statins became the answer. However, death rates from myocardial infarctions haven't changed at all despite massive and over-prescribed statins. On the other hand it is a great success story for the pharmaceutical companies. This would lead one to believe there is much more to the picture than cholesterol and that perhaps cholesterol becomes elevated as a natural process of aging. It is very difficult to study cause and effect in complex models. Animal models are fine up to a point but never perfectly model human disease. This was my area and modeling is just that, and not the actual process. Humans are very difficult to study as they lead complex lives with multiple risk factors. Stress and diet appear to be associative but the actual cause of myocardial disease has not yet been discovered. It very likely may turn out that myocardial disease is actually an infection or could be related directly to the microbiome.

Both my wife and I were treated with statins and we both suffered serious side effects. She developed gall stones and I developed very rapidly (in 3 months) cataracts at the age of 53. Both are associated with statins and there are likely other side effects as well as statins affect how the liver processes fats. The body needs cholesterol and all of it is made in the liver. Most people do not understand that large molecules cannot be absorbed through the intestinal tract by pinocytosis and that cholesterol itself is too large to be absorbed so must be broken down into free fatty acids (long or short chain) which can then cross the cell membranes. Free fatty acids are also known as triglycerides and this is what enters the blood stream and is carried to the liver where it is either broken down further (to be stored as glycogen) or converted into other larger molecules like cholesterol which is the backbone molecule of all hormones. The breakdown in the intestines is via bile acids (soaps produced in the liver which saponify fats) and degradation by a plethora of bacteria in the intestines. The breakdown products from bacterial consumption/enzyme degradation are small molecules and are then able to cross the intestinal barrier. There are disease which cause the normally tight junctions to loosen and then large molecules can be absorbed directly. This is the "leaky gut" syndrome but is relatively rare.

We are a species that has evolved faster than our bodies can keep up with. We developed as hunter-gatherers and traveled from one food source to another with fairly long breaks between. Excess nutrients are converted into fat for storage for those times when we need it like when there is no food sources. Women specifically deposit fats more than men so as to provide nutrition to babies through breast feeding. However, we now have plenty of food (most people from western nations) and the excess is deposited as fat. The problem is excess consumption and reduced demand. The balance is to eat only enough to sustain and to consume the excess through exercise. Balancing the diet should all be done through moderation and forcing ketosis is probably dangerous (the end result molecule of acetone metabolism is ammonia which is toxic. Acetone itself is a carcinogen). Other extreme diets will also have deleterious effects. One can argue all of this ad nauseum but to me it is that simple. Eat in moderation a well balanced diet, exercise at least 1 hour a day and all should be fine. I am not concerned about high cholesterol and believe that the imbalances are caused by an altered gut microbiome. I developed my own yogurt using strains that are known to be beneficial (through double blinded studies) and use that to adjust the gut microbiome. I have normal cholesterol levels and reduced stress and inflammation. I have no proof whatsoever that my yogurt is beneficial but apparently it is working for moth of us which is enough proof for me. There is a great deal of work going on regarding the microbiome and it is becoming clear that many ailments are caused by having the wrong bacterial mix.

Some other very interesting things have been discovered recently as well. There is a theory that people who undergo fasting live longer. It turns out that this is partially true but the fasting is best achieved by going at least 14 hours once a day without food and not by starving for days at a time. So, if you have your last meal at 1800 then wait until 0800 in the morning for breakfast you can enjoy the benefits of fasting without the pain and suffering of actual starvation. We have done this for years without actually knowing it was beneficial. It is just how we live. Generally we have breakfast around 1030 and don't eat any lunch.

 

[Old Microbiologist]

Here is a good review of the literature regarding diet, cholesterol and heart disease. There are many others but this sums it up nicely:"Cholesterol confusion and statin controversy", url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/[/url]

I will add that we also live on the Mediterranean diet as well which is not special just how we eat normally and here in Hungary we have these kinds of foodstuffs readily available. We also eat fish almost every day as my wife loves cold smoked salmon and/or caviar daily (with vodka and black bread as she is Russian). I will also add there is a great deal to do with genetics in all of this. I believe that this can be overcome by eating well (The Mediterranean diet reduces heart disease by as much as 70%) and by invigorating the microbiome through probiotics.

 

[donheff]

The idea that elevated blood cholesterol levels are not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease is simply wrong...

However, what would I know. I spent years studying biochemistry, pathology, physiology, and medicine, so clearly I'm less well informed about the physiology of the human diet than Gwyneth Paltrow and Gary Taubes!

Good grief you sound like an arrogant practitioner of the worst aspects of paternal medicine that went out of fashion decades ago. The argument from authority is a pathetic way to win hearts and minds. Do you blow your patients off with this approach when they ask questions?

 

[eytonxav]

There is a great deal of skepticism about the assumed link of elevated cholesterol and heart disease. We have believed this dogma for a very long time and statins became the answer. However, death rates from myocardial infarctions haven't changed at all despite massive and over-prescribed statins. On the other hand it is a great success story for the pharmaceutical companies. This would lead one to believe there is much more to the picture than cholesterol and that perhaps cholesterol becomes elevated as a natural process of aging. It is very difficult to study cause and effect in complex models. Animal models are fine up to a point but never perfectly model human disease. This was my area and modeling is just that, and not the actual process. Humans are very difficult to study as they lead complex lives with multiple risk factors. Stress and diet appear to be associative but the actual cause of myocardial disease has not yet been discovered. It very likely may turn out that myocardial disease is actually an infection or could be related directly to the microbiome.

Both my wife and I were treated with statins and we both suffered serious side effects. She developed gall stones and I developed very rapidly (in 3 months) cataracts at the age of 53. Both are associated with statins and there are likely other side effects as well as statins affect how the liver processes fats. The body needs cholesterol and all of it is made in the liver. Most people do not understand that large molecules cannot be absorbed through the intestinal tract by pinocytosis and that cholesterol itself is too large to be absorbed so must be broken down into free fatty acids (long or short chain) which can then cross the cell membranes. Free fatty acids are also known as triglycerides and this is what enters the blood stream and is carried to the liver where it is either broken down further (to be stored as glycogen) or converted into other larger molecules like cholesterol which is the backbone molecule of all hormones. The breakdown in the intestines is via bile acids (soaps produced in the liver which saponify fats) and degradation by a plethora of bacteria in the intestines. The breakdown products from bacterial consumption/enzyme degradation are small molecules and are then able to cross the intestinal barrier. There are disease which cause the normally tight junctions to loosen and then large molecules can be absorbed directly. This is the "leaky gut" syndrome but is relatively rare.

We are a species that has evolved faster than our bodies can keep up with. We developed as hunter-gatherers and traveled from one food source to another with fairly long breaks between. Excess nutrients are converted into fat for storage for those times when we need it like when there is no food sources. Women specifically deposit fats more than men so as to provide nutrition to babies through breast feeding. However, we now have plenty of food (most people from western nations) and the excess is deposited as fat. The problem is excess consumption and reduced demand. The balance is to eat only enough to sustain and to consume the excess through exercise. Balancing the diet should all be done through moderation and forcing ketosis is probably dangerous (the end result molecule of acetone metabolism is ammonia which is toxic. Acetone itself is a carcinogen). Other extreme diets will also have deleterious effects. One can argue all of this ad nauseum but to me it is that simple. Eat in moderation a well balanced diet, exercise at least 1 hour a day and all should be fine. I am not concerned about high cholesterol and believe that the imbalances are caused by an altered gut microbiome. I developed my own yogurt using strains that are known to be beneficial (through double blinded studies) and use that to adjust the gut microbiome. I have normal cholesterol levels and reduced stress and inflammation. I have no proof whatsoever that my yogurt is beneficial but apparently it is working for moth of us which is enough proof for me. There is a great deal of work going on regarding the microbiome and it is becoming clear that many ailments are caused by having the wrong bacterial mix.

Some other very interesting things have been discovered recently as well. There is a theory that people who undergo fasting live longer. It turns out that this is partially true but the fasting is best achieved by going at least 14 hours once a day without food and not by starving for days at a time. So, if you have your last meal at 1800 then wait until 0800 in the morning for breakfast you can enjoy the benefits of fasting without the pain and suffering of actual starvation. We have done this for years without actually knowing it was beneficial. It is just how we live. Generally we have breakfast around 1030 and don't eat any lunch.

Very informative and good food for thought.

 

[audreyh1]

Balancing the diet should all be done through moderation and forcing ketosis is probably dangerous (the end result molecule of acetone metabolism is ammonia which is toxic. Acetone itself is a carcinogen). Other extreme diets will also have deleterious effects.

That was a very interesting post, and thanks for sharing your story and human health outlook in so much detail.

Isn’t ammonia a byproduct of protein metabolism? The body readily eliminates that. In all the study and discussions of ketosis (not ketoacidosis), by many medical doctors and scientists from many disciplines, I have never run across ammonia mentioned as a dangerous byproduct of ketosis.

The body seems to eliminate acetone directly through the breath and skin/sweat. And this seems to be a temporary situation lasting 2 weeks or so as the body adjusts. I did not experience it personally. The main ketones are acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate which is the predominant ketone in the blood used for fuel, and there are many papers/presentations discussing the potential therapeutic benefits of BHB in treating numerous chronic diseases beyond simply fuel. Research is increasing as more and more diseases are being targeted with the potential therapeutic benefits of ketosis, so I’m sure we will be learning a lot more about efficacy and long term effects.