In other words, the measurement you observed was good. Your brain needs that measured value you were tested at to be high. Your health would suffer if it wasn't.
There is tons of research and discussion about this online. The argument goes along with the idea that "statins" are one of the biggest pharmaceutical scams in history, bad for brain health and part of a larger false narrative on cholesterol.
Don't change a thing, you're doing it right.
also, when people talk about cholesterol they usually don’t mean cholesterol they mean lipi-proteins that carry the cholesterol through the blood (cholesterol needs this as it’s hydrophobic). LDL from those lipo-proteins is definitely correlated with heart disease.
Here, read about it in more detail than you probably need to know: https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa...
I think digging into the minutiae of specific numbers is silly, when the better frame is to construct the right diet the comports w/ human evolution and lifestyle, energy, activity and go from there.
Generally low carb (particularly avoiding high glycemic index carb, and sugars) preferring lower starch vegetables, while prioritizing animal fats, meat, fish.
Keto / keto carnivore, low carb etc have been around and well studied for a while now. People should do their own research (I like all of Gary Taubes' books and presentations, there are many others as well and podcasts) but ultimately I summarize the point as our bodies have evolved to follow this diet and observations of societies or time periods when one or the other was more prevalent show stark differentials in health, obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome...
I have no idea what my cholesterol numbers are (I'm sure they are "high"), but I certainly would never take a statin which would destroy my brain.. and as the OP mentioned, I know what makes me feel rested, energetic, what provides energy and muscle mass along with workouts in the weight room, what does or does not result in brain fog (sugar), better sleep, lower body fat, etc. All low carb / high fat. The more intense the exercise one does, the more carbs they can consume.
Our body already contains the necessary pathways, enzymes and processes to switchover to utilizing fat as fuel. We quite literally evolved to do this...
That being said, I think this adaption was more of an energy conservation mode for when food was scarce rather than our ancestors intentionally eating in a ketogenic compatible manner.
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. I am aware that humans have the capability of surviving on a ketogenic diet, but that doesn't support the argument I was replying to that following such a diet is what we evolved to do.
i’m tired of people justifying their life choices by what primitive humans were doing. we’re not primitive humans.
Take a look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/14...
It goes into it quite a bit more -- cholesterol is a _terrible_ indicator of overall health. This is well known in the Keto community.
In this case, there is not sufficient evidence that those who have elevated HDL, LDL and low triglycerides have higher rates of cardiovascular disease...
https://cholesterolcode.com/a-dialog-on-the-lipid-triad-with...
I don’t have a horse in this race but appeals to authority when it comes to the science of diet are highly suspect.
Sure, on paper, the LDL number goes down and according to the numbers you have a lower risk of heart attack, but the one common thing I've notice is that everyone complains that they feel terrible. Things like dizziness, nausea, low energy/libido, etc...
Let's not forget that it takes mainstream science time to catch up to new research. There is a lag in existing beliefs while more research is being done and evidence solidified.
That being said, lipidology is extremely complex but in the case of low carbohydrate diets the issue of having high LDL and HDL may not be as bad as mainstream medicine would make it out to be.
For some interesting insights on research being conducted in this field, Thomas Dayspring and Dave Feldman are extremely knowledgable and explain things quite well.
They both have appeared on a number of health/fitness related podcasts but a quality one they both have been on is "The Drive" by Peter Attia:
https://peterattiamd.com/tomdayspring1/
https://peterattiamd.com/davefeldman/
edit: I would also argue that his subjective feelings of good health are a much better indicator than the population-averaged cholesterol numbers...
edit2: to say that this type of research is outside of mainstream medical advice is misleading. Lipodology is a prominent topic and a quick pubmed search for the "lipid" keyword since 2018 shows over 60k results. In medicine there is rarely a such thing as "settled" science. Things are continuously researched with new questions and information is used to update our original hypothesis. To refer to current advice as set in stone is very naive...
I'd 100% agree with this. But "your cholesterol sky rocketing a good sign" is not something the evidence currently shows.
> that everyone complains that they feel terrible. Things like dizziness, nausea, low energy/libido, etc...
Statins definitely have side effects, just on balance it leads to better cognitive outcomes instead of worse ones.
It's true that it takes time for mainstream science to catch up. But new preliminary research is new and preliminary and when it goes wrong it goes wrong more catastrophically than solid mainstream science.
"sky-rocketing" is a definite over-exaggeration here.
I would be curious to see what your response is to the link I posted in another comment here.
I am wondering how people that still reference these dated outlooks on cholesterol can explain why there is insufficient evidence of higher cardiovascular disease rates in those with high LDL in the presence of high HDL and low triglycerides, commonly called the "lipid triad"?
https://cholesterolcode.com/a-dialog-on-the-lipid-triad-with...
What the parent comment initially stated would lead me to believe that he falls into this lipid triad group and if I was in his shoes I would tell any doctor that recommended a statin to f* off if I had just started feeling the best I'd ever had in my life.
Also, can you send me some research for your points about statins having an increase in cognitive function? My understanding was that many were arguing the opposite and some meta-reviews I read on the topic suggested that more evidence was needed to make any clear observations.
Anyone who isn't a child won't be able to make these adaptations and anyone who isn't on a starvation mimicking diet but is trying to gain or maintain weight on diets filled with dietary cholesterol will almost certainly start building up plaque.
Yes, dietary cholesterol has a low effect on blood serum cholesterol after some amount. So yes, increasing the consumption of eggs from 5 to 10 a day won't linearly effect the blood serum cholesterol.
Problem with fasting mimicking diets is that they are not a cure and are not long-term.
Also, consuming only things that are easy to digest makes you digestion more fragile to varying stimuli in the future. Which is why people who are on these "rejuvinating" diets for a longer period of time tend to experience their disease symptoms much quicker when they go back to eating vegetables rich in antinutrients.
Here's a very nice study where all Masai participants had atherosclerosis. Some even died from heart disease being less than 20 years of age: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903
"These pastoral people are exceptionally active and fit and they consume diets of milk and meat. The intake of animal fat exceeds that of American men. Measurements of the aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis with lipid infiltration and fibrous changes but very few complicated lesions. The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men. The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease. It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious."
To put it simply, using "cholesterol" as an indicator for anything is a completely oversimplified view originating in the 50s, when we didn't know enough molecular biology to know better. We've since moved on to breaking out LDL (bad) and HDL (good) cholesterol. However, as it turns out even that is too simplistic. There are further sub-classifications of LDL, such as large fluffy LDL and small dense LDL. If subclasifying LDL - Low-Density Lipoprotein - as "small and dense" seems counterintuitive, I agree. I feel like it's a result of the order in which we learned about all the forms of cholesterol, and a reflection of how complex the system is, and perhaps how much more we have left to fully understand it. As it turns out, so many of the perils of what we thought was caused by "high cholesterol", and then "high LDL/bad cholesterol" seem to be most strongly correlated with the small/dense LDL pattern. The irony is, we've been measuring everything but the main culprits, gaining an incomplete picture of what's actually going on, then ended up with wildly ineffective or harmful dietary recommendations as a result. A low fat high carb diet may reduce your cholesterol, but it can wreak havoc in so many other ways.
Bottom line is, eating a low carb, high fat diet increases all of your cholesterol (subject to individual variation), but seems to exert favorable effects on the overall ratio of the individual particles, which may be the important thing. If you're really interested in what's going on with your cholesterol, ask for a LDL particle size test, then you may be able to draw some more meaningful inferences. [1]
To me, it's a good hint that if every physical and mental aspect of your body improved on a diet, it's unlikely a bad thing. Best to discuss these things with your doctor though. Diet science is still a frustratingly murky field, so it's pretty hard to navigate right now. If you want to understand why, I highly recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.
Two important pieces of info surround this.
1. Your body is burning more fat so it has to be mobilized in your blood.
2. Blood cholesterol is actually poorly correlated with cardiovascular health. Cholesterol plaques are actually a bandaid for the inflammation caused by a high carb diet. No inflammation no problem.
I am not a doc, so do your own research.
I've been Keto for 18 months and it's changed my life (I've previous tried Paleo, Vegan, Vegetarian, Pescetarian, and a few others) -- I also got my blood tested 6 months after starting and I was in "perfect" levels according to the nurse -- but cholesterol specificaly is a terrible indicator.
That meant eating only a small amount of saturated fat, and limiting palmitic acid in particular, and only small amounts of table salt balanced with other minerals like potassium chloride.
I'd eat a lot of salad, nuts, fish, and the only additional fat I'd eat would be in form of EVOO, avocado oil or other oils high in monounsaturated fats, and some polyunsaturated fats. My blood work was always fine.
Some people think low-carb means that they get to eat bacon for every meal and drink the grease.
Fantastic for dealing with inflammation.
Your LDL(bad), HDL (good) or both? And did your doctor do a coronary scan (checking for plaque build up)?
What you don't want is LDL Cholesterol building up as plaque in the arteries, there is some connection to plaque build up and LDL levels.
High HDL cholesterol is associated with low risk of heart disease.
Typically a LCHF diet raises HDL (i.e. lower risk of plaque build up and heart disease). In some people LCHF diets raise both LDL and HDL, but the ratios are typically and overall improvement (meaning less plaque build up). The goal with health isn't low cholesterol necessarily, its low plaque buildup.
This is not necessarily a bad sign, but you should talk to your doctor about getting more advanced cholesterol blood tests.
There are different measures of cholesterol, like concentration per particle, number of particles, and size of particles, and regular bloodwork usually only measures one of those (concentration, I believe).
You can have a lot of small, empty particles, or fewer large, dense particles, and so forth. This means a regular test may not paint the whole picture, especially if you’re doing something “non-standard” like a keto diet, fasting, or if you’re losing significant body fat.
well, some have more complex carbs... and some have more fat (avocados) and some have protein, but still "plant based diet" usually means complex carbs...
Healthier for sure, but it can't be considered 'low carb diet'
A “low carb” diet doesn’t exclude high amounts of insoluble fiber. It excludes high amounts of carbohydrate calories.
If you are consuming your 2000 calories diet, and it is coming from plants, you are still ingesting 2000 calories worth of carbs.....
1 kg of feathers, and 1 kg of iron, weight the same....
The feathers will be large and take more volume, while the iron will be small and more dense.
Same with foods.... if your plant based diet you are consuming 2000 worth of bio-available calories, then that is still mostly carbs...
It is healthier for sure than consuming 2000 calories through processed foods such a muffins, chips and other crap. But, still your 2000 CALORIES will come through CARBS, but they will be digested slowly due to the fiber.
But if you are ingesting 2000 bio-available calories through plants, it is most likely mostly carbs (plus some fats and protein). Insoluble fiber just goes towards your poop, and it is usually not counted under 'carbs'.
When you say Plant based diet, people assume lettuce, beans, tomatos, carrots, olives, broccoli, etc.. etc...
There are plenty of fats in nuts and legumes, which are compatible with a low carb (even if not a zero carb) diet. Seeds are also rich in fats (and are the source of many vegetable oils).
Most of them (grains, legumes, fruits and nuts to a certain extent) would fall under high carb when eaten in those quantities
For me (and generally I'd say), low carb is <50g of carbs per day.
It's basically not possible.
If you really want to eat a low carb plant based diet, you'd have to eat almost exclusively processed food like olive oil and Seitan.
Potatoes, rice and bananas are whole-food, plant based, and are pretty much the highest carb you can go. And plants without starches and sugars simply don't have many calories at all. You can't survive on broccoli alone.
If you're doing low-carb and getting the calories you need, there's no physically possibly way to get those calories except through protein and fat -- they're literally the only other 2 macronutrients.
So yes, low carb always means lots of meat, cheese and/or fat. Or else you'd basically just be fasting.
Yes, vegetables are less calories dense. That doesn't mean meat/cheese/bacon have to be eaten. Just an easy example, avocado's are extremely calorie dense, and yes this means fat.
The issue I have is that you just categorize meat, cheese and fat together as if the only way to get fat is via those items, or as if fat itself were unhealthy. The second is just a myth, the first is a myth the person you are responding to is directly opposing.
It's not a great surprise that a diet restricting one of the three food macros will lean heavily on the other two groups.
also, there are different phenotypes when it comes to cholesterol. For some a LFHC diet does wonders, for others it’s a sure way to have problems down the line if you sustain it for long periods of time.
https://cholesterolcode.com/cholesterol-code-part-ii-the-ldl...
There is a lot of money behind the drugs that require us to believe this.
There's a lot of money behind that "One Weird Trick That Doctors Hate and Your Stomach Will Love", too, but not a lot of evidence.
But YMMV
so the LDL particles (by count not volume) are bad and whoever tells you otherwise is full of crap
Also, why would an endogenously produced protein end up killing you? Seems like evolution run-amok.
But it's not a panacea, and it's certainly not a cure for type 1 diabetes.
If I get cancer, have treatment for it and am now in remission, who would think these doctors 'cured' cancer? Everyone would understand _my specific instance_ of cancer is reduced to being not a concern anymore.
Being in remission just means a greatly reduced or almost inexistent dependency on insulin.
I'm not saying the conclusions of the article are correct either (low sample size, short period of time), but it's a far cry from claiming 'LCHF cures T1D'
People should really look at minimizing their intake of animal fats. Both for ethical and health reasons.
I’m all for the ethical angle. Factory farming is horrific.
But why health? I certainly haven’t read every study out there, but I’ve read a lot of studies, and what I can’t find is causal evidence of negative health effects of animal products in the absence of sugar. Do you know of any studies I can read?
Then I got my cholesterol checked during a routine blood work and it was through the roof. WTF? Anyone know better than me about this?