Bloodwork results before keto, soon after keto and then after carnivore


(Michael) #1

Not sure if the pdf is the best, but here are my glucose/lipid and if available insulin bloodwork results over the years as best I could find. Note that all measurements were done in Canadian/British units, but I converted my lipids to American to help compare. Lots of improvements, but my LDL is most impressive change! Feedback welcome (wish I had more complete data). I did not show my eGFR which started at 55 and is now over 100, so no more worries about diabetic kidney disease.
Health Labs Summary.pdf (50.8 KB)


(Robin) #2

Very cool. Love when you can see the big picture like that.


(Bob M) #3

What units are insulin in? I’ve never had glucagon tested. That would be interesting to know.

Nice trig/HDL ratio.


(Michael) #4

Insulin units are in pmol/L while the glucagon is in pg/mL. To get insulin in U/mL divide pmol/L by 7.175. That means that 43 pmol/L = 6 U/mL in American units. That was my best insulin measurement to date, although my quick-IR has remained relatively constant over the past few months. I hope to get glucagon done with Insulin and FBS in July/August for more I/G ratios as well as Lipid-IR at that time.


#5

Well done getting your trigs lowered and your HDL up. Your LDL seems super high though, are you by chance kinda lean? (See lean mass hyper responder)


(Michael) #6

Yah, my LDL is impressively high, which may not be good (hard to know these days).

I am lean and while heading in that direction, I do not qualify as a LMHR yet (maybe by next year my HDL will be high enough and my trigs low enough). I have also been injured and am just re-starting exercise which may also push me into that category as well.


(A fool and his bacon are soon parted) #7

I suspect that the fear of cholesterol was developed to replace the fear of saturated fat, once it became clear that saturated fat per se did not cause heart disease (and we only ever thought it did, because of Ancel Keys’s cherry-picked data).

There is certainly plenty of evidence to convince a disinterested observer that there is no causal link between cholesterol levels of any sort and cardiovascular disease. At best, some cholesterol level or other might possibly be a marker for cardiovascular disease, but it is certainly not the cause.


(Michael) #8

The theory that glycated and then oxidized LDL particles are the primary cause of CVD (ie pattern B sdLDL) is the one I am currently subscribing too. As such, my impressively high LDL may be a concern simply due to statistics. If the percentage of glycated LDL is vert small, but the starting number of particles is very large, you still end up with a substantive amount of sdLDL. If sdLDL are indeed the culprits/cause, then a very high LDL could be a problem. Of course, without knowing the precise glycation rate and clearance rate, it is hard to know if the system is being overrun or if the body is clearing through macrophage absorption at a higher rate. I am trying to get some of the answers specific to me with more advanced testing (which I hope the next doctor will order).


(A fool and his bacon are soon parted) #9

Back when I was a young man, it was total cholesterol that was the problem. Then, after studies showed an inverse correlation with cardiovascular risk, it became LDL cholesterol that was the problem. Now, as there is increasing evidence that LDL associates negatively with cardiovascular risk, it seems to be particle count, or particle size that is the problem, depending on which studies the researcher supports.

But in any case, a low ratio of triglycerides to HDL has been shown to (a) associate with minimal cardiovascular risk, and (b) indicate that an NMR analysis will show a healthy Pattern A of particle sizes, which also has been shown to associate with minimal cardiovascular risk.

But in any case, this is all irrelevant if, as actually appears to be the case, the presence of cholesterol in arterial plaque is not the cause of the arterial plaque, but rather the result of the body’s repair processes. In that case, it might seem to be prudent to maintain a high cholesterol level, so as to have enough material to repair any damage as it occurs.

Our current attitude towards cholesterol seems to be similar to thinking that we can reduce the incidence of fires by restricting the number of fire trucks available. What? You always see fire trucks at fires, don’t you? Surely they must be the cause, no? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


(Robin) #10

Is particle size the same thing as the size of platelets? And is bigger or smaller better?


(A fool and his bacon are soon parted) #11

LDL particle size and platelet size are unrelated. And lipoprotein sizes are actually quite small, but they depend on the cargo. There are chylomicrons, V(very large)LDL, I(intermediate)LDL, LDL, sd(small dense)LDL, and HDL, in descending order of size. The lipoprotein is also different for some of these, but VLDL, IDL LDL, and sdLDL are all the same lipoprotein, and the size varies according to their load of cholesterol and triglycerides. Dave Feldman has a good explanation of all this on his Web site.

Platelets are blood cells involved with clotting. They are the smallest of the blood cells, smaller than the red blood corpuscles (erythrocytes). How they compare in size to the various lipoproteins, I don’t know.


(Robin) #12

Just curious cuz my my lab said my platelets are small. Wan’t sure if I should be insulted or flattered. :wink:


(A fool and his bacon are soon parted) #13

In this case, I think it safe to say that bigger is not necessarily better.