Warning!!

[tomjackson]

Please read this carefully!

I have been on the Atkins diet since December 27. I just got back the results of my first post-Atkins blood tests. The results were very bad. Good cholesterol stayed about the same but bad cholesterol jumped up by almost 20%, triglycerides were up just over 25%. These sorts of large increases in just a short period of time is remarkable. I am now faced with taking Lipotor (spelling?) to try to reverse the effects of Atkins.

Obviously, I am getting off Atkins immediately. If you are on this diet, please make sure you get blood tests done every few months. Losing weight is not worth having your blood turn into fatty sludge.

To be fair, the GP who looked at the test results did say that he has seen mixed reactions from Atkins. Some people can handle Atkins without problems. But he has also seen many who can not. High cholesterol and triglycerides are "silent", you don't feel any different until the stroke or heart attack occurs.

Get those blood tests and make sure!!!

Just as a note, this online community is one of the best I've seen. The help and support provided to each other is first rate. I'll miss being here. Good luck, y'all!

[razzle]

best of luck, tom!

and good advice--I'm one of the ones whose blood panels improved tremendously, but I'm also going to keep getting tested for cholesterol, liver and kidney function. I've read the number of people whose cholesterol/tri's rise with LC may be as high as 1 in 6, so your situation is clearly not rare.

[Elihnig]

Perhaps you are one of those people with a sensitivity to arachidonic acid found in red meat and egg yolks. That would account for your raised cholosterol levels. Try a search for that, or read Protein Power to find out more about that.

Elihnig

[Kent]

Frankly TomJackson, I just don't believe you. What was your cholesterol readings on December 26th, the day before you started on Atkins? You didn't give a baseline date.

My triglycerides plunged 57% from 217 to 92 in only 4 months on Atkins and my HDL skyrocked 57% from 35 to 55. I lost 40 pounds and my blood pressure dropped back to normal. I feel awesome.

If you really are serious, and I am very suspicious that you are not, follow the Atkins' diet to the letter for several months.

Kent

[doreen T]

Kent, sometimes it happens that a person starts with low-carbing, and something happens to make them change their mind. This member is obviously concerned about his cholesterol readings, and is being followed by his physician.

Disagreeing with someone's opinions is one thing, but a judgement of their sincerity or lack thereof is not helpful, nor is it in keeping with the spirit of our support community. It would be better instead to offer our own success as an example, or to offer some suggestions as to what might be the problem, or just to offer encouragement.

Doreen

[doreen T]

To tomjackson .. hang in there. There are explanations as to what happened. First did you fast for 12 hrs. prior to the test (but had water of course)? No caffeine and no smoking??

As well, in Protein Power, the Drs. Eades explain how someone following the diet exactly could experience similar to you: First of all, be aware that you are not doing anything wrong. ........ Cholesterol is a number that is composed of both good and bad fractions, therefore we don’t tend to track it nearly as close as more specific levels of HDL, triglycerides and LDL. LDL cholesterol is made up of different particles that vary from person to person. Depending on the type of particles that predominate, one is said to have either pattern A or pattern B. With pattern A, the LDL is light, fluffy, and relatively large. This pattern is actually thought to be beneficial. With pattern B, the molecule is heavy, dense, and relatively small. This pattern is thought to be detrimental. Pattern B is a partial consequence of excessively elevated triglycerides. When triglycerides go down after the Protein Power Plan has been adopted, a phenomenon called the "beta shift" occurs where LDL is transformed into pattern A. So, paradoxically, even though the level of LDL appears to increase, the type of LDL that is being formed is usually much healthier. The difficult part is that the lab testing to determine your levels of LDL "A" and LDL "B" can only be done in a research laboratory with electrophoresis methods. While we cannot be 100% certain that this is what happened in your case, the research strongly supports this view.

The most important thing is to look at the overall picture. With the Protein Power approach we look at the triglyceride/HDL ratio as one of the best measurements of risk for heart disease. An upper limit of 5 is considered desirable, with anything over that indicating an increased risk. Some measures to help bring down your cholesterol and LDL levels are: stay on the plan (some people panic and feel that the plan is causing the opposite effect), take a "no-flush" niacin 500 mg 2-3 capsules per day, increase your fiber intake with perhaps psyllium seed powder-1-2 TBS mixed in water per day, and avoid excessive saturated fats and trans fats (fried foods and margarine.)We have several members whose drs. have put them on a course of cholesterol-lowering drug, and they continue to low-carb with a few changes .. they eat less red meat and fatty meat, less egg yolks and less high fat dairy. They eat more skinless poultry, fish and other lean proteins. They use olive oil abundantly :) and eat more high-fiber vegetables.

All the best to you, and I hope the next set of blood tests show improvement.

Doreen

[allisonm]

Tom - I appreciate the cautionary note. I feel so great and have been so successful in overcoming a lifelong problem with hypoglycemia by eating a low-carb diet that I have just been assuming that it's good for me overall. I am guilty of not obeying the advice of Atkins and Eades; I have not had my cholesterol tested since I began. (But I do know that my blood pressure is way down.) Your advice is sound. Cholesterol is silent. I'll get this checked out soon. Thank you for the reminder.

Kent - Science is about observing nature and then developing theories to explain what has been observed. All evidence must be considered in testing a theory. You can't just throw out the evidence that doesn't support the theory.

In sciences like physics and mathematics results are reproducible 100% of the time. If you dropped a rock once and it did not fall, you would have to dismiss the current theories about gravity.

Biology is different. Results are not 100% reproducible; they are usually true. There are far too many factors influencing physiology to expect for everyone to have the same results from doing exactly the same thing. Metabolisms and genetics differ. We're not all the same.

What infuriates me about the medical community is that they refuse to acknowledge 30 years of scientific studies that show that insulin (created by consuming simple carbohydrates) causes many of the major ailments of modern society. Because the evidence doesn't support their current theories, they just dismiss the evidence! That's not science.

Don't be guilty of the same blind faith in low-carb theory. All evidence must be considered. There is no reason to disbelieve Tom. I would be very suspicious of peoples reported results if they all lined up identically. Biology doesn't work that way.

Allison

[Kent]

My comments are not directed to Tomjackson since he said he is leaving the Low-carb forum. I am directing my comment to new members or visitors reading about the low-carb diets. Tomjackson's comments are highly suspect as not being truthful. His title, "Warning" should raise a red flag immediately and his first line, "Please read this carefully!" make me question his motives even more. I see many of these same scare tactics in amazon.com book reviews given on Atkins, Protein Power and others. Their stories can easily be seen as outright lies.

Let's look at Tomjackson's information closely as he himself suggests.

1. He did not give his previous or his new cholesterol readings. He did not give values nor dates. I go to the DrWeil.com message board where the proponents of their low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet brag about having a total cholesterol reading in the 90's. They consider that the lower the cholesterol the better. They see cholesterol in any amount as some risk to health. Dr. Michael Eades and Dr. Mary Dan Eades point out in their book, Protein Power, that low cholesterol increases the risk of stroke from ruptured blood vessels. Dr. Mercola at www.mercola.com has a very low cholesterol himself and considers it to be a serious health risk. He tries desperately to keep it above 100.

2. Lets give Tomjackson the benefit of the doubt and assume he had high cholesterol and high triglycerides. He said he went on the Atkins diet December 27 and posted his message on January 22, less than 4 weeks. We know that cholesterol reports from the doctor can take about a week. So, actually, Tomjackson was on the Atkins' diet less than three weeks. Having total cholesterol jump 20% on any diet in three weeks is preposterous. These statements show that Tomjackson was up to a little mischief.

3. Tomjackson said he now faces taking Lipitor to "reverse the affects of Atkins." Another scare statement.

4. Tomjackson quoted his doctor as saying the Atkins' diet causes problems in some people. Now, having a AMA doctor say this is not only possible but expected. Hearing a doctor criticize the low-carb diet should be expected. But again, I believe Tomjackson was simply adding another scare remark to his story.

In summary, I don't believe Tomjackson and believe his entire story to be fiction placed on the forum because of his person agenda against the low-carb lifestyle. I urge new members and visitors to study the low-carb lifestyle carefully. This site has a tremendous amount of helpful information, personal examples and people with considerable experience to help. The low-carb lifestyle produces awesome health benefits and reverses many diseases. I know of no disease caused by the low-carb diet.

William Banting in his booklet of 1869 spoke of the hope he had that people would see the health benefits of the low-carb diet. Instead, he told of the false information spread about the diet and the predictions of his demise. Thing haven't changed much in 132 years. This booklet is must read and available to read online at this site.

Letter On Corpulence by William Banting - 1869 (http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/index.html)

Another neat reference is a speech given by Dr. Ron Rosedale at the following:

Dr. Ron Rosedale - Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects 7/14/01 (http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm)

Nice try Tomjackson but it didn't work.

Kent :wave:

[Scotsman]

Kent,

Way to go! I'm with you on your analysis of the post by tomjackson. Nice reply; fully reasoned and well presented. :thup:

Yours aye, Scotsman :D

[tamarian]

You have a point Kent.

Another missing piece of info. This thread was initially started in the "Newbies Questions" forums. Well, it wasn't a question, and it was related to cholestrol issues, so I moved it here where it belongs.

We've had users in the past come in here to "save" us from our "unhealthy FAD".

You might be interested in reading this thread:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30523

Needless to say, we always welcome naysayers, if they don't mind us asking them for their proof. ;)

Wa'il

[jgitzco]

Wow, I was looking for this post to quote it for someone else here. I am amazed at the vitrolic response to someone who doesn't have a knee jerk positive response to Atkins. That is every bit as bad as people who dismiss low carb without thinking.

OK Kent, let's take a look at your points one by one:

1. It is NOT up to tomjackson to provide you with numbers and dates. He did mention in other posts that he was extremely happy with the way Atkins reduced the glucose level in a very short time. I don't recall the numbers he posted back then but it went from extremely bad to almost normal in a short few weeks. That's hardly the reports of someone out to "get Atkins."

2. Wrong again. These blood test results come back in a day, sometimes the same day. Also, he states clearly that this was the first test post-Atkins, not the first test ever. These tests are normally done every three months. There is NO reason to assume that he is lying about the results.

3. Lipitor is the number one drug these days for lowering bad cholesterol. It is more likely than not that Lipitor would be prescribed.

4. Doctor's vary in their opinions. He chose to quote what his doctor said. You quote only from those doctors who agree with you (and are trying to sell books and other products). Again, not agreeing with what you want to believe is NOT the same as being wrong. This is not a religion, Atkins and Eades are not Gods. Get a grip on reality.

What I see as happening here is simple. You have a blind faith in low carb and are willing to attack anyone who might present evidence that it doesn't always work the way you despartely want it too. I like the idea that tomjackson was kind enough to relate his experience to others. You can reject it or accept it, but to attack him for it is just flat-out hateful and sad.

Was tomjackson too quick to get off low carb? Probably. But my father died from diabetes-related heart disease. It is a natural response to diabetes to believe your own doctor rather than an Atkins fan club or anyone else pushing cures. Diabetes affects different people in different ways. There are no magical cures for diabetes, Atkins included.

I myself got nowhere with Atkins induction. Rather than give it up as tomjackson did, I modified it to be much more like Zone. Now, I'm getting the results I was looking for. Those good results happened in a week. Does that make me an infidel and liar too?

[Lisa N]

Hate to tell you this, but many lab tests for cholesterol DO take a week or more to make it back to the doctor's office and into your chart. Mine typically take 7-10 days. I also find it rather odd that a doctor would order a blood cholesterol test within a month of the previous test (unless the numbers that the poster was referring to are old and therefore not a good baseline to measure by) and odder still that anyone's cholesterol could possibly go up that much that quickly unless all they were eating was bacon and sausage. Having said that, my numbers DID initially go up (ALL of them, actually, HDL, LDL, and total cholesterol) but not nearly that much and it was 4 months after I started the diet that I was checked. The only thing that dropped dramatically were my triglycerides and my blood sugar, but again, that took more than a few weeks to normalize. I will be having them rechecked in a few weeks after nearly a year on the diet and we will see what happens. Even if I wind up taking Lipitor (which I will resist to the end!), I will stick with this WOE. The overall improvement in my health and the way that I feel is what matters and noone will be able to convince me that a way of eating that makes me feel and look this good is bad for me. Oh...and I've also lost 65 lbs....how bad could THAT be? :thup:

[wbahn]

Hate to tell you this, but it doesn't matter if some, or even most, labs take a week, a month or a year to get the numbers back.


Kent's use of this fact in refuting tomjackson's assertions is only applicable if ALL test results require a minimum of a week to come back. As long as it is possible and practical to get your lab results back the same or next day then the argument loses all merit. And, it is very possible and very practical to get these result back the same or next day - it generally costs a bit more, but if someone is already worried about what is happening to their cholesterol levels, then they may very well be willing to pay the extra to get a rapid response.

As for a doctor ordering a second cholesterol screening after only four weeks, did tomjackson say that his doctor called him up out of the blue and requested that he have another blood screening done? No. If you told your doctor that you were starting a diet and wanted to have your blood work done at the beginning and again after four weeks, don't you think that your doctor would agree to his patient's request? If not, then what is magical about six weeks, which is when Dr. Atkins himself recommends that the bloodwork be redone?

Kent's other arguments are largely full of similar flaws of reasoning. For instance:

1) Tomjackson provided the most relavent information - he noted the changes in his HDL, LDL and TG. If you feel that the base data values would be more useful, then you should state that, explain why, and ask for it to be provided. It is hardly proof or even an indicator that someone is not being truthful because they provided the bottom line results. Would the truthfulness of someones assertions be questioned in a similar vain if they claimed that their values improved by that amount?

2) Three week versus four week issue already addressed. As for the 20% change in three weeks being preposterous, upon what is that based. Atkins in his book claims that the average drop in TG measurements after six weeks is 39%. If that fell uniformly, that would be 20% in three weeks. My total cholesterol (based on a home test kit that doesn't give breakdowns) went from 201 to 153 in four weeks. That's 24% in four weeks. Lots of other people have seen 25% moves in the first month. Are they all liers?

3) If you tried an approach, and saw your numbers deteriorate significantly, wouldn't you consider whatever steps were taken to be for the purpose of undoing the bad effects of that approach? What's so unreasonable about that?

4) This is actually one of the classic fallacies of debate. You agree that it is completely reasonable for a doctor to say it tomjackson, but then, based only on your desire that it not be the case, claim that this somehow proves that he didn't say it and that tomjackson is lying and through this out as a scare tactic.


Do I think that tomjackson has been too quick to examine his circumstances and fully understand his situation. Yes, especially if he didn't explore the type of LDL that went up. Do I think that tomjackson is unreasonable in issuing his warning? Not at all.

[starlite]

Wow..quite the discussion here - couldn't resist adding my 2-cents...

I just think we all need to remember that everyone is so different genetically than others that every human body may respond to a diet differently than someone elses, you know? I don't think any one person should try to force any other person into a specific diet if said person isn't interested in it...

I mean, we should respect all manners of diets -can you imagine what vegetarians would say in this forum!!??????? :eek: They would hate all the talk of eating meat and all...but they have that right just as we have our right. The important thing is that we all take individual responsibilty for our health and well being, get our check ups and learn what is best for our individual body..

As for that whatever it was someone else posted that someone put up a link to about "why diet" yada, yada yada...what a fool! LOL Teasing - but it was silly.

[starlite]

I just remembered something - a new community went up on MSN and there's a "Diet Debate" message board. I guess it's so new there's only a handful of members - I received an invitation and have been considering joining, but some of you that enjoy debating, maybe you would want to check it out?
Diets, Diets, DIETS (http://communities.msn.com/DietsDietsDIETS)

[Lisa N]

I'm not calling TomJackson a liar (or anyone else who posts here for that matter), but I do find his post difficult to believe for several reasons, the first being that his results are very Atypical (remarkable as TomJackson, put it) of someone following this WOE. I've read hundreds of posts on several boards and his is the first that I have read that reported such results. When results are atypical, one must have more information to accurately assess what happened and if the information being presented is indeed accurate. He stated that his triglycerides jumped 25% (in 25 days, assuming that his test results did come back in one day) and that his "bad" cholesterol jumped 20% in the same period of time. While it's not unusual for your LDL to increase (although certainly not by that much), it is VERY unusual for someone's triglycerides to increase when following this WOE correctly (as I mentioned, this is the first instance of that I have read). And while it's not unusual for your cholesterol readings to change dramatically on this WOE, it IS very unusal to see them change dramatically in the UPward direction. Second, reporting a percentage increase without giving the beginning and ending numbers can be very misleading. For example, if my cholesterol was 150 to start with, a 25% increase would still keep me within normal limits, but would sound horrible to anyone reading my post unless I gave the beginning number. Not posting the actual figures (beginning and ending numbers, not just a percentage) gives, at the very least, the impression that the whole picture is not being presented. Also, TomJackson never states that he had his blood checked at the beginning of the diet, only that this was his first "post-Atkins" blood test. We make the assumption that it was checked when he began. Would my doctor comply with my request to have a second test that soon (assuming that I had it checked at the beginning of the diet)? Probably not as most doctors would consider 3 weeks too soon to give an accurate picture of what is happening and would discourage even an anxious patient from having it checked again that soon and I believe that Dr. Atkins recommends waiting a minimum of 6 weeks, not having it checked at 6 weeks exactly (again, because any sooner is too soon to give an accurate picture of what is happening). Common medical protocol is also to average 2 or 3 blood cholesterols before beginning cholesterol-lowering drugs. Even when doctors start you on Lipitor, the typical time frame for a recheck is 3 months (not 3 weeks). Third, we have to make the assumption that TomJackson was following the diet correctly as he makes no mention of what he had been eating during his 3 weeks on the diet. Is it impossible that TomJackson got the results that he did? Nope. Is it statistically unlikely if he was following the diet correctly? Yup. The devil is in the details. :D

[wbahn]

Atypical? Certainly. But even if it's one in a thousand, there's five thousand members on this board.

The question isn't whether it's likely that a given person had his claimed experience. The question is whether it is likely that one person out of five thousand had his experience. The odds are fairly good that such a person, if they existed, would post here.

[Lisa N]

Something else that makes me a bit suspicious is the "post and run" maneuver. Nothing like posting a "dire warning", then leaving before anyone can question you about how you got the results you did.

[wbahn]

What's suspicious about it? Let's assume for the moment that he was on the level. He tried a diet. It failed miserably. He quit the diet. He owed no one any explanation or any parting words at all. He chose to relate his experience for the benefit of anyone that might read it and he left. What obligation did he have to stick around and answer any questions at all?

The attrition rate on this board is attrocious - just as it is in any Internet forum. Of the 4705 members listed in the members pages, a whopping 77% of them have never even made ten posts! 90% have made fewer than 32 posts, 95% fewer than 67 posts and if you reach 300 posts you have reached the top 1%.

So given that the vast majority of members post a few things (many of them about how the diet isn't working or that they feel horrible) and then leave, why is it suspicious that he did?

The largest impression that I am getting is that there are a number of people that are grasping at tenuous straws in order to somehow prove that he MUST be lying since they don't want to believe that his results CAN be possible - yet they marvel and accept fabulous stories of improvements in blood results without question. Rather odd considering how we are always telling people that everyone's body responds differently. Is our confidence in the value of LC to US that fragile?

Besides, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether his is lying or not. We have already agreed that his results are, at the most, highly atypical. Did he tell everyone to abandon LC? No. He only urged them to have their blood tested every few months. Has anyone argued that people doing LC should not have their blood work tested periodically? Has anyone argued that people should blindly do LC without determining if it is actually working for them according to several different measures?

[Lisa N]

Is my confidence in LC tenous? Hardly, which is probably why I tend to react strongly when someone puts a post on this board that suggests this WOE will turn your blood into "fatty sludge" as TJ put it. Does he have any obligation to stick around after posting such a contraversial message? When one puts a post on a board that will likely cause quite a bit of contraversy (as this one obviously has), I would say yes, if for any reason to answer the questions of others who may read the post and wonder what exactly he did to get such disastrous results in such a short period of time. Newbies to low carb would certainly be discouraged from low carbing after reading such a post with statements such as "I'm getting off Atkins immediately" and "Faced with taking Lipitor to undo the damage" (which I suspect was the intention of the post, but that's just my humble opinion) unless they could get more information on the conditions that caused it specifically. It's too bad that TJ left before anyone could question what he did to get the results that he got. I have an analytical mind and am not satisfied with simply being reported end results...I want to see the whole picture. Bottom line is that on the internet, it's impossible to verify whether or not someone is telling you the truth unless they are willing to send you a copy of their lab results (either good results or bad), but when the results are not typical of the vast majority, it tends to raise questions. So....we can agree that the results are highly atypical, but we disagree on the motive and validity of the post. Let's just leave it at that.

[pastorbob]

:o

[chrisews]

Pastorbob, I loved your answer, let's just let it go. Whatever, whether he just wanted to scare us or whether this really did happen to him, the important thing is that we are being successful at lc-ing and have not had our cholestral rise because of our new woeing. As far as the number of people who post, lots of us just read the posts and don't often put our own two cents in. Does that mean they are not out there lo carbing and enjoying the forum and exchange of good ideas? I don't think so. Thanks pastor bob for putting this all in perspective. :doah:

[slim2b]

Hi Tom,

I know that high cholesterol is very often inherited as is in my case. My mother had a serious heart attack about 5 years ago and her cholesterol was up to 500 when it happened.

High cholesterol was one of the things that I got from her as well. Fortunately not that high.

I have been on various cholesterol lowering meds and the last one I was on was Zocor which I stopped on Jan. 3rd of this year. My biggest problem was muscle aches. I had not had a problem with muscle aches until the past year. The meds did there job but at that price.

Jan 3rd I started Atkins and my goal was to stay off of all prescription meds. I lost 14 pounds during induction phase and I stuck to it very close with the exception of 2 Burbon & waters in my second week. Had blood work on 1/3/02 and my stats were:
Triglycerides 118 HDL 54 LDL 153

Had blood work done on 3/7/02 to check results as follows:
Triglycerides 71 HDL 50 LDL 149

I have pretty well accepted that Atkins is going to be WOL for me if I can stay off the meds. My energy level is way up and I once again run and lift weights.

My wife and sister-in-law saw what it was doing for me so they both tried Atkins and they could not stay on it because of complications.

I am sure that Atkins does work for some and not for others. I guess I am lucky and one of those it is working for.

Good luck,

Terry

[Lisa N]

Slim2B....

I'm curious what type of complications that your wife and sister-in-law experienced to make them quit Atkins. Was it because they felt bad when they first started or because they developed some type of medical condition? If it was because they felt bad at first, I'd encourage them to try again. Many people feel awful the first 5 days or so, then feel much better. If they continue to feel bad, it's likely not the diet specifically, but a sensitivity to something that they are eating (like dairy or eggs, for example). I'll be the first to say that diets are not "one size fits all", but I also don't think there are many people who can't benefit from eating fewer carbs. Just a thought.

[slim2b]

Hi Lisa,

My wife started Atkins induction and stayed on it about 9 days. She was doing great loosing 8 lbs. She started getting head aches after about the 8th day when she started eating more carbs and essentially went of the diet. Her head aches went away. Personally I don't believe it was do to the lack of carbs but maybe caused from withdrawing from a normal diet of a lot of carbs, breads, pasta, potato chips and sweets. Well what ever it was I could not convince her to go back and try it again.

My sister-in-law (wife's sister) started Atkins and was doing great the first week having lost 11 lbs going into the 2nd week of induction. She advised that she just lost all interest in food and didn't want to eat at all.

I can't speak for my sister-in-law as how well she followed induction but my wife followed it because I supervised it very closley. I would like to get them both to try it again but it will probably be to no avail.

As for myself, I plan to stay on it the rest of my life. I can't begin to describe how much more energy I have and no aches or pains. I was also on Tropol for high blood pressure and I quite that at the same time I quit zocor. I check my blood pressure 2 to 3 times a week now and it is staying right at 126/72. I am convinced that the prescription meds I was on cause all of my pain which I am free of now.

Terry

[fiona]

Terry, it's a bit like giving up cigarettes. It has to be a person's own choice. You can't force them. You can encourage and support them with the withdrawals and adaptations that follow - which can be hard but..... at the end of the day the decision and choice is theirs.

For me personally I could not believe I could go a whole 3-4 hours without thinking of food once the carb-cravings stopped! It was grrrrrreat not to have the hunger (!craving more like !) pangs.

I have said this so many times in so many ways on this Forum that I feel like a parrot but I feel I need to say it once again here.

I was in a desperate state when I started Atkins. Having been (or tried to remain) a vegetarian for some 20 years it went completely against the grain.

The benefits for me have been too numerous to even start listing here. Mental Fog: almost instantly better. I haven't taken any asthma medication since August last year. Depression is much much better.

The weight-loss is just a btw which does not seem important compared to the benefits healthwise.

Take care.

[captxray]

With all of the talk on this thread of people lying and doubting and, etc., etc., I was just thinking. Why not just go to your doctor and have your own cholesterol checked if it bothers you so much to see one person's claims of his cholesterol being raised on this WOE? Although, he didn't give it a chance to become a WOE because he never left the "induction" phase. Maybe, if he had just gone on the regular Atkins "diet" or WOE, he wouldn't have experienced such a spike. I am not on Atkins. I am on Neanderthin and it is a WOE and a WOL. My cholesterol didn't jump like that, but I was warned because I have that problem in my family history. My mother can't keep her's down without Lipitor. Although, she won't try this WOL and insists on a low fat/cholesterol/calorie diet variation of Weight Watchers and looks like a 75 year old cadaver. She doesn't believe my claims of how bad grains, dairy, legumes/beans, and nightshades are. So be it! If she wants to look like a cadaver and take her Lipitor, what can I really do about it? We all have our opinions and our "scientific" examples. In the long run, it boils down to what each of us is comfortable with. Because we have this incredible ability to think, each of us has the ability to make up our own minds. You know what? WHATEVER! I've quit being a zealot (except to myself) about my WOE and WOL. If people tell me it's unhealthy, I just blankly look at them the way they used to look at me when I tried to convince them that my way was right. What's "right" for one person isn't right for another person. There are just too many facets to what is "truth" and what is "right." For most of us on this forum, this is the "right" way to eat. But, even amongst US, there are divisions. Most of you think my WOE is bizarre, and I think you shouldn't be using all of those grains, dairy, nightshades, and beans! So what? My "truth" is MY TRUTH. Yours is yours. Hey! In the words of that famous "regular guy," Rodney King, "Why can't we just all get along?"

[Lisa N]

Hi Terry! Wow...that's got to be the first time I've heard of someone quitting low carb because they WEREN'T hungry! Most of us consider that one of the great benefits of this diet...no more gnawing hunger pangs. My husband, who started following this WOE after New Year because he saw what great benefits it was bringing me, LOVES that part of it. He says it's the first "diet" he's ever been on where he wasn't starving all the time. I agree with Fiona, though...it has to be the person's choice to stay on it or go off it. You're probably right about the headaches also...a common symptom of carb withdrawal. I was also on blood pressure medications and diabetes medications when I started this WOE and am now off both of them with my blood pressure and blood sugars stable within the normal range (BP 125/82 and blood sugars average 100). My total cholesterol and LDL did both go up slightly (along with my HDL) which kinda freaked my doc out even though my triglycerides dropped over 200 points, so I'm having it rechecked again in a couple of weeks (6 months after the last test). This time I'm going in armed with more information, though, and am going to ask that the LDL be checked to see how much of it is type A and how much is type B before I agree to cholesterol lowering drugs. Even then, I'd like to explore a more natural alternative before I agree to a potentially toxic drug like Lipitor.

[slim2b]

captxray,

I couldn't agree with you more on doing your own thing. I would like to see my wife on it but I will not even suggest it anymore if she doesn't want to do it.

The bottom line, I know how much better I feel now and I had my mind made up that no matter what my doctor said I was staying on it. Something that can make you feel so much more energetic and eliminate aches & pains can not be all that bad. Especially when you are not taking drugs to make you feel like that.

My son is a fitness trainer in the USAF and when he first heard about me doing Atkins all he could say about it was on the negative side. The USAF teaches the low fat and balanced meal type of diets and how bad fat is. After my son has had a chance to see the results I am having he is begining to wonder about the low fat diets.

Sure is what ever is right or works for the individual is what you should do. I know what I will be doing for the rest of my life. "WOL"

[plum]

An old thread, I see...... but I would like to post something else, as it seems appropriate......

Look up "Fat sensitivity"
DANDR page 180 1992 UK edition

" I admit there are individuals who are fat sensitive and will develop a less favourable cholesterol level on a high fat diet than on a low fat diet. Intensive study od medical reports strongly suggests that fewer than one person in three falls into this category"

Pages 181 182 then give detailed advice of how to check for this, and what to do about it.

Hope this helps anyone looking in.

[MrFrumble]

In looking at TomJacksons stats, it looks like he didn't lose a pound the whole month he was doing Atkins, he was stuck at 230 lbs. Either that or he was to lazy to update the stats.

My feeling is that he was not following the plan correclty in the first place, and he never gave us a chance to find out.

[MsFit]

Although I'm not actively low-carbing, I have tried several approaches in the past. Granted most people will see astonishing results the first month or so on the low-carb diet, but after much research and persoanl experimenting I've come to the conclusion that it's not high-fat/low carb cut-n-dry. You have to be selective on your fat and protein choices. Including natural fat and protein will be your best bet. (steak, chicken, turkey, natural peanut butter, various nuts, olive oil, fish, flax, whole eggs.)

Processed foods are the enemy. (hotdogs, McD's meat patties...)

The evil that's creeping in and tinkering with blood cholesterol levels and other health issues is the hydrogenated fat in dressings, most dariy, processed meat, etc.

If the food choices are kept as whole and natural as possible, blood results will be better and you can incorporate more fibrous veggies to compensate for the removal of processed and foods.

[captxray]

Now, I put in my two cents a few months back and talked about being reasonable, etc. However, I constantly get a lot of moralistic flak from "vegans" who think I am some kind of monster for following the diet of my heritage and ancestry. And, you know what? All of these moralistic arguments that these people throw out about eating "living things" and things "with eyes" and "feeliings," yata yata yata is so much drivel! Vegans are now trying to kill off my species and many more other species than we have ever been responsible for getting off the planet! Every time a field is plowed for a crop thousands of tiny animals are killed from the implements of farming and the chemicals, and whatever. Millions of our six legged friends have died from their "evil' hands! So, I get a little ticked off when i hear one of them telling me that they are of a higher moral fiber and trying to save the planet. The facts don't add up in their favor. SORRY.

[suze_c]

Now I am not that familiar with how long it takes for tests to get back, or anything of that nature... the basic premise is thus: each one on a LC way of eating, is going to have individual results in their body! There may be some things that are similiar....there may be some things that are different... but no one is going to have the exact same results as anybody else~! The odds are.... hellifIknow... :lol: Who knows what percentage of fat was eaten... was it higher than the protein %? And why couldn't there be someone who is sensitive to fats/red meats/eggs and have the reverse effect in readings? After all, look at all of the ppl who have a sugar sensitivity? a carbohydrate sensitivity? This forum is a place for SUPPORT... not for bashing... not for a war... there is enough CRAP like that going on in the real world, without it being brought into this virtual one... SO... someone had different results... someone had a different reaction... let's all make a note, that this can happen... NOT that this person is lying because they are different... perhaps they ARE... we truly have no way of knowing... do we? Now, lets all put the sticks and stones away and play nice... :lol: but seriously... a healthy debate is one thing... an out and out attack is something entirely different... if someone new came to this forum, and this was the only thread that they read.... how good of an opinion would they have about the whole forum? Something to think about anyhow....

[Lisa N]

Suze_C...

Well...since Tom made so few posts and then split after this post, we'll never know for sure exactly what happened or why. What has my curiosity going is how someone's triglycerides could go up 25% in a month's time on a low carb diet? To the best of my knowledge, triglycerides need sugar/carbs to be made so where was it coming from? I've heard of total cholesterol going up on low carb and even LDL going up on low carb (although the significance of either of those is debatable), but I've never seen a post besides this one that claimed triglycerides rose on the level of carbs per day that he was reporting. Does that mean it couldn't happen? No....but I'd sure love to see the medical explanation for how it could happen on that level of carbs.

[suze_c]

Thanks for the info on triglycerides... like I said, I don't know about the nature of what all the tests measure.... yadda yadda yadda~ :)

[janisd]

Ahem - I work as a nurse practitioner, and I order these test all day long. Is is possible to get a lipid profile back in 1 day. I get them back same day most of the time they are ordered. :spin: Very important for my patients on Atkins or any other low carb diet. I would be furious if it took a week or more!

[Lisa N]

Janisd...

I commend you for your diligence. However...in my doctor's office, even though the results may be back the next day, it usually takes several days for the doctor to review them and then have the nurse call me with the results. I've often called 3 or 4 days after my test to get the results only to be told, "I'm sorry, they're not in your chart yet. Call back in a few days." If I don't call and the results are not hugely abnormal, it usually takes 10 days before I am sent the results by mail.
From talking with other people, I also gather that my experience is not unusual.

[Big Red]

I have to say that some here have really jumped to negative conclusions! I guess I should have started reading posts in other forums first :D

Anyway, to the point:
In June of 1996 I was diagnosed with hypoglycemia. I was put on a low carb diet and lost a lot of weight. At first my blood counts all improved, of course, because of all the weight loss; this is typical. However, now 6 years later, I have high cholesterol, high triglycerides, high LDL and low HDL. Now, as you can see, this is not good. Now my dr., who is fine with low carb, advises me to eat much lower fat. Obviously the low carb worked in the short term, but long term has not. I am to continue with low carb, but incorporate low fat. It is a challenge but one I'm willing to work on.

I'm more selective in my protein sources, opting for protein shake instead of eggs or meats for breakfast. Lunches are tuna (without mayo) and vegetables or soup made with lean beef and lots of vegetables. Dinner is similar.

I don't like sugar so I avoid it. I don't like many breads or carby foods so those aren't a problem either.

I'm sure I'll be slammed for this and if I must show my blood profiles I will, but I hope most people are mature enough not to have a "prove it" attitude ;)

I still low carb, I know it has helped my blood sugar tremendously, that's the only thing that was good on my blood profile :rolleyes:

Oh, and I have my fasting blood sugar done at 8:00 am and get the results by 5:00 pm. It's been this way for years.

[suze_c]

How do you like this cold weather? I have been up your way many a time... my ex hubby was from Lincoln... long story :lol:
I am also trying to do a low fat LC w/o/e... not because I "have" to, but because I simply don't want all that fat... ugh. I can agree that it isn't the easiest thing to do... I am doing a combination of Stillmans and Atkins...Stillmans QWL Diet Summary (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=609690&highlight=Stillman+SUmmary#post609690) <-- there is a link on Stillmans... and also a bit of info on what I am doing now. I don't know if it'd work for you... so far it is working for me. I am not one of those to go about shoving my plan into "someone's throat" so to speak insisting that it is the ONLY way to go! I don't have a problem with it... I don't mind the sugar restrictiveness.... but Big Red,..whatever plan you choose to use, I wish you success~

[Lisa N]

Hi there, Big Red and welcome to the forum.

While your results are not typical, I'm not going to assert that they aren't what they are. I am a bit curious what your daily menu looked like during those six years of high fat/low carb. What was your typical daily carb intake? What types of veggies were you eating? How about percentages from fat (and what types)? Did you eat a lot of processed meats (bacon, sausage, lunch meats)?

[doreen T]

Originally posted by Lisa N
.... How about percentages from fat (and what types)? Did you eat a lot of processed meats (bacon, sausage, lunch meats)? Yes. Also, what about TYPE of fat? For example did you consume a lot of margarine, vegetable shortening and/or refined vegetable and salad oils ... which are high in trans-fats??

Doreen

[Big Red]

Suze_c, it is very cold here. I'm not far outside Lincoln. Had our first snow already! I will check the site you mentioned. And thank you for your post.

Doreen and Lisa:

here is a typical menu (I kept a food log so I know what it is)
Breakfast:
an egg or two cooked in butter: not margarine
sometimes a protein shake with it, sometimes not

Lunch:
usually a large salad (dark greens) with chicken, turkey, or tuna and chopped peppers, onions, mushrooms, a small carrot shredded, etc. with 1 T regular ranch dressing on the side

Snack:
sliced cheese, peanut butter on a spoon, or occasionally a beef jerky

Dinner:
chicken cooked in olive oil, no skin, or a hamburger, no bun of course
2 or 3 vegetables in butter: broccoli, brussel sprouts, okra, mix of non-starchy garden vegetables, etc.

Bedtime snack:
peanut butter, another cheese slice, leftover meat from dinner, etc.

So you see, it is a healthy diet, but a lot of fat.
I don't like sausages or greasy meats. I also do not like margarine. It's the real thing or nothing for me.
No processed foods except the cheese and salad dressing really.

Ok, I'm sure the next question is the blood profile.
Here you go:

December 1996 after 6 months low carbing:
Cholesterol 190
LDL 104
HDL 58
sugar 72 (up from 50 in June)

August 2002 after 6 years:
Triglycerides: 295
Cholesterol 270
HDL: 32
LDL 145
glucose: 97

[Lisa N]

Big Red...

Very interesting....but if this is the way you've been eating for the past 6 years, it sounds more like Atkins induction instead of the HAI diet. On HAI, they don't recommend that you go below 60 grams of carb per day and, in fact, recommend that daily carb intake be kept between 60 and 100 grams of carb per day (I got this information from their website). From what you posted, I think you'd be lucky to be getting 20 grams of carb per day; 30 at the most. Also...the amount of fats you are eating are not terribly high (compared to what a lof of folks here are eating, they're actually on the low side). There doesn't seem to be much room for cutting any more out unless you go practically fat-free and if you do that, your body is likely to start producing its own cholesterol which is typically the bad LDL kind. Still...I wish you luck in your quest to improve those numbers.

[Big Red]

I kept track of carbs. I averaged 60-80 each and every day. I don't do well on any less than 60.

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by Big Red
I kept track of carbs. I averaged 60-80 each and every day. I don't do well on any less than 60.

Ummmm....what you posted above as an average days' menu doesn't come close to 60-80 grams of carb. Just to give you some idea...1 1/2 cups of romaine lettuce has 1 gram of carb (raw spinach is less). So even a large mixed salad (with the onions, peppers, and mushrooms) would be less than 10 grams of carb. 1 cup of cooked broccoli has 3 grams of carb. Brussels sprouts are about 1 gram of carb each. Even carrots are only 6 grams of carb for a cup cooked. Onions are 5.5 grams for a 1/2 cup chopped.
So unless you were having a 10 cup salad for lunch and about 10 cups of cooked broccoli and 30 brussels sprouts for dinner, it would be pretty hard to get to between 60 and 80 grams of carb with the types of foods you posted above.
Also...60 to 80 grams of carb would be enough in some people to provoke an insulin response and give you the blood test results you posted. Since you say you don't do well on less than 60 grams of carb per day, you probably will need to cut the fat down, but from what you posted above again...unless you are putting a lot of butter on your veggies you are probably already at 30% of your daily calories or less from fat.
Have you ever used Fitday (www.fitday.com) to track your daily totals? It's a great tool and many members find it quite useful.

[Big Red]

I use fitday.

I know some will find it difficult, but I do eat enough carbs to make my balance. Even fitday agreed :)

[Lisa N]

Are you aware that Fitday doesn't subtract grams of fiber for you and that fiber doesn't count in your daily carb allowance since your body cannot digest it? I can see how you might get to 60 grams of carb before fiber is subtracted, but not after with what you posted above unless you can be more specific with amounts.

[Big Red]

I do subtact fiber. I don't know why you're worried about my totals. I assure this is a SAMPLE of my menus and I did and do maintain a 60-80 gram total, daily. With fiber I was often around 100 grams according to fitday.

[Lisa N]

Big Red...

I can't say I'm worried about your carb levels, but the numbers aren't adding up using the types of veggies you said you were eating. I eat very much the same types of veggies along with some cheese and an occasional spoonful of peanut butter too and have a hard time getting to 30 grams of carb before I'm too full to eat any more. 60-80 grams of carb's worth of those types of veggies is a LOT of veggies (more than most people would be able to physically eat), especially if you subtract out the fiber too. Many people add in fruits and some whole grains to get that level of carb consumption.
But as I said before, if you are eating 60-80 grams worth of carb per day, it could provoke an insulin response in some people that would explain the lab readings that you got and you would either have to lower your carb intake farther or lower your fat intake, although it's doubtful that just lowering your fat intake will produce the types of numbers that you are after since it's been shown that dietary fat has very little effect on total serum cholesterol. Have you had a chance to read through the Reasearch/Media watch forum as well as the Cholesterol/Heart Disease forum? You might get some good ideas to help you there.
Something else, too....do you ever consume alcohol?

[Big Red]

don't consume alcohol at all

[doreen T]

hi there Big Red, a.k.a. Dec.Angel,

I understand your worry about the high blood lipid readings, but it's not helpful to give us information that's inaccurate if you want us to help you. According to posts under the previous name, there have been episodes of going out of control with carbs, junk food binges, and losing your resolve. I think we can see where the high triglyceridese are coming from. Carbs = sugar = the "glyceride" part of triglycerides.

Have a look at this article from the Mayo Clinic about high triglycerides (http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2002-mchi/1426.html). You'll see the very first recommendation for lowering triglyceride levels is to * Cut out sugary foods, such as cookies and pop. In some people, this leads to a large decrease in triglyceride levels.

As for the cholesterol levels, I'd like to suggest to you that they're not as bad as you think. Here's a quote from the article What Causes Heart Disease? (http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html) by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD Men who have cholesterol levels over 350 mg/dl are at slightly greater risk for heart disease. For women, there is no greater risk for heart disease, even at levels as high as 1000 mg/dl. In fact, mortality is higher for women with low cholesterol than for women with high cholesterol.It would be desirable to raise the HDL to over 40 mg/dl. Over 60 mg/dl is protective against heart disease. To raise your HDL, you need to eat more monounsaturated fat, in the form of olives and olive oil, avocadoes, raw nuts and seeds. Also, consume fatty cold water fish at least 3 times a week, or take fish oil supplements.

To lower the triglycerides, as mentioned above, NIX THE HIGH-CARBS; also eating more fatty fish or fish oil will be helpful, as well as flax oil. You might also consider taking a soluble fiber supplement, such as psyllium/ metamucil (make sure it's sugar-free) or bene-fiber. Consuming plenty of fiber from green and cruciferous vegetables is also helpful.

If you're interested in supplements that could be helpful, check out the recommendations from Supplementwatch.com (http://www.supplementwatch.com/supcat/category.asp?categoryId=3).

Doreen

[lkonzelman]

Gosh - everyone don't pile on Big Red - this is getting unreasonable and the reactions are quite frankly the first thing to really turn me off to this forum.

I am interested in how Big Red feels and are you planning to continue this WOL?

[freydis]

2 points:

1. In the Atkins book (which I loaned to a friend, so I can't look up the exact page), the doctor says that cholesterol levels OFTEN rise within the first month after beginning the diet. It is AFTER the first month that benefits begin to be seen.

2. My husband and I use the same computers on a regular basis. My son, also. We have extremely similar cholesterol break-downs. According to one specialist I saw several years ago (not a low-carb fan, though), it is normal for families who eat the same foods to have similar readings.

[Rosebud]

Chancyrose, if you see this and are wondering where your post is, I moved here (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71990) to the Cholesterol, Heart Disease forum.

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

[smiley]

Hi everyone

News for you

I am a lab technician and deal exclusively with blood work

Please do not tell me that blood work takes 7-10 days
It at most takes approx 24 hours
It is your own doctor or courier who has the problem with getting the results "in you file"
The only lab work that can take more time is anything we have to culture and test for streptococci or other growing organisms

The doctor could order these STAT but until it grows we don't know
But blood work is completely different

Maybe ya all might want to change doctors!!!

[Rosebud]

Please do not tell me that blood work takes 7-10 days
Hi there Smiley,

As an ICU nurse, I know very well that urgent blood work can be completed in half an hour, while routine tests are usually completed within 24 hours, as you say.

However, not all labs then finish the paper work and send the results on to the various doctors' offices immediately. The last time I had my cholesterol levels checked, it took over a week and several phone calls from my doctor before the results were forthcoming.

:rose:Rosebud:rose: