yes, eat more fish, nuts(don't go overboard), veggies, olive oil, fiber, water, tofu-products.

... nobody's mentioned the GO Diet (specifically for resistant hypoercholesteremia, at http://www.go-diet.com.

Dr. Goldberg, a former "AtKid" and confirmed LowCarber, had cholesterals resistant to 'basic' LC, and has done plenty o' research (especially re yogurt and non-saturated fats and oils). The book is published and available, the website is HIGHLY informative. I recommend it.

Normally, I would also mention that (this is in the back of my head from 3 years+ of LC and LC EMail List communications and sharing, wish I could dig up specific references, though the Atkins online newsmagazine comes to mind) cholesteral #s often rise or spike "briefly" and then start to decline. I believe the Atkins Centre for Complementary Medicine expects it CAN take up to 3 months or so before levels start to decline. You may wish to put this in context with how long you have been consistently LowCarbing with one or another relatively low-carb (Atkins, PP, Bernstein, et al) plan, and then decide if you want to change things or stick it out for a while longer. The ingested ESSENTIAL fatty acids are, well, essential... just don't have to be saturated.

Hope this helps.

Hi Doreen, Hobotnica and all,

Dorren, thank you for your warm welcome ! I enjoyed reading your many posts. A newbie to this Atkins program (starting since August 1), I think I owe my success so far on this program mostly thanks to the wealth of information shared by you all in this forum.

So I guess it should be my turn to share with you how I've been doing... I've lost 8 lbs during my 2 weeks of induction, experience brief periods of extreme tiredness on 3rd day & 4th day and then I start to feel ok after that (not at my peak of energy yet, but no too bad either). All the minor aches and pains (lower back pain, ankles, wrists, etc..) seem to be gone away. No longer crave for white starch & sugary foods. (Whenever I feel cravings for fruits, I would eat two or three cherries or a small plum with salt ). If there is a complaint about this way of eating, it would be that I find it much harder to exercise (stamina and endurance seriously reduced when on protein diet instead of complex carb). Other than this set back, I find this a very convenient, no starving way of loosing weight. Energy level is more stable, as there are no surges and then crash due to blood sugar swings!

I incorporate my knowledge from the "Eat right for your blood type" to the Atkins diet. I would eat more of the "beneficial" type of protein for my type O (salmon for example) and stay away from
pork, etc..

From Dr. Atkin's books and people's comments, I also aware of potential problems with kidney, liver and constipation problems. So along with vitamins supplements, I also take herbal liver cleanse and kidney & gall bladder formulas (Planetary formula - by Michael Tierra). At night, I take 1 teaspoon of the psyllium fiber along with 2 capsules of "Red Clover combination" (blood cleansing /mild herbal laxative). I also take some herbal thyroid glandular complexes at mealtimes to help with my low thyroid. At any meals that I feel a little heavy or hard to digest, I use "Pancreatin" from KAL, it's an excellent enzyme product.

Results: I got the metabolic benefit of the ketosis state but able to eliminate the toxic waste product of a high animal protein diet thanks to the herbal formulas. My skin looks clearer, nicer, people says there's a glow to it..
Even though I'm in deep ketosis, my breath doesn't smell bad, because there's adequate elimination of bowel).

Hobotnica, I think you can benefit from the herbal liver cleanse/tonic since it's the organ that regulate our cholesterol. "Pancreatin" (I found that KAL has the best) should also help you digest better the meaty and fatty meals of the low carb program. Have you had your thyroid function tested ?

Good Luck to all of us !

Anna

My husband has a history of high blood pressure and high cholestral - also angina. When I read of the Atkins diet we thought this was our answer. He had only been on the diet 3 weeks and was admitted to hospital as an emergency and has been in twice since. His angina has become very unstable. This diet is not for the likes of him.

Don't be worried about your cholesterol reading as it is meaningless. Cholesterol rises steadily with age and studies have demonstrated that we live longer if this continues into old age. So to fix any figure as a norm for everyone is ridiculous, just as it is to insist that it be lowered.

Also any one-off reading is meaningless as it depends entirely on what you were doing or feeling in the minutes before the blood test was done. For example: if you ran to the surgery it will be higher than if you walked; if you stood in the waiting room, it will be higher than if you sat; and if you were worried about the test, or your doctor looked worried, it will also be higher. This is because a raised cholesterol is part of the 'fight-or-flight' reflex.

The other thing that wil be discussed is the relationship between LDL and HDL, the former being 'bad' and the latter 'good'. Again this is nonsense. Cholesterol is not water soluble, so it is transported around the body in packets containing other nutrients. The packets are called "lipoproteins" (lipids + proteins) -- the last letter in both of the abbreviations. Cholesterol is a major building block in cell repair and regeneration, a process that is going on all the time. It is carried around the body from the liver to where it is needed by LDL; the used cholesterol from older cells is transported back to the liver for recycling by HDL. To put it in terms of house renovation, LDL is the truck bringing new bricks to the building site and HDL is the skip taking old materials away for recycling. There are no 'good' or 'bad' lipoproteins or cholesterol, they are both essential.

One other point: Your body isn't in the habit of making things that are harmful to itself. If it wants 8.1 mmols swishing around each litre of your bloodstream, then it's a good idea to let it get on with its job. It seems that the biggest risk factor of all is mucking about with your body unnaturally.

Statins
The next point is more important: The statin studies do show that statins confer small benefits in middle-aged men who have already had one heart attack. But not because of cholesterol-lowering, as the benefits were the same whether cholesterol was lowered a lot or not at all. So it is NOT lowering of cholesterol that is the beneficial action, but something else. Even then the benefits are small.

And secondly, there have been shown to be no benefits in men who haven't had a heart attack, no benefits in the elderly and, significantly for most of this list, no benefits in women of any age whether they have had a heart attack or not. So there is no evidence that Zocor (simvastatin) will benefit you at all.

And lastly, statins have a range of serious side effects. You may have heard a couple of years ago, about one statin, Baycol, being removed from the market because of deaths associated with its use. But all the other statins carry similar risks. The process in the body by which cholesterol is synthesised, and which statins inhibit, is the same pathway that the body uses to make co-enzyme Q10, probably the most important antioxidant. Co-Q10 is also used in large quantity by the heart. It is no coincidence that people taking statins have an increased risk of conjestive heart failure.

And as they lower cholesterol, the also increase cancer risk, particularly from breast cancer.

By the way, a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that doctors were the third leading cause of death in the USA in 1999. (Starfield B. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? JAMA 2000; 284: 483-485). Four years later, another report elevated them into first place (http://www.garynull.com/documents/i...bymedicine1.htm). So, in the USA, doctors are the leading cause of death -- and there is no reason to suppose that doctors in New Zealand, who follow US guidelines, are any better. Bear in mind that it was these people who set the standards for cholesterol -- and who push cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Don't be worried about your cholesterol reading as it is meaningless. Cholesterol rises steadily with age and studies have demonstrated that we live longer if this continues into old age. So to fix any figure as a norm for everyone is ridiculous, just as it is to insist that it be lowered.

Also any one-off reading is meaningless as it depends entirely on what you were doing or feeling in the minutes before the blood test was done. For example: if you ran to the surgery it will be higher than if you walked; if you stood in the waiting room, it will be higher than if you sat; and if you were worried about the test, or your doctor looked worried, it will also be higher. This is because a raised cholesterol is part of the 'fight-or-flight' reflex.

The other thing that wil be discussed is the relationship between LDL and HDL, the former being 'bad' and the latter 'good'. Again this is nonsense. Cholesterol is not water soluble, so it is transported around the body in packets containing other nutrients. The packets are called "lipoproteins" (lipids + proteins) -- the last letter in both of the abbreviations. Cholesterol is a major building block in cell repair and regeneration, a process that is going on all the time. It is carried around the body from the liver to where it is needed by LDL; the used cholesterol from older cells is transported back to the liver for recycling by HDL. To put it in terms of house renovation, LDL is the truck bringing new bricks to the building site and HDL is the skip taking old materials away for recycling. There are no 'good' or 'bad' lipoproteins or cholesterol, they are both essential.

One other point: Your body isn't in the habit of making things that are harmful to itself. If it wants 8.1 mmols swishing around each litre of your bloodstream, then it's a good idea to let it get on with its job. It seems that the biggest risk factor of all is mucking about with your body unnaturally.

Statins
The next point is more important: The statin studies do show that statins confer small benefits in middle-aged men who have already had one heart attack. But not because of cholesterol-lowering, as the benefits were the same whether cholesterol was lowered a lot or not at all. So it is NOT lowering of cholesterol that is the beneficial action, but something else. Even then the benefits are small.

And secondly, there have been shown to be no benefits in men who haven't had a heart attack, no benefits in the elderly and, significantly for most of this list, no benefits in women of any age whether they have had a heart attack or not. So there is no evidence that Zocor (simvastatin) will benefit you at all.

And lastly, statins have a range of serious side effects. You may have heard a couple of years ago, about one statin, Baycol, being removed from the market because of deaths associated with its use. But all the other statins carry similar risks. The process in the body by which cholesterol is synthesised, and which statins inhibit, is the same pathway that the body uses to make co-enzyme Q10, probably the most important antioxidant. Co-Q10 is also used in large quantity by the heart. It is no coincidence that people taking statins have an increased risk of conjestive heart failure.

And as they lower cholesterol, they also increase cancer risk, particularly from breast cancer.

By the way, a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that doctors were the third leading cause of death in the USA in 1999. (Starfield B. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? JAMA 2000; 284: 483-485). Four years later, another report elevated them into first place (http://www.garynull.com/documents/i...bymedicine1.htm). So, in the USA, doctors are the leading cause of death -- and there is no reason to suppose that doctors in New Zealand, who follow US guidelines, are any better. Bear in mind that it was these people who set the standards for cholesterol -- and who push cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Thanks for the insight, Dr. Groves. Hope you'll stick around...

Hi Y'all,

I'm now a lifelong low-carber. I had a walking glucose tolerance test a few months ago. (they put a tiny needle in your stomach, and attach you to a small beepr-like machine that takes your glucose readings every 3 minutes for three entire days, and you must follow a particular diet for these three days). The results were very telling. I mentioned before that diabetes runs rampant in my family, and it looks like I'm on the threshold....but not there yet. It is complicated to explain, but the easy version is that my body produces too much insulin upon eating, then cannot produce enough on a regular basis throughout the day. This wreaks havoc on my blood sugar levels and is responsible for many of the health problems I've been experiencing over the years. (If anyone is interested in all the details, let me know and I'll explain more).

Anyways....I'm on a permanent low-carb diet for the rest of my life in an effort to prevent diabetes. I'm using a blood glucose monitor to help me figure out what foods cause my blood sugar to increase. I have found that the Glucose Index was useless for me because my body wasn't responding the way it was supposed to (e.g. tomatoes have the same effect as chocolate pudding for me, and cooked bell peppers make my blood sugar skyrocket whereas raw peppers have a negligable effect.)

I'm still in the learning process, but am feeling much better these days. Strangely, my cholesterol went down to normal levels within a few weeks of adjusting my diet, stayed normal, and now, 5 months later, they have rocketed back up to 8.0 I'm taking it one day at a time.

I'm in the same boat. Although I only wanted to lose 10-15 pounds, I have lost none. My husband, who is already thin, lost weight quickly even though he didn't need to. It seems, in the couples I know, that it men usually lose weight more easily than women, but it is discouraging, since I felt I needed to and he didn't.

I was suspicious that my thyroid levels might be contributing, so I had them checked, and they are well within the normal range--not even borderline.

Then there's the cholesterol problems. I have always had healthy cholesterol readings. Last year, the total was 182. (I don't remember the breakdowns.) This time, after being on the diet for about five months, they went up to 224: TRI-29; LDL-159; HDL-59. While the triglicerides are low, the LDL rate is a little scary to me since my levels have always been good. Exercise is a regular part of my life, though I had tapered off a little before getting my blood tested.

I'm not wanting to give up low-carb because I do feel better on it than anything else I've tried. I'm just wondering if some tweeking is necessary.

I notice in your first post that you've only been on Atkins for 2 months. I experienced a dramatic rise in cholesterol at the 3 month point, a drop at 5 months and a bigger drop at 11 months. My triglicerides, 239 before LC were 359 at 3 months then dropped to 96 and stayed there.

It may take some time for you to see improved blood lipid results.

I also added fish oil capsules and policosanols at the 5 month point and and attribute part of a 30 point drop in LDL in the next 6 months to that regimine.