Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 04:31
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,591
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

I would not normally pass along medical articles from The New York Post, but at the end of this one is the list of "top ten" co-morbidities (along with age) of the deaths in New York. Also, it's good to see a headline that Diet has a huge influence on immunity to Covid and there is something everyone can do about it.

America’s junk food diet makes us even more vulnerable to coronavirus

https://nypost.com/2020/04/18/ameri...to-coronavirus/

There are so many unknowns about this virus, and so many test results that don't sound logical. 73% of prisoners in Ohio Test positive but have no symptoms? 60% of positive tests on the TR aircraft carrier had no symptoms. Are we even testing for the right virus? Is this something like a herpes simplex cold sore virus we carry in us but a new mutation triggered it...but only in certain people? All types of tests seem too weird at this point to put much faith in them.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 07:27
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,493
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

All valid points. I'm beginning to realize that much of the blame, finger pointing, and other shaming going on is just subterfuge that does not help the objective of finding more about this virus. Now, I'm wondering whether recommended isolation resulting in lock downs is really effective in mitigating this virus, as having underlying conditions would likely be similarly fatal in the case of a highly contagious flu or other virus. What we do know is that obesity is a symptom of an underlying health issue that typically rides along with other symptoms like HBP, CVD, sleep apnea (existing breathing issues), blood sugar issues, and others that put anyone at risk with any virus or illness that manifests itself in the lungs and taxes oxygen transfer to the blood.

If the test results referenced are accurate, then we've got to be more creative in dealing with this virus and may need to consider allowing people to contract the virus to get over it. While I realize that the isolation and lock down recommendations were primarily to prevent overwhelming hospitals and health facilities, that's not happening right now, but the catch 22 is that someone will argue that the very reason hospitals are not overwhelmed is due to isolating. With this information, I'm no longer sure about this argument.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 08:22
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 8,094
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/226/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 93%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

My hunch is that reopening the country will go well if those that have been identified as the most vulnerable remain well isolated from it. This virus spreads very easily, so I don't think there is any practical way to isolate these people forever. The most important thing is to keep the spikes down so that our healthcare system can still cope.

Regarding
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100

America’s junk food diet makes us even more vulnerable to coronavirus

https://nypost.com/2020/04/18/ameri...to-coronavirus/

I agree with Rob. The article does make good points, for the most part, in pinpointing poor diet as a huge risk factor. However, nothing much was said about what to do about it. If what comes out of this is nothing but increased blame and pressure on obese people to eat "healthy" and lose weight by the same old failed methods what will we gain? I still don't think that the mainstream understands what the real source of the problem is. I'm sure that eating 'healthy' will still involve plenty of healthy whole grains, fruits and vegetables (including starchy ones). I think that we are making some headway in the right directions, but I don't think we will get there until the guidelines actually promote a diet well suited to the metabolically challenged. Let's hope that one positive result of this pandemic is a desire to truly understand what's happening to the virus infected metabolically ill without the bias of the past.

Last edited by khrussva : Mon, Apr-20-20 at 09:19.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 08:46
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,591
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

Well lucky us, if you want to hear her advice on how to be "healthy" her book Advertised within this article, comes out tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 09:50
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,556
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/170/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 110%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Most of the co-morbidities are caused by insulin resistance. Tests for insulin resistance are seldom done.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 10:27
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,205
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/180/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 65%
Location: UK
Default

Dr Aseem Malhotra linking it to poor diet today on the BBC

Quote:
Covid-19 and Obesity: “We need to update the public health message”

5 Live News Specials

Consultant Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra explains why being obese can be a significant risk factor if you contract coronavirus.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08b07dr
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 10:57
jschwab jschwab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,378
 
Plan: Atkins72/Paleo/NoGrain/IF
Stats: 285/220/200 Female 5 feet 5.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevangel
That's ridiculous! Clearly her doctor has never heard of "lean diabetes." However, if her BG is going way up and then crashing multiple times each day, it's possible that an A1C might show something close to "normal" because it averages out the highs and lows over something like a 3 month period.

Perhaps you could get her a blood glucose meter and enough strips to test her blood sugar 4 or 5 times a day over a few days. If she tests within 15 to 20 minutes after eating candy/pizza or whatever and then again when she's feeling woozy or hangry or shaky with a blood sugar crash, she'll probably see numbers ranging everywhere from 50s up to well over 200. Take all those numbers, along with time taken and how long it had been since her last meal, to her doctor. If he STILL won't investigate diabetes, then get her to a different doctor cause the one she has now clearly has no business practicing medicine!


I don't think she has diabetes and her BG is always within range but her blood sugar crashes hard if she doesn't eat, then she eats junk all the time. I might guess she's in the prediabetic range, maybe a 6.5-7. I believe her fasting BG that her doctor thinks is "fine" is around 105.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 11:25
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,119
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

The lack of correlation with weight may be due to the fact that COVID-19 hits the frail (underweight) as well as the obese hardest. Skinny doesn't mean healthy.

I only get (allergenic) asthma symptoms when I eat hearthealthywholegrains or walk through cigarette smoke. I never had asthma until I went vegan (~1990 at 36 for a stint), and I never have attacks when I avoid all grains and smokers. I like to be able to breathe.

Last edited by deirdra : Mon, Apr-20-20 at 11:33.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 11:57
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Posts: 2,288
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

Interesting read Janet, Thanks for sharing.

One thought tho, that last section labeled "Deadly Factors" would have been much more useful if, along with the percentage of those who died who exhibited a particular factor, information had also been given about the number of New Yorkers who, in general, have the particular factor.

For example, the article says that 20% of the people who died from Coronavirus in New York State had hyperlipidemia.

But, when I googled "hyperlipidemia in New York State" the first thing that google returned was a pdf from Health.NY.gov that says that in 2015, 80% of New York adults surveyed reported that they'd had their cholesterol levels checked within the previous five years and that 36.6% of those reported that they were told they had high cholesterol levels.

I'm not a statistician BUT, even if we assume that the 20% of New Yorkers who had NOT had their cholesterol checked within 5 years also DID NOT have hyperlipidemia, then 29.28% (0.8 x 36.6) of the New Yorkers surveyed had hyperlipidemia. And that's making the assumption that every single person with hyperlipidemia had been tested. More likely, those who've never had their cholesterol checked probably have a fairly similar levels of high cholesterol as those who have been tested. (There'll be some who've never been tested simply because they appear healthier so their doctors won't have checked. But there'll be others who've never been tested because they're too poor to go see a doctor so therefore more likely to have various health issues. I'm better the two groups come close to canceling out so that the real prevalence of hyperlipidemia is very close to the reported 36.6%)

So, assuming that the survey participants were selected reasonably randomly, then we ought to be able to assume that at least 29%, (and more likely, closer to 36.6%) of New Yorkers have hyperlipidemia.

Seems to me like that should also mean that somewhere between 29% to 36.6% of the New Yorkers who died of COVID-19 should have had hyperlipidemia, even if hyperlipidemia had NOTHING to do with whether one dies of the disease or not.

But, only 20% did! So, is hyperlipidemia PROTECTIVE rather than a risk factor for dying of the disease???

Last edited by bevangel : Mon, Apr-20-20 at 16:46.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Mon, Apr-20-20, 15:36
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,495
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevangel
Interesting read Janet, Thanks for sharing.

One thought tho, that last section labeled "Deadly Factors" would have been much more useful if, along with the percentage of those who died who exhibited a particular factor, information had also been given about the number of New Yorkers who, in general, have the particular factor.

For example, the article says that 20% of the people who died from Coronavirus in New York State had hyperlipidemia.

But, when I googled "hyperlipidemia in New York State" the first thing that google returned was a pdf from Health.NY.gov that says that in 2015, 80% of New York adults surveyed reported that they'd had their cholesterol levels checked within the previous five years and that 36.6% of those reported that they were told they had high cholesterol levels.

I'm not a statistician BUT, even if we assume that the 20% of New Yorkers who had NOT had their cholesterol checked within 5 years also DID NOT have hyperlipidemia, then 29.28% (0.8 x 36.6) of the New Yorkers surveyed had hyperlipidemia. And that's making the assumption that every single person with hyperlipidemia had been tested. More likely, those who've never had their cholesterol checked probably have a fairly similar levels of high cholesterol as those who have been tested. (There'll be some who've never been tested simply because they appear healthier so their doctors won't have checked. But there'll be others who've never been tested because they're too poor to go see a doctor so therefore more likely to have various health issues. I'm better the two groups come close to canceling out so that the real prevalence of hyperlipidemia is very close to the reported 36.6%)

So, assuming that the survey participants were selected reasonably randomly, then we ought to be able to assume that at least 29%, (and more likely, closer to 36.6%) of New Yorkers have hyperlipidemia.

Seems to me like that should also mean that somewhere between 29% to 36.6% of the New Yorkers who died of COVID-19 should have had hyperlipidemia, even if hyperlipidemia had NOTHING to do with whether one dies of the disease or not.



But, only 20% did! So, is hyperlipidemia PROTECTIVE rather than a risk factor for dying of the disease???



That was my thought too, especially considering that (at least as I understand it) cholesterol is required to build and repair all cells in the body. So if the job of cholesterol is to repair, then logic says to me that lung damage from covid is more likely to be repaired and result in recovery for someone who has what is currently considered to be high cholesterol. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of those who recovered vs those who died were on statins to prevent their bodies from producing "too much" cholesterol.


This also leads back to the stats for hypertension and diabetes, because those were the most common co-morbidities... and not at all uncommon among those who are eating the recommended low fat high carb diet.



Coincidence? Hmm...
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Tue, Apr-21-20, 19:19
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 8,094
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/226/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 93%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

FYI: A clinic in a small town a few miles north of where I work started offering a drive-through Covid-19 antibody test. The test was covered by my insurance so I decided to have it done today. My results were negative for the antibody. Thus says this 'results back in 5 minutes' test.

But to be honest, even before I got my results I sort of felt like this might be more of a racket than a service. As they pricked my finger and took a few drops of blood they informed me that the test was FDA approved and that it had a 70% accuracy rate. 70% accuracy??? Really? OK. So how confident should I be in the results either way. Not very.

The test results were provided by what I supposed to be a medical doctor -- on a 10" tablet hanging from what looked like an IV rack placed outside my window like a drive-in speaker. I heard the spiel given to the car ahead of me - much about repeating all the 'stay safe' sanitizing & social distancing rules that we all know. My spiel was verbatim. In fact, I almost thought that I was watching a video. Then suddenly he asked if I had any questions. It was a real person! I asked about the 70% accuracy and told him about the two people from my office that tested positive for the antibody and that most of our office was sick at the same time as this person who tested positive. I told him that I suspected that I had experienced covid-19 and that's why I wanted this test. His response came across as a little defensive about what they were doing and the value in spite of a FDA approved 70% accuracy rate. In the end he did suggest that with my circumstances I might want to consider having a more reliable test done. Wow. It really is more like a racket than a service, IMO. There were no cars in the front of the clinic. I don't know if they were closed or not. But they sure were busy out back processing that long line of cars.

Perhaps I did have corona-virus a month or two ago. Maybe I didn't. I'm not confident that this test shed much light on my situation. 4 more people from my office are scheduled to have their antibody tests tomorrow at the same clinic. These people were among those in the office that were sick for weeks back in February. If all come back negative I will feel a little more confident in my negative results. What if we get mixed results in that group? Could they be false positives? Who knows?

Last edited by khrussva : Tue, Apr-21-20 at 19:28.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Tue, Apr-21-20, 22:00
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,493
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khrussva
FYI: A clinic in a small town a few miles north of where I work started offering a drive-through Covid-19 antibody test. The test was covered by my insurance so I decided to have it done today. My results were negative for the antibody. Thus says this 'results back in 5 minutes' test.

But to be honest, even before I got my results I sort of felt like this might be more of a racket than a service. As they pricked my finger and took a few drops of blood they informed me that the test was FDA approved and that it had a 70% accuracy rate. 70% accuracy??? Really? OK. So how confident should I be in the results either way. Not very.

The test results were provided by what I supposed to be a medical doctor -- on a 10" tablet hanging from what looked like an IV rack placed outside my window like a drive-in speaker. I heard the spiel given to the car ahead of me - much about repeating all the 'stay safe' sanitizing & social distancing rules that we all know. My spiel was verbatim. In fact, I almost thought that I was watching a video. Then suddenly he asked if I had any questions. It was a real person! I asked about the 70% accuracy and told him about the two people from my office that tested positive for the antibody and that most of our office was sick at the same time as this person who tested positive. I told him that I suspected that I had experienced covid-19 and that's why I wanted this test. His response came across as a little defensive about what they were doing and the value in spite of a FDA approved 70% accuracy rate. In the end he did suggest that with my circumstances I might want to consider having a more reliable test done. Wow. It really is more like a racket than a service, IMO. There were no cars in the front of the clinic. I don't know if they were closed or not. But they sure were busy out back processing that long line of cars.

Perhaps I did have corona-virus a month or two ago. Maybe I didn't. I'm not confident that this test shed much light on my situation. 4 more people from my office are scheduled to have their antibody tests tomorrow at the same clinic. These people were among those in the office that were sick for weeks back in February. If all come back negative I will feel a little more confident in my negative results. What if we get mixed results in that group? Could they be false positives? Who knows?

Interesting story, and it reinforces my concerns as well. Yesterday, I called ARCpoint Labs that is supposedly offering the antibody testing in my area, and I got a recording stating that by Wednesday of this week, people will be able to make an appointment on their website to schedule the test. The test costs $225. At that instance, I decided I didn't want to bother, as I had no confidence that the testing was accurate and wasn't about to spend the money. Later that day, my son called and informed me that there were many antibody testing options popping up in various areas throughout the country, but the federal government was warning people that there are only a few testing options that are accurate. Enough said.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Tue, Apr-21-20, 22:03
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,853
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
But,only 20% did! So, is hyperlipidemia PROTECTIVE rather than a risk factor for dying of the disease???


I think you are on the right track. Yesterday I wstched a presentation on youtube where a doctor vindicated cholesterol as protective at higher levels. Sorry I didnt keep the link handy to include here.

My doctor feels the need to point out my cholesterol is too high at 105....never a mention of other lipid levels, sigh. Dr Atkins showed a study where too low a cholesterol level was deadly......I ignore my doctor.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-20, 07:04
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,591
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

For cholesterol being protective...might have been the interview with Dr Paul Mason at The Fat Emperor.

https://thefatemperor.com/ep68-dr-p...s-crucial-info/

From the funny transcription:

Quote:
Dr. Mason (00:19:51):
people get worried about what happens to the LDL level, what happens to their total cholesterol level? And you know the be at, they've got their family doctor, their general practitioner in their ear and their personal trainer, they've seen it on TV, what have you, so that so many people are afraid of going on a ketogenic diet because of what it will do to their cholesterol. And what I'm going to say is that having a high cholesterol level is probably gonna be a good thing if you're wanting to fight infection. So we know for a fact that, so the other two blood tests we already talked about, sugar, triglycerides, height, GL, three blood tests, they all move in the right direction on a low carb diet. But people get hung up on, well, what happens if your LDL goes up? So, so what if your LDL goes up?
Dr. Mason (00:20:42):
So we've got this systematic review from 2016 so they had 19 cohort studies I looked at with over 68,000 participants. All of those 19 studies, 16 of them found an inverse relationship with cholesterol levels, LDL levels, and all cause mortality. So what does that mean? That means that people with the highest LDL level, they live longer. And then we've got a race and Piper. So it was in a, it was in JAMA, a 2019 and that showed, looked at, uh, the association between LDL cholesterol and sepsis. So sepsis is basically an uncontrolled infection. And what I found that people with the lowest LDL levels were about 50% more likely to suffer sepsis than people with the highest levels of cholesterol. So, and I mean, you know, we've got other studies that have shown exactly the same thing going way back to 1997 looking specifically at the very elderly population. So they basically found that it's um, you know, there's this inverse relationship. Um, you know, whichever way we slice and dice it, we look at LDL, there's evidence of benefit. We have a look at height steel. This absolutely evidence of benefit with that being higher. We have a look at total cholesterol on all three metrics. It seems to be that when they're higher, people are better protected from infection. So, uh,
Ivor (00:22:12):
and you know what Paul, the five criteria for insulin resistance syndrome, metabolic syndrome that you listed. And there's a reason they didn't even put LDL in there. Only HDL cause LDL was so useless to predict metabolic disease in general and even heart disease that it just doesn't get included. And people may not realize that. And other things like if you're worried about LDL, well it all depends. If you have metabolic disease, sometimes your LDL can be relatively raised. So it's a proxy for the disease. And sometimes it can be high and has absolutely no problem whatsoever cause you don't have metabolic disease. And a recent study just this year actually, or maybe it was 19 came out and analyze the Misa with the calcification scan, which truly shows the level of arterial disease. And when they looked at the people with an LDL of around five millimoles or one 90 milligrams U S units, this is ultra high, they found that they didn't have any real extra heart disease over the general population. And nearly 40% of those guys had a zero calcium score at middle are at an age of 60 I think it was or 61 so people really need to realize that LDL in terms of being a problem is almost meaningless on its own. And as you say, in terms of being strongly connected to lack of frailty and resistance to infections, it's, it's a good thing when it's high. So it's kind of a no brainer during an issue like this where you want to be. Right,


Think Dr Mason also had more on cholesterol in his YouTube on Covid, but no transcription with that one ( which might be a good thing )
https://youtu.be/4lJPjsuftmQ
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-20, 08:06
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,493
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, Dr. Mason's youtube site is a good source for his most current information:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3...5sYM5Ybw/videos
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:20.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.