Ad Widget

Collapse

A little confused about my blood glucose levels

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A little confused about my blood glucose levels

    Every year, I get my blood tested at work. I have done this 7 years in a row. Over that time, I have become more into Primal Blueprint. Last year, I started lifting weights.

    In the past year or so, I really focused on avoiding seed and vegetable oils, apart from avocado, coconut and olive. I consistently use, butter/ghee, lard and tallow for cooking. I render my own and use pastured animal fats. I also eat fried eggs every day. I am trying to keep my O6 and O3 in a good ratio.

    7 years ago, my numbers were:
    Trigs = 328
    HDL = 39
    LDL = 300
    Total = 239

    This year they are:
    Trigs = 50
    HDL = 57
    LDL = 89
    Total = 175

    BTW I am using the Iranian calculation for LDL

    As far as weight goes, I originally lost over 50 lbs. I am 5'8". 7 years ago I was 190lbs. I was as low as 133lbs (doing IF) a year ago. For the past year, I have been trying to gain muscle and I am currently 146lbs.

    I am pleased with the trend but I am a bit concerned about my fasting glucose numbers.

    For the last 7 years they were: 88, 91, 82, 95, 90, 87, 95

    Why are they so high? Am I somewhat insulin resistant? I think my DR would say that as long as it is under 100, don't worry but I have also read that even 90 is high and anything over 90 is a predictor of diabetes.

    Thanks

  • #2
    Look totally normal with normal fluctuation. Congrats on dramatic improvement on lipid panel. Primal/paleo usually brings trigs way down but pushes LDL up. How on earth did you accomplish that huge reduction in LDL?
    Last edited by Artbuc; 02-28-2017, 02:14 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Artbuc. I had read that it shouldn't be above 90 and that readings should be more like in the 70s. While I am not overweight, I wouldn't mind getting leaner, now that I am working out. I was thinking my numbers might be high, indicating some level of insulin resistance, which would make it difficult to lose the extra fat.

      BTW I was using the Iranian formula for LDL. I understand it is more accurate than Friedewald when Trigs are either very high (which they were) or very low (which they are). If I use the Friedewald calculation then my LDL went from a peak of 181 to a low of 108. That is not as dramatic but still an improvement.

      How did I do it? I am not sure. One of my goals was to balance O6 and O3. My understanding is that it is common to have too much O6 relative to O3 because of processed food. Also seed and vegetable oils? I focused on eating only whole foods and meat from pastured animals. I eat beef, chicken, eggs, pork or fish (sardines and wild caught Alaskan salmon) every day. I also get collagen through bone broths and supplements.

      In the end, I am just not sure why. I intentionally eat Primal/Paleo for the most part and look for ways to reduce inflammation through food choices and lifting heavy things.

      Comment


      • #4
        Glucose is very volatile and retesting immediately will give you different numbers.

        Often (but not always!) a large weight loss will reduce LDL significantly no matter what the diet. That is a remarkably low cholesterol profile though. Why not just get a direct LDL measurement? Or just look at the non-HDL which isn't dependent on calculated LDL and which some people consider to be
        Last edited by JBean; 02-28-2017, 07:21 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Maximumpower View Post
          ... and that readings should be more like in the 70s.
          What is your source? Under 70 is hypoglycemic, so you would have to keep your FBG within a very tight range. It sounds like something put out there by someone with a product to sell.
          I moved to primalforums.com to escape the spam.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Maximumpower View Post
            Thanks Artbuc. I had read that it shouldn't be above 90 and that readings should be more like in the 70s. While I am not overweight, I wouldn't mind getting leaner, now that I am working out. I was thinking my numbers might be high, indicating some level of insulin resistance, which would make it difficult to lose the extra fat.

            BTW I was using the Iranian formula for LDL. I understand it is more accurate than Friedewald when Trigs are either very high (which they were) or very low (which they are). If I use the Friedewald calculation then my LDL went from a peak of 181 to a low of 108. That is not as dramatic but still an improvement.

            How did I do it? I am not sure. One of my goals was to balance O6 and O3. My understanding is that it is common to have too much O6 relative to O3 because of processed food. Also seed and vegetable oils? I focused on eating only whole foods and meat from pastured animals. I eat beef, chicken, eggs, pork or fish (sardines and wild caught Alaskan salmon) every day. I also get collagen through bone broths and supplements.

            In the end, I am just not sure why. I intentionally eat Primal/Paleo for the most part and look for ways to reduce inflammation through food choices and lifting heavy things.
            Sounds like you got it nailed. Numbers are fine. Ratios good. No worries. Enjoy your healthy happy life and don't get too obsessed with volatile numbers that are otherwise within normal range.

            Comment


            • #7
              I would agree that 70 sounds low, although not hypoglycemic. There is a reason why "normal" is almost always expressed as a range of values, though.I wouldn't try to achieve that level -- micromanaging the human body is rarely easy anyway.

              People who eat very low carb for an extended period may develop a sort of secondary insulin resistance, probably due to down-regulation of unused metabolic pathways. Whether that carries increased risk for diabetes and its complications is anybody's guess, because there isn't a big population of people who eat that way who can be assessed for excess risk. If you are eating VLC, did you eat carbs for a few days before your test? That will improve your iinsulin sensitivity.

              I tried to edit into my first post that comparing non-HDL (total - HDL) might be a better approach to comparing your before and after cholesterols. Estimating LDL by some of the other formulas implies that your starting cholesterol wasn't really as high as 300 mg/dl, rather somewhere between 115 and 150, but direct LDL test are being used more commonly now because of this problem as well as the decreasing price of the test.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks everyone!

                I went back and looked at why the Iranian equation is sometimes used. It is more accurate for low trigs, not high. I remembered it incorrectly. So you are correct, I probably did not have LDL of 300.

                I do not get it tested at the doctor because I get it done very conveniently at work once per year. It is part of a "Good Health Incentives" program :-)

                I posted my cholesterol numbers in case they were relevant to FBG in some way. Didn't mean to confuse the question I was asking. :-)

                I could look up the article saying that > 90 is still high, and I can find it again if you want, but I was just wanting to get your opinions and wanted to give it some context. I know my Dr would not be concerned with my 95.

                I have had a lot of success with the changes I have made and I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something more I could do.

                Again, thanks for the feedback!

                Comment


                • #9
                  There are ten or twelve genes that have been identified that increase your risk for diabetes. Sadly, I suspect that there are few of us who don't have at least one. Your starting tryglycerides and HDL certainly suggest metabolic syndrome (high or highish blood pressure, gout, abdominal obesity? If female irregular menstrual cycle, excess hair?) Probably most of us should Assume that we are pre-diabetic.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would have an A1C run if you are concerned about glucose numbers.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X