Re: Lab results - Need help interpreting

[Guest guest]

My boyfriend had a blood test. Could some of you knowledgable people help me

with it.

age-49 weight 148 height 5'5

cholesterol 187

triglycerides 34

HDL 41

LDL 139

tri:HDL ratio .83

He is concerned that his LDL is as high as it is. 130 is the cut off point.

Also the HDL appear to be too low.

He had an xray taken last year of his back and it also showed some calcification

in his abdominal aorta. So, he is starting to be concerned.

He runs 4-5 times a week for an hour for over a yr. Mainly for heart health and

to lose weight. Just 2 yrs. ago he weighed 190 lbs. I think without the

running his values would have been even worse. He is just starting to lift

weights, but doesn't like it much.

Any thoughts on his profile and what type of foods can raise the HDL and lower

the LDL levels?

Thanks,

Jafa

wtsdv <liberty@...> wrote:

>

>

> Unless you drink skim milk, there's plenty of fat in it. A couple

> tablespoons of cream could also be added.

I almost never drink hot chocolate without putting a dollop

of whipped cream on top of it!

[Guest guest]

Jafa,

What kind of food is he eating now?

_________________________________________________________________

Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year — six months

@$9.95/month. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/8/03 8:41:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jafasum@... writes:

> He tries to eat NT as much as possible, but he won't cut down the carbs.

> Loves pasta and bread. He doesn't eat much junk food or sodas, though. He

> does eat out for lunch a lot though, so who knows what is in that food. He

> says it's part of the job to go out to eat while having a meeting and I know

he

> enjoys it. He usually eats more at lunch than dinner.

>

> Any comments?

Well I agree with that limiting carbs to dinner would be a good

thing, and I generally disagree that there's any need to limit carbs per se, I

really don't see what there is to fuss about his lab results.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> Well I agree with that limiting carbs to dinner would be

> a good thing, and I generally disagree that there's any need to

> limit carbs per se, I really don't see what there is to fuss about

> his lab results.

Do I understand you correctly? Do you really think there needs

to be no upper limit on the amount of carbohydrate one consumes,

at all?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/03 7:37:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Do I understand you correctly? Do you really think there needs

> to be no upper limit on the amount of carbohydrate one consumes,

> at all?

Not any more than there needs to be an upper limit on the amount of protein

or fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> In a message dated 12/9/03 7:37:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> liberty@... writes:

> > Do I understand you correctly? Do you really think there needs

> > to be no upper limit on the amount of carbohydrate one consumes,

> > at all?

>

> Not any more than there needs to be an upper limit on the amount of

> protein or fat.

There does need to be an upper limit on protein intake, doesn't there? My

throat/upper chest hurts when I eat more than 200g of protein per day, and

isn't rabbit starvation a result of excessive protein intake? Also, my

tongue hurts when I eat too much carbohydrate in a sitting. Does anyone

else experience either of these symptoms?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

-

> and

>isn't rabbit starvation a result of excessive protein intake?

No, it's the result of excessive lean meat consumption without adequate fat

(so named because rabbits are so lean). IOW it's not so much an excess of

protein as an absence of fat that causes the condition.

That said, the idea that there ought to be no upper limits on any

macronutrients is pretty silly, IMO. Any given person has something like

an upper caloric intake limit, though it's probably more a range than a

hard number, and naturally it'll vary with activity and other

demands. That upper caloric limit will impose limits all by itself, since

at the very least the calories have to be divided between fats and

proteins, if not between fats, proteins and carbs.

>Also, my

>tongue hurts when I eat too much carbohydrate in a sitting. Does anyone

>else experience either of these symptoms?

My tongue doesn't hurt, but I get all kinds of nasty blood sugar, energy,

clarity and other health problems if I eat too many carbs, even " good " carbs.

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

>

> There does need to be an upper limit on protein intake, doesn't

> there? My throat/upper chest hurts when I eat more than 200g

> of protein per day, and isn't rabbit starvation a result of

> excessive protein intake?

For lack of a more objective way of describing it, protein

feels " heavy " on me when I eat too much of it. I don't know

how you can get down 200 grams a day. I think 100 would be

my limit, if even that. I aim for no less than 60 grams a

day. You must be a young guy.

> Also, my tongue hurts when I eat too much carbohydrate in a

> sitting. Does anyone else experience either of these symptoms?

I don't get that, but after about a week of eating too much

carbohydrate, I start to get digestive problems, dry mouth,

heartburn, and my hiatal hernia flares up.

[Guest guest]

>There does need to be an upper limit on protein intake, doesn't there? My

>throat/upper chest hurts when I eat more than 200g of protein per day, and

>isn't rabbit starvation a result of excessive protein intake? Also, my

>tongue hurts when I eat too much carbohydrate in a sitting. Does anyone

>else experience either of these symptoms?

I don't think I COULD eat 200 g of protein a day, but there is a limit

on protein intake. It is hard on the kidneys. They say 20-30% of calories

is the upper limit, but I've also heard that it is ok to to have a higher

percentage if it's basically a lower-calorie diet. Anyway, the kidney

hardship seems to be pretty well researched.

If I eat too many carbs with no protein (cookie dough, for instance)

I get shaky. But a steak and a mess of hash browns followed

by pie doesn't do that ... I think it is blood sugar related. My daughter

says her mouth hurts when she eats anything " too sweet " , but I

don't know why.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

If I eat too much protein I get an acid stomach feeling. Too many carbs and

I'm a goner.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/03 11:25:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> There does need to be an upper limit on protein intake, doesn't there? My

> throat/upper chest hurts when I eat more than 200g of protein per day, and

> isn't rabbit starvation a result of excessive protein intake? Also, my

> tongue hurts when I eat too much carbohydrate in a sitting. Does anyone

> else experience either of these symptoms?

,

Sure, but what I'm saying is I don't view carbs as a factor that need to be

restricted in a unique way. Protein, as you point out, is a better candidate

for this, but the point is rather moot to me, since, if one is eating whole

foods and using fat to taste and isn't deliberately eating nothing but meat it

seems very unlikely to get too much protein. I think rabbit starvation is lack

of fat, but that might be semantics, IOW what's probably important is the

protein:fat ratio.

I suspect that the fat:carb ratio is partly determined by genetics and partly

determined by lifestyle. Someone who's less active probably needs to worry

about carbs more, but in general people *should* be *active*, and active people

need more carbs.

But perhaps you're right that *protein* needs to be limited in a way unique

among macronutrients.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 1:05:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> For lack of a more objective way of describing it, protein

> feels " heavy " on me when I eat too much of it. I don't know

> how you can get down 200 grams a day. I think 100 would be

> my limit, if even that. I aim for no less than 60 grams a

> day. You must be a young guy.

I aim for about 200g/day. I ate a 1.4 lb top round steak the other day in

one sitting, which probably, by my guess has some 180 g protein. This was not

to the exclusion of my daily intake of 1/2 gallon of Jersey milk, which must

have over 100g protein. And of course, by one sitting, I don't mean throughout

my warrior meal, I mean on one plate, which was one of the several courses of

my warrior meal. So I suppose my protein intake that day was over 300 g,

which is probably somewhat more than usual. I also eat a lot of Manna sprouted

rye bread, which has twice as much protein per carb as other bread.

But I doubt protein comprises over 30% of my calories. The milk alone has

considerably more fat than protein, not to mention carbs, the steak itself

probab

ly has almost as much calories from fat as protein, and then there are all

the potatoes, vegetables, bread, and butter I ate.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I'm surprised that when the powers that be decided to ban fat eating they

didn't choose rabbit instead of chicken for their prime meat. Rabbits are

the leanest animals on the planet, I think.

A person can live well eating nothing but beef steaks, especially rib-eye

that is laced with fat. But they can't live on just rabbit.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

,

Sure, but what I'm saying is I don't view carbs as a factor that need to be

restricted in a unique way. Protein, as you point out, is a better

candidate

for this, but the point is rather moot to me, since, if one is eating whole

foods and using fat to taste and isn't deliberately eating nothing but meat

it

seems very unlikely to get too much protein. I think rabbit starvation is

lack

of fat, but that might be semantics, IOW what's probably important is the

protein:fat ratio.

I suspect that the fat:carb ratio is partly determined by genetics and

partly

determined by lifestyle. Someone who's less active probably needs to worry

about carbs more, but in general people *should* be *active*, and active

people

need more carbs.

But perhaps you're right that *protein* needs to be limited in a way unique

among macronutrients.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

What's your basis for this assumption? My understanding is that (at least

after adjustment) athletes do better on lower-carb diets.

>active people

>need more carbs.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 8:43:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> What's your basis for this assumption? My understanding is that (at least

> after adjustment) athletes do better on lower-carb diets.

For weight-lifters, carbs are imperative for anabolism. I think the article

from Ori on carbs in the archives might have talked about athletes, but right

now I'm about to hit the sack and I can seem to squeeze my reasoning for other

athletes out right now, since it's less relevant to me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 01:45 PM 12/11/2003, you wrote:

>I'm surprised that when the powers that be decided to ban fat eating they

>didn't choose rabbit instead of chicken for their prime meat. Rabbits are

>the leanest animals on the planet, I think.

But they don't do well with factory farming. If you scrunch rabbits

together like they do chickens, they kill each other, I think.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I think you might be conflating weight lifters with bodybuilders. No?

>For weight-lifters, carbs are imperative for anabolism. I think the article

>from Ori on carbs in the archives might have talked about athletes, but right

>now I'm about to hit the sack and I can seem to squeeze my reasoning for

>other

>athletes out right now, since it's less relevant to me.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/03 12:47:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I think you might be conflating weight lifters with bodybuilders. No?

I don't think so, since I'm largely drawing on Ori Hofmekler's work, who is

against what you and I would probably consider " bodybuilding " and seems to

support the general view of powerlifting, though he has his own ideas.

I consider the primary difference between bodybuilding, which is a form of

weight lifting, and powerlifting (or related schools of thought), is that

bodybuilding has looks as its final goal, and therefore may have a different

idea of

the proper proportions of muscle, and would primarily be interested

increasing muscle volume.

But increasing muscle mass could mean increasing density or volume, and

clearly almost everyone who lifts weights has some interest in increasing

volume,

though they might subjugate it to strength, power, velocity, density, or other

such factors.

Who would lift weights with no interest in gaining muscle?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Who would lift weights with no interest in gaining muscle?

I think that's a slightly (inadvertently) misleading way of putting it, but

I can think of a couple classes of people:

- Those who are facing the depredations of age, and seek to maintain what

muscle mass they can, and

- Those who are interested purely in functional strength and performance,

and not bulky muscles. These people might not object to gaining some

muscle mass, but it's not at all their goal.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/03 10:37:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> Swimmers, cyclists, gymnasts, runners, powerlifters and olympic lifters

> competing in the lower weight classes, many women, etc. At 6' and 180

> lbs, I'm not all that interested in gaining much weight myself.

Powerlifters have no interest in hypertrophy whatsoever? I dont' see how a

powerlifter can avoid hypertrophy. It seems like moderate hypertrophy would

help the end goal.

I'm not expecting everyone to want to put on massive bulk, I don't even want

to, but I expect everyone has the intention of gaining some muscle when they

lift weights.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/03 3:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I think that's a slightly (inadvertently) misleading way of putting it, but

>

> I can think of a couple classes of people:

>

> - Those who are facing the depredations of age, and seek to maintain what

> muscle mass they can, and

These people would gain muscle if they were smart, especially if they've been

losing it. But I don't see how muscle can be *maintained* through weight

lifting. Weight lifting is a catabolic process, and without an anabolic

process,

you're just destroying your muscles. It's that anabolic process that is d

ependent on insulin-dependent hormones, so it really doesn't matter if you want

to be a hulk or want to have the net effect of maintaing muscle, either way you

need to stimulate the anabolic process and " gain " muscle.

> - Those who are interested purely in functional strength and performance,

> and not bulky muscles. These people might not object to gaining some

> muscle mass, but it's not at all their goal.

I think that's essentially what I said-- that they probably have some

interest in gaining muscle, but it's subjugated to more important goals like

strength

and health.

Gaining muscle doesn't necessarily mean gaining " bulky " muscles. Just look

at Ori Hofmekler or Pavel Tsatsouline with their shirts off, and they're good

examples of folks with *lots* of muscle, packed into a small volume without

much " bulk " .

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

That all makes sense. I personally think that if one is lifting for health,

then hypertrophy should be *a* goal for a variety of reasons, and since its

definitely one of *my* goals, I tend to associate it with weight lifting, and

forget their are others weight lifting for other reasons. Although I think

pretty much everyone at my gym wants to gain muscle! :-)

Chris

In a message dated 12/13/03 1:10:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> >Powerlifters have no interest in hypertrophy whatsoever?

>

> The ones in the lower weight classes need to keep their weight down to avoid

> getting bumped up into the next weight class, right?

>

> >I dont' see how a powerlifter can avoid hypertrophy.

>

> Keep the volume low and eat less.

>

> >It seems like moderate hypertrophy would

> >help the end goal.

>

> Perhaps, but it would be a necessary evil, and not a goal in and of itself.

> Of course, if you don't care about making weight, then it doesn't matter.

>

> >I'm not expecting everyone to want to put on massive bulk, I don't even

> >want

> >to, but I expect everyone has the intention of gaining some muscle when

> >they lift weights.

>

> For people who compete in sports that involve moving their own weight

> around, the goal when weight training is generally to gain as much strength

> as possible without gaining significant amounts of weight.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> I consider the primary difference between bodybuilding, which is a

form of

> weight lifting, and powerlifting (or related schools of thought), is

that

> bodybuilding has looks as its final goal, and therefore may have a

different idea of

> the proper proportions of muscle, and would primarily be interested

> increasing muscle volume.

Right, but bodybuilding is not really a form of weightlifting. Rather,

lifting weights is one tool used for bodybuilding.

> Who would lift weights with no interest in gaining muscle?

Swimmers, cyclists, gymnasts, runners, powerlifters and olympic lifters

competing in the lower weight classes, many women, etc. At 6' and 180

lbs, I'm not all that interested in gaining much weight myself.

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> Powerlifters have no interest in hypertrophy whatsoever?

The ones in the lower weight classes need to keep their weight down to avoid

getting bumped up into the next weight class, right?

> I dont' see how a powerlifter can avoid hypertrophy.

Keep the volume low and eat less.

> It seems like moderate hypertrophy would

> help the end goal.

Perhaps, but it would be a necessary evil, and not a goal in and of itself.

Of course, if you don't care about making weight, then it doesn't matter.

> I'm not expecting everyone to want to put on massive bulk, I don't even

> want

> to, but I expect everyone has the intention of gaining some muscle when

> they lift weights.

For people who compete in sports that involve moving their own weight

around, the goal when weight training is generally to gain as much strength

as possible without gaining significant amounts of weight.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>These people would gain muscle if they were smart, especially if they've been

>losing it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Do you really think that people can continue

gaining muscle all the way through their life, into old age and right up

until death?

>either way you

>need to stimulate the anabolic process and " gain " muscle.

OK, but that's really just a semantic point. I thought it was clear we

were talking about net gains of muscle.

>Gaining muscle doesn't necessarily mean gaining " bulky " muscles. Just look

>at Ori Hofmekler or Pavel Tsatsouline with their shirts off, and they're good

>examples of folks with *lots* of muscle, packed into a small volume without

>much " bulk " .

They're muscular, yes, but I wouldn't say they have *lots* of muscle

compared to bodybuilders. (Nor should they want lots of crappy muscle like

bodybuilders have, but that's a bit of a tangent.)

-