So...How low carb is low carb?

[Tiramisu]

I'm asking this question because my cholesterol has jumped up in the last couple of years. I don't really have a family history of heart disease, though I have grandmothers on both sides with hyperlipidemia. One is in her 90's, the other is in her 80's. Neither has had health problems. My parents are alive and well without signs of heart disease. My cholesterol breakdown, besides the LDL, shows no particular risk. My homocysteine is normal. My blood pressure is fine. I exercise. I am normal weight.

 

My hemoglobin A1C has always been normal, but it is now on the low end of normal since I started exercising. I have a history of hypoglycemic episodes. I'd like to try low carb to see if my LDL will improve, but I didn't do very well with it before...as in barely able to put a sentence together sometimes and having to lie down at parties and have people feed me.

 

So how low carb do I need to go to benefit?

[sunflowerlady]

Atkins starts out with 20 grams a day and then slowly increases . If you are not looking for weight loss, you probably do not need to go that low. I have read that anything under 100 grams a day can be considered low. This makes sense if you look at what a typical American person consumes per day.

[wapiti]

I think the answer depends on whether you just want to reduce carbs or whether you want to go all the way down to a state of nutritional ketosis (running on fat as your primary source of energy rather than carbs).

 

According to Volek and Phinney (Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living), there is a "bad" window below which you're not having enough carbs to fuel your brain (via carbs) but too many carbs to fuel your brain with fat (i.e., to put your energy production in a state of nutritional ketosis).  IIRC, they suggest that it depends on the person, but roughly under 150 g carb is not enough to fuel the brain via carb and over 50 g carb is too much to stay in ketosis and run on fat.

 

There may also be a need for sodium and electrolyte supplementation, especially during the first weeks of low-carbing, say for example the Atkins induction phase.  Insufficient sodium and electrolytes may account for at least some of the "low carb flu."

 

I find that it's easier to switch fully over by going really low for a week or two, as in Atkins, and then inching back up to see what you can tolerate.

 

I would read books on the topic (I happen to like Volek and Phinney above) and plan ahead with what you'd eat the first several days.  Otherwise it's too easy to fall off the wagon and then all the more difficult to get to ketosis.

 

Personally, I prefer to stay under, oh, maybe 80 g carb per day.  If I'm over too much for too many days, I need to go back down below 50 for a few days.  (um, that would be today, LOL.  I've been bad.)  What I really need to do is go back to tracking for a few days.  (I eat LCHF, i.e., low carb/high fat.  Fat is my primary source of energy.)

 

I highly recommend tracking with something like Myfitnesspal.com for the first week or two, to keep you "honest" but really to make sure you're eating the amount of carbs and fat that you intend to, and not too much or too little.

[Clear Creek]

Eating low carb won't affect your cholesterol. You need to cut out meat (or at least red meat), eggs, and dairy. That will drop it like a rock.

[Tiramisu]

Eating low carb won't affect your cholesterol. You need to cut out meat (or at least red meat), eggs, and dairy. That will drop it like a rock.

 

The foods you mention are extremely limited in my diet already. Going low fat has never helped me. I thought about trying the low carb method since according to some reports I've heard, it is much more helpful.  

[Joanne]

Eating low carb won't affect your cholesterol. You need to cut out meat (or at least red meat), eggs, and dairy. That will drop it like a rock.

 

Actually, copious amounts of peer reviewed, duplicated research supports the opposite.

[Just Kate]

Eating low carb won't affect your cholesterol. You need to cut out meat (or at least red meat), eggs, and dairy. That will drop it like a rock.

 

 

The foods you mention are extremely limited in my diet already. Going low fat has never helped me. I thought about trying the low carb method since according to some reports I've heard, it is much more helpful.  

 

I am unable to do the research and provide the links right now, but I have read many articles where it has been proven that low-carb diets do help with cholesterol. I (sort of) follow the Trim Healthy Mama diet, which is only low-ish carb (definitely lower carb than the Standard American Diet though) and I have read testimony after testimony about cholesterol numbers improving from the diet.

 

I don't really have an answer for your original question, but from what I have read, a low-carb diet may really benefit you.

[Pawz4me]

Eating low carb won't affect your cholesterol. You need to cut out meat (or at least red meat), eggs, and dairy. That will drop it like a rock.

 

I disagree.

 

My cholesterol levels have always been very good.  Never a worry at all.  When I cut carbs they improved to truly stellar levels.

 

DH has had high cholesterol for years, despite following a low fat diet.  A few months ago he started reducing carbs and all of his cholesterol levels have improved.

 

And if you need proof from a legitimate source, the Duke University Lipid Center now recommends a low glycemic diet (which is also a lower carb diet).  From their website:  "Developed by our doctors to emphasize low-glycemic foods rather than low-fat foods. It leads to higher HDL and lower triglyceride levels. After nearly 10 years of studies, we found that our patients with high triglyceride levels (hypertriglyceridemia) achieved an average of three percent long-term weight loss through this diet alone."   Their diet isn't available on their website, but if you do a search for it you can find various republications.  It emphasizes non-starch veggies, nuts and oils, lean red meat, chicken, skim milk and cheeses and up to seven eggs per week.

[Clear Creek]

The foods you mention are extremely limited in my diet already. Going low fat has never helped me. I thought about trying the low carb method since according to some reports I've heard, it is much more helpful.  

 

It may be genetic, then; some people's bodies just make more cholesterol. With a low A1C and hypoglycemic issues, I would not recommend eating low carb except under the supervision of a doctor. Low carb will just drop your A1C even further and put you at risk of a coma (or worse!).

[Callie]

Actually, copious amounts of peer reviewed, duplicated research supports the opposite.

agreed

[Clear Creek]

I disagree.

 

My cholesterol levels have always been very good.  Never a worry at all.  When I cut carbs they improved to truly stellar levels.

 

DH has had high cholesterol for years, despite following a low fat diet.  A few months ago he started reducing carbs and all of his cholesterol levels have improved.

 

And if you need proof from a legitimate source, the Duke University Lipid Center now recommends a low glycemic diet (which is also a lower carb diet).  From their website:  "Developed by our doctors to emphasize low-glycemic foods rather than low-fat foods. It leads to higher HDL and lower triglyceride levels. After nearly 10 years of studies, we found that our patients with high triglyceride levels (hypertriglyceridemia) achieved an average of three percent long-term weight loss through this diet alone."   Their diet isn't available on their website, but if you do a search for it you can find various republications.  It emphasizes non-starch veggies, nuts and oils, lean red meat, chicken, skim milk and cheeses and up to seven eggs per week.

 

She mentioned lowering her LDL, not her triglycerides.

[Pawz4me]

She mentioned lowering her LDL, not her triglycerides.

 

Duke says a low glycemic (low carb) diet leads to higher HDL.  Higher HDL levels almost always mean better cholesterol ratios.  And the various ratios are what doctors look at now rather than individual numbers of the different types of cholesterol.

[mamaraby]

Meh, copious amounts of research? That's debateable. See also: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/

 

What do we mean by "nutritional ketosis?" Are we talking Jimmy Moore? He's got some seriously questionable bloodwork. Lowering carbs will impact one's blood panel if you have weight to lose and the effect is likely due to the change in calories eaten in addition to the reduction in refined carbohyrates and simple sugars. Then low carb can be helpful in order to reset one's system. Long term low-carb can create havoc in your body's ability to handle carbohydrates in the future. There is a point at which you can do more harm than good. This is supported by fairly solid science.

 

I think the question is - by creeping up, what do you mean? Tbh, with as low as your A1C, I'd be less likely to cut carbs. Also, if all the rest of your numbers are fine, your HDL is on the higher end of normal, your weight is in a healthy range and you live an active lifestyle, I probably wouldn't worry about it. I'd look at the bigger picture which seems to me to be right on track.

 

To answer your OP - there is no agreed upon consensus. The answer will vary depending on who is doing the defining. Under 150? Under 100? Under 50? Lower? Yit really does run the gamut depending on your guru.

[Tiramisu]

She mentioned lowering her LDL, not her triglycerides.

 

That's true. My triglycerides are fine. In the younger days, they were even sometimes flagged as too low. My HDL is good. 

 

But I'd really like to try to lower the LDL. 

 

My case is definitely genetic. My grandmother was strictly following a low fat diet until she lost so much weight her doctor told her she couldn't do it anymore. She was always skinny to begin with. But her cholesterol levels were through the roof.

[wapiti]

FWIW, apparently there's a new study out about reducing overall heart disease risk (Framingham scale?) via low carb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/low-carb-diet-study-low-fat_n_5763718.html

[Pawz4me]

That's true. My triglycerides are fine. In the younger days, they were even sometimes flagged as too low. My HDL is good. 

 

But I'd really like to try to lower the LDL. 

 

My case is definitely genetic. My grandmother was strictly following a low fat diet until she lost so much weight her doctor told her she couldn't do it anymore. She was always skinny to begin with. But her cholesterol levels were through the roof.

 

Have you run your numbers through a calculator to get your ratios?  You can find an online calculator by Googling.  As I said in an earlier post, the ratios are what doctors look at now.  It doesn't matter so much what your numbers are as long as the ratios are good.

[Sukale]

I am a diabetic with an insulin pump. My doctor would like my to have 15 carbs for breakfast, 30 for lunch, 30 for supper, and 2 snacks with each having 15 carbs. He would like he to stay between 100-125 a day.

 

[Tiramisu]

The bloodwork the doctor was ordered was so detailed and included ratios. I'm not in a high risk category for most of the measurements, so I wasn't so worried. Nevertheless, the doctor still recommended putting me on something. I declined, thinking I would try things and check again in a few months. My cardiologist also put hyperlipidemia as one of my dx's. I wonder if they are too busy to look at all the ratios.

[Clear Creek]

That's true. My triglycerides are fine. In the younger days, they were even sometimes flagged as too low. My HDL is good. 

 

But I'd really like to try to lower the LDL. 

 

My case is definitely genetic. My grandmother was strictly following a low fat diet until she lost so much weight her doctor told her she couldn't do it anymore. She was always skinny to begin with. But her cholesterol levels were through the roof.

 

Whole grains and fiber can help lower LDL; so if you must focus on carbs, aim to replace simple carbs with complex carbs without necessarily lowering the amount of carbs you eat. Whole wheat or whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, brown rice, steel cut or old fashioned oats, etc. (nothing that says enriched flour as a primary ingredient, even if it is enriched wheat flour). Exercise is also your friend. :001_smile:

[Tiramisu]

Have you run your numbers through a calculator to get your ratios?  You can find an online calculator by Googling.  As I said in an earlier post, the ratios are what doctors look at now.  It doesn't matter so much what your numbers are as long as the ratios are good.

 

My LDL/HDL ratio is 2.88, which according to the chart puts me between the average and 1/2 average risk category.

 

My cholesterol/HDL ration is 4.07, which according to the chart also puts me between average and 1/2 average risk.

 

So the ratios look pretty good to me.

[Tiramisu]

Whole grains and fiber can help lower LDL; so if you must focus on carbs, aim to replace simple carbs with complex carbs without necessarily lowering the amount of carbs you eat. Whole wheat or whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, brown rice, steel cut or old fashioned oats, etc. (nothing that says enriched flour as a primary ingredient, even if it is enriched wheat flour). Exercise is also your friend. :001_smile:

 

Regular exercise did not help at all. My numbers have only got worse. :(

 

And I eat primarily whole grain. I am going to try oatmeal, though. 

[Ellie]

I'm asking this question because my cholesterol has jumped up in the last couple of years. I don't really have a family history of heart disease, though I have grandmothers on both sides with hyperlipidemia. One is in her 90's, the other is in her 80's. Neither has had health problems. My parents are alive and well without signs of heart disease. My cholesterol breakdown, besides the LDL, shows no particular risk. My homocysteine is normal. My blood pressure is fine. I exercise. I am normal weight.

 

My hemoglobin A1C has always been normal, but it is now on the low end of normal since I started exercising. I have a history of hypoglycemic episodes. I'd like to try low carb to see if my LDL will improve, but I didn't do very well with it before...as in barely able to put a sentence together sometimes and having to lie down at parties and have people feed me.

 

So how low carb do I need to go to benefit?

 

It isn't only lower carbohydrates that makes the difference; it is also high fat and high protein.

 

When doing something like Atkins, I don't even count the carbs. I know that I will not eat bread or anything made with wheat flour (or any other thickeners), rice (either brown or white), most fruit, or starchy vegetables such as corn. I'm not going to eat low-fat dairy products. I'm going to eat all the eggs, full-fat dairy, meat, and green leafy veggies (including salad with full-fat dressings) I want, as well as most melons and berries (eventually). People with normal metabolisms can sometimes add whole wheat bread or an occasional potato, but I have wicked low metabolism, so I'm not.

[Rose in BC]

Actually, copious amounts of peer reviewed, duplicated research supports the opposite.

I agree. I've just adopted low carb high fat.....on my dr's advice. And heart disease runs in my family. I try between 20-50 grams daily.

 

Watch Fathead documentary. It's eye opening.

[Ellie]

Eating low carb won't affect your cholesterol. You need to cut out meat (or at least red meat), eggs, and dairy. That will drop it like a rock.

 

And yet my total cholesterol dropped 100 points in two months by doing Atkins--high fat and high protein (including lots of meat and eggs).

[Laurie4b]

My LDL/HDL ratio is 2.88, which according to the chart puts me between the average and 1/2 average risk category.

 

My cholesterol/HDL ration is 4.07, which according to the chart puts me also puts me between average and 1/2 average risk.

 

So the ratios look pretty good to me.

 

Totally nonmedical thought here: if both your grandmothers have now lived into a ripe old age *with* their cholesterol problems and *without* major health problems, what is the concern? I would think that might mean that for your family, there is some variable in there that docs haven't identified yet that makes it okay. I don't know if that makes sense, but unless your grans were treated and got their cholesterol way down for years, I would tend to be reassured by your ratios and your long-lived grannies.

[Tiramisu]

Totally nonmedical thought here: if both your grandmothers have now lived into a ripe old age *with* their cholesterol problems and *without* major health problems, what is the concern? I would think that might mean that for your family, there is some variable in there that docs haven't identified yet that makes it okay. I don't know if that makes sense, but unless your grans were treated and got their cholesterol way down for years, I would tend to be reassured by your ratios and your long-lived grannies.

 

I think they were treated but not until much older than I am now.

 

My great-grandmother and great-great aunt died before 50, but, yes, so far my grandmother and all my aunts and uncles and parents are doing well. So there could be something, but doctors don't seem to worry if something goes back that far. My grandmother is highly energetic and I think that could be important.

[umsami]

Actually, copious amounts of peer reviewed, duplicated research supports the opposite.

 

 

You're both right, actually.  Thing is, both sides demonize the other without realizing that both can be effective.  The problem seems to be in the middle, as far as I can tell.

 

There is quite a lot of research out there that a low-fat vegetarian diet can help cholesterol levels.  It started with Nathan Pritikin back in the 70s, and continued with Ornish and MacDougall in the 80s and 90s and beyond.

 

There is also a growing body of evidence that a low-carb, high fat diet can decrease cholesterol, especially triglycerides.

 

 

There's also evidence promoting an Indo-Mediterranean diet in being effective.  

 

 

 

But, if you have any sort of kidney disease or gout, you do not want to try a high protein diet.

[Murphy101]

I would highly recommend whole30. It's not quite low carb. But it is low BAD fats and low BAD carbs.

 

Avocados are high in GOOD fats, so are nuts and other things. Properly prepared meat doesn't have to be high in fat and pack a wallop of protein.

 

Simple carbs like sugar, bread, and pasta are avoided, but high nutrient, high energy carbs are encouraged in abundance.

 

My sister was way bigger than me with they type 2 diabetes and cholesterol numbers to show for it. Doing whole 30 dramatically dropped all her bad numbers and raised her good ones.

 

My dh is an insulin dependent diabetic, so low carb like you describe has never been an option. It would trash his energy and cause insulin reactions. He never has any problem, only improvements, eating the same food as me with Whole30.

 

Just my experience and .02. Do what you think best for you. :)

[wapiti]

But, if you have any sort of kidney disease or gout, you do not want to try a high protein diet.

 

... just to add to this, a low-carb diet does not have to mean high protein.  There are different versions of low-carb diets out there.  According to the authors I referenced above, excess protein - whatever that is, LOL, but presumably more than a individual's body uses - is converted to glucose; not sure how controversial that assertion is.  (Personally, I eat a normal amount of protein and high fat).

[Joanne]

I would highly recommend whole30. It's not quite low carb. But it is low BAD fats and low BAD carbs.

 

 

 

I love the idea of Whole 30 Food wise.

 

The strict "3 meals a day" (which is VERY strict if you interact with their blog/forums) is not a match for me.

[Ellie]

... just to add to this, a low-carb diet does not have to mean high protein.  There are different versions of low-carb diets out there.  According to the authors I referenced above, excess protein - whatever that is, LOL, but presumably more than a individual's body uses - is converted to glucose; not sure how controversial that assertion is.  (Personally, I eat a normal amount of protein and high fat).

 

It is the Atkins Diet which has gotten the most press, and that is definitely high protein/high fat.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I love the idea of Whole 30 Food wise.

 

The strict "3 meals a day" (which is VERY strict if you interact with their blog/forums) is not a match for me.

Be a rebel! I just normally tend to eat the foods Whole 30 recommends but if I want an apple with almonds or a bell pepper at a non-meal time I darn well have it. I read the book out of curiosity and feel lean meat, lots of veggies, a few nuts and a little fruit is hardly controversial. Oh, and potatoes are a go now.

[Murphy101]

I love the idea of Whole 30 Food wise.

 

The strict "3 meals a day" (which is VERY strict if you interact with their blog/forums) is not a match for me.

What?! It's not a strict 3 meals a day. Not at all! Where'd you get that from? One of the things I love about it is it isn't like that. When you are genuinely hungry (not bored, not habit, not sweet tooth - but hungry) - you can eat.

[Murphy101]

I love the idea of Whole 30 Food wise.

 

The strict "3 meals a day" (which is VERY strict if you interact with their blog/forums) is not a match for me.

Here is the rules.

 

http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/

 

See? Nada about strict 3 meals a day.

 

In fact, they encourage complaint snacks in many cases. A pre workout and a post workout snack for examples. If you are genuinely hungry, you can and should eat, just make sure it's W30 complaint.

[Greta]

If your HDL is high and your triglycerides are low, you don't need to worry about your LDL. That's what my doctor told me, and it's in agreement with what I've read about it.

 

Also, you might not know what your LDL actually is. Most labs "calculate" it (they do NOT directly measure it) using a formula which is based on an assumption of triglycerides levels being 150. So, everyone whose triglycerides are below 150 gets an LDL number on the lab report that is higher than what their true measured LDL would be. Do you know if they measured it or calculated it?

 

And lastly, my understanding is that the most recent research is showing that LDL cholesterol is not what matters at all, but it is LDL particle count that matters. And that's a separate test, that isn't normally done. You might have to request it.

 

Now, that said, I love low carb and highly recommend it! I use low carb to treat my hypoglycemia, among other things. I find that I feel best at 50 or fewer grams of carbs per day, but not many people really have to go that low. I just feel better when I'm ketogenic. I actually find it easier to eat 40 grams of carbs per day than 100, but others find the opposite.

 

I should mention that I have reactive hypoglycemia, and low carb is a wonderful treatment for that, and my A1c dropped a bit then stabilized. If you have the other type of hypoglycemia (can't remember what it's called) then you might need to be more cautious and not go quite as low on your carb intake. For most people, I would recommend going super low carb for awhile to get into a ketogenic state (you'll need to increase your salt intake during this time, or you will feel AWFUL) and then gradually increasing. But if you have that other type of hypoglycemia, then you might want to do the reverse: gradually decrease until you find your sweet spot.

[wapiti]

It is the Atkins Diet which has gotten the most press, and that is definitely high protein/high fat.

 

I was just pointing out that there are different versions of low carb diets.  However, FWIW, while I agree that Atkins gets the most press and that the press almost always refers to Atkins as being high protein, whether Atkins is actually high protein, as opposed to moderate protein, is confusing, even among different pages on the Atkins site.  e.g., http://www.atkins.com/Program/Overview/How-and-Why-Atkins-Work/Atkins-Is-Not-a-High-Protein-Diet.aspx  vs.  http://www.atkins.com/Science/Nutrition-and-Exercise/Protein.aspx   .  See also, e.g., http://www.examiner.com/article/low-carb-paleo-diet-advocates-rip-high-protein-diet-study-as-misleading:

 

Atkins diet followers also criticized the high-protein diet study, saying Atkins is not a high-protein diet, but a low-carb, high-fat, moderate-protein eating plan.

"High-protein consumption is not associated with all low-carb diets," Linda O'Byrne, chief nutritionist for Atkins, toldThe Grocer. "In fact, Atkins recommends taking 25% of calories from protein, which does not align with the diet in the study."

 

(I don't care one way or the other as I'm not trying to follow Atkins, though I think the website and book can be informative, especially for someone just getting started; I kinda prefer the Volek and Phinney books instead.)

[Joanne]

Here is the rules.

 

http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/

 

See? Nada about strict 3 meals a day.

 

In fact, they encourage complaint snacks in many cases. A pre workout and a post workout snack for examples. If you are genuinely hungry, you can and should eat, just make sure it's W30 complaint.

Martha, I am very, very familiar with Whole 30. I have the original download from years ago AND their book. I was a member on the forums.

 

The "3 meals" is the rule, and snacks (without a work out) are considered non compliant.

 

Meal Plan

Thread

 

Another thread

 

Another

 

I could go on, and on. But snacking is considered non compliant and snacking without a workout = not doing a Whole 30.

It is the reason I will not claim I do/have done the program. I don't agree with it from a physiological standpoint or even a psychological one.

[Tiramisu]

If your HDL is high and your triglycerides are low, you don't need to worry about your LDL. That's what my doctor told me, and it's in agreement with what I've read about it.

 

Also, you might not know what your LDL actually is. Most labs "calculate" it (they do NOT directly measure it) using a formula which is based on an assumption of triglycerides levels being 150. So, everyone whose triglycerides are below 150 gets an LDL number on the lab report that is higher than what their true measured LDL would be. Do you know if they measured it or calculated it?

 

And lastly, my understanding is that the most recent research is showing that LDL cholesterol is not what matters at all, but it is LDL particle count that matters. And that's a separate test, that isn't normally done. You might have to request it.

 

Now, that said, I love low carb and highly recommend it! I use low carb to treat my hypoglycemia, among other things. I find that I feel best at 50 or fewer grams of carbs per day, but not many people really have to go that low. I just feel better when I'm ketogenic. I actually find it easier to eat 40 grams of carbs per day than 100, but others find the opposite.

 

I should mention that I have reactive hypoglycemia, and low carb is a wonderful treatment for that, and my A1c dropped a bit then stabilized. If you have the other type of hypoglycemia (can't remember what it's called) then you might need to be more cautious and not go quite as low on your carb intake. For most people, I would recommend going super low carb for awhile to get into a ketogenic state (you'll need to increase your salt intake during this time, or you will feel AWFUL) and then gradually increasing. But if you have that other type of hypoglycemia, then you might want to do the reverse: gradually decrease until you find your sweet spot.

 

This is great, thank you. On the lab work "direct LDL" is specified so I think they count it. There's also a VLDL which is the bad LDL, I think, and mine is in the normal range.

[Tiramisu]

Here is the rules.

 

http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/

 

See? Nada about strict 3 meals a day.

 

In fact, they encourage complaint snacks in many cases. A pre workout and a post workout snack for examples. If you are genuinely hungry, you can and should eat, just make sure it's W30 complaint.

 

Thanks for this info. A post-workout snack can be essential for me. It can really make me feel sick and ruin my day if I feel like I need it and can't have it.

[kitten18]

I think the answer depends on whether you just want to reduce carbs or whether you want to go all the way down to a state of nutritional ketosis (running on fat as your primary source of energy rather than carbs).

 

According to Volek and Phinney (Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living), there is a "bad" window below which you're not having enough carbs to fuel your brain (via carbs) but too many carbs to fuel your brain with fat (i.e., to put your energy production in a state of nutritional ketosis). IIRC, they suggest that it depends on the person, but roughly under 150 g carb is not enough to fuel the brain via carb and over 50 g carb is too much to stay in ketosis and run on fat.

 

There may also be a need for sodium and electrolyte supplementation, especially during the first weeks of low-carbing, say for example the Atkins induction phase. Insufficient sodium and electrolytes may account for at least some of the "low carb flu."

 

I find that it's easier to switch fully over by going really low for a week or two, as in Atkins, and then inching back up to see what you can tolerate.

 

I would read books on the topic (I happen to like Volek and Phinney above) and plan ahead with what you'd eat the first several days. Otherwise it's too easy to fall off the wagon and then all the more difficult to get to ketosis.

 

Personally, I prefer to stay under, oh, maybe 80 g carb per day. If I'm over too much for too many days, I need to go back down below 50 for a few days. (um, that would be today, LOL. I've been bad.) What I really need to do is go back to tracking for a few days. (I eat LCHF, i.e., low carb/high fat. Fat is my primary source of energy.)

 

I highly recommend tracking with something like Myfitnesspal.com for the first week or two, to keep you "honest" but really to make sure you're eating the amount of carbs and fat that you intend to, and not too much or too little.

DH and I eat at levels to stay in nutritional ketosis following the guidelines by Volek and Phinney.

[kitten18]

Totally nonmedical thought here: if both your grandmothers have now lived into a ripe old age *with* their cholesterol problems and *without* major health problems, what is the concern? I would think that might mean that for your family, there is some variable in there that docs haven't identified yet that makes it okay. I don't know if that makes sense, but unless your grans were treated and got their cholesterol way down for years, I would tend to be reassured by your ratios and your long-lived grannies.

I agree.

 

I'm on my phone and away from home so I didn't read the whole thread very close.

 

I would recommend "The Great Cholesterol Myth" by Johnny Bowden and Dr. Stephen Sinatra.

They talk a lot in there about how many people (especially women) live longer if they have higher cholesterol levels.

The only ratio they believe matters at all is LDL/triglycerides.

[kitten18]

... just to add to this, a low-carb diet does not have to mean high protein. There are different versions of low-carb diets out there. According to the authors I referenced above, excess protein - whatever that is, LOL, but presumably more than a individual's body uses - is converted to glucose; not sure how controversial that assertion is. (Personally, I eat a normal amount of protein and high fat).

Again, I agree.

 

If you are eating for nutritional ketosis you will not be eating a high-protein diet.

[Murphy101]

Martha, I am very, very familiar with Whole 30. I have the original download from years ago AND their book. I was a member on the forums.

 

The "3 meals" is the rule, and snacks (without a work out) are considered non compliant.

 

Meal Plan

Thread

 

Another thread

 

Another

 

I could go on, and on. But snacking is considered non compliant and snacking without a workout = not doing a Whole 30.

It is the reason I will not claim I do/have done the program. I don't agree with it from a physiological standpoint or even a psychological one.

If you are genuinely HUNGRY, not eating out of boredom, sugar cravings, or habit, but genuinely HUNGRY, then you should have a compliant, mini-meal for a snack and try to adjust your meals in a way that will carry you through next time. (The most common culprits for this not happening is not enough quality carbs, not enough good fats, or simply not enough food was eaten in general.)

 

If you are breastfeeding, pregnant, working out, or have any other issue that means you are genuinely hungry, then you are encouraged to eat compliant foods. This is most certainly compliant with Whole30 and is what they discuss in the links you gave.

 

So are snacks okay?

 

Yes, if you are genuinely hungry then you should eat.

 

Ideally, and this was true for me, the better/more compliant the main meals are, the less snacks became necessary to stave off genuine hunger unless I did something to ramp my need to refuel.

[Murphy101]

Thanks for this info. A post-workout snack can be essential for me. It can really make me feel sick and ruin my day if I feel like I need it and can't have it.

I bet it would! I'm starving when I get out of the pool or finish weights. I'd be one cranky nauseated woman if I couldn't eat again for 3-5 hours!

[Joanne]

If you are genuinely HUNGRY, not eating out of boredom, sugar cravings, or habit, but genuinely HUNGRY, then you should have a compliant, mini-meal for a snack and try to adjust your meals in a way that will carry you through next time. (The most common culprits for this not happening is not enough quality carbs, not enough good fats, or simply not enough food was eaten in general.)

 

If you are breastfeeding, pregnant, working out, or have any other issue that means you are genuinely hungry, then you are encouraged to eat compliant foods. This is most certainly compliant with Whole30 and is what they discuss in the links you gave.

 

So are snacks okay?

 

Yes, if you are genuinely hungry then you should eat.

 

Ideally, and this was true for me, the better/more compliant the main meals are, the less snacks became necessary to stave off genuine hunger unless I did something to ramp my need to refuel.

Martha,

 

I just want to be clear, because I *know* a tone is coming across my posts. I am not at all angry at you. The "no snack" rule, to the point of not being able to claim a "Whole 30" if you do makes me quite angry.

 

Years and years ago, I tried a Lord's Supper eating plan to lose weight. They were quite scripted about when to eat/not eat/fast. That made me just as angry.

 

I personally can't do plans that are that level of controlling. In addition to being a blood sugar issue for me, I can't and won't allow any authority to decide my eating for me. So, my tone is because I know I have issues and emotion around it.

Yes, eating according to Whole 30 food recommendations is a very healthy, lowered carb, excellent nutrition plan. Having been involved and invested in trying Whole 30 as a named program, I can not support it due to my experience with "them" and snacking.

 

[Murphy101]

Martha,

 

I just want to be clear, because I *know* a tone is coming across my posts. I am not at all angry at you. The "no snack" rule, to the point of not being able to claim a "Whole 30" if you do makes me quite angry.

 

Years and years ago, I tried a Lord's Supper eating plan to lose weight. They were quite scripted about when to eat/not eat/fast. That made me just as angry.

 

I personally can't do plans that are that level of controlling. In addition to being a blood sugar issue for me, I can't and won't allow any authority to decide my eating for me. So, my tone is because I know I have issues and emotion around it.

Yes, eating according to Whole 30 food recommendations is a very healthy, lowered carb, excellent nutrition plan. Having been involved and invested in trying Whole 30 as a named program, I can not support it due to my experience with "them" and snacking.

Huh? Who was controlling you? *confused*

 

It's a plan.

Compliant can vary from a person who does:

Not follow it at all

Modify to various degrees it to suit their needs

Follow it military strict

 

But no one is controlling anyone. That's totally a psychological struggle. "S/He said I can't, so damned if I won't!"

 

What you and I eat or don't eat is completely our choice, Whole30 or not.

 

Eat what you want. Want a cupcake? Eat a cupcake. No, it is not W30 complaint. Do you want to be W30 complaint? Then don't eat the cupcake. Is that easy when one is hopped up on sugar cravings withdrawal? Nope. But I still have control over whether or not I make that choice.

 

Also, the "Don't over think this section" is worth repeating here.

http://forum.whole9life.com/topic/5580-dont-over-think-this/

 

If it's not in the main rules section, then it is only a suggestion. Snacks are complaint and sometimes a necessity. The very strong suggestion is that one should look at meals to see why they aren't carrying one through, make sure it is genuine hunger, not just "snacking", and, if one must snack, make it a complaint snack. An ideal snack is when one is genuinely hungry, and it should include a protein, good fat, and veggie.

 

No one is controlling anyone. We are making choices about what we are going to eat or not eat and we are making choices about whether we are going to stick to those choices.

 

Whole30 is one of the least "controlling" food plans I've ever seen. No rigid rules about when to eat or what to eat (tho there are about what NOT to eat), no counting point, calories, carbs, or fats. No convoluted contortionist to something what it isn't with faux cheese and faux sugar. Just a straight-forward: Don't eat these things. Don't step on scales or measure. Do eat healthy real/whole foods as much as possible.

 

I'm sorry you had a bad experience on their boards. I have been doing W30 almost 18 months and have been registered on their board for over a year, tho I'm not very active. I tend to lurk there. And no one has ever been controlling to me. I'm upfront about what I'm doing and they are nothing but supportive and encouraging. I wish it had been that way for you. :(

 

If it isn't on the rules page, then one is complaint.

 

They have many other very good and useful suggestions based on experience and such, but sticking just to the actual rules is enough to see improvement and they encourage people to do that.

[Joanne]

Huh? Who was controlling you? *confused*

 

 

 

If it's not in the main rules section, then it is only a suggestion. Snacks are complaint and sometimes a necessity. The very strong suggestion is that one should look at meals to see why they aren't carrying one through, make sure it is genuine hunger, not just "snacking", and, if one must snack, make it a complaint snack. An ideal snack is when one is genuinely hungry, and it should include a protein, good fat, and veggie.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you had a bad experience on their boards. I have been doing W30 almost 18 months and have been registered on their board for over a year, tho I'm not very active. I tend to lurk there. And no one has ever been controlling to me. I'm upfront about what I'm doing and they are nothing but supportive and encouraging. I wish it had been that way for you. :(

 

If it isn't on the rules page, then one is complaint.

 

 

 

Martha,

 

I was offering an explanation of my tone and letting you know it's not towards YOU.

 

The Forum is very clear, and repeatedly so, that snacking is not compliant. The link you posted above says "3 meals" and they repeat that often in threads as the rule and expectation.

 

The control is just that: telling people who are eating clean, healthy, and according to the food lists are not "completing a Whole 30" or "not allowing a reset" if they snack.

 

I find the food info very good.

[umsami]

For the OP, awhile back I stumbled upon a keto calculator.   I have no idea if it's accurate (maybe some people here can chime in), but it may be useful. :)

 

http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com

[kitten18]

For the OP, awhile back I stumbled upon a keto calculator. I have no idea if it's accurate (maybe some people here can chime in), but it may be useful. :)

 

http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com

That is the one that is most often referred to in a keto forum that I frequent.

[Murphy101]

Martha,

 

I was offering an explanation of my tone and letting you know it's not towards YOU.

 

The Forum is very clear, and repeatedly so, that snacking is not compliant. The link you posted above says "3 meals" and they repeat that often in threads as the rule and expectation.

 

The control is just that: telling people who are eating clean, healthy, and according to the food lists are not "completing a Whole 30" or "not allowing a reset" if they snack.

 

I find the food info very good.

Alrighty.

 

Don't do whole30 then.

 

I swear you and I are reading different things.

 

The link above to rules? Nope. Doesn't event mention any number or meals or snacks.

 

The Don't over think this link? Again. Nope. It says:

I just wanted to pop in here and remind you all to take a deep breath before you dive into all the questions about what you can and can't have. The program guidelines are clear on what you can and can't have (grains, dairy, W30 muffins), but things get a little grey when people start talking about what you should and shouldn't have. Please don't over think think this. You don't have to address every food related issue you have, break every bad habit, and shun every food that gives you comfort to succeed with your Whole30. If you need to you can always extend or repeat the process, and things will get better each time you do. My advice to you is this:

Stick to the rules like they are your port in a storm (really, they will become that).

Take the Moderators responses seriously (we know what we're talking about).

Take community members suggestions as advice from those who came before, but keep in mind they are not the rules and not the Mods. Everyone here is well-meaning, and everyone here wants to see you succeed, but everyone here is at a different place in this journey.

And finally, take comfort in these words (from Melissa Hartwig, on another forum post):

 

Here's the thing (and this is an interesting discussion)... there are Whole30 "rules," which are strict, clearly outlined, and very well defined. No grains - and here are all the things we consider grains. No dairy - and here are all the dairy items excluded. No Paleo-fied food choices, and here's what those look like.

Then, there are Whole30 suggestions for success. They're not part of the official rules, but they're things that we've seen really help (or harm) people as they move through the program. Fruit smoothies for breakfast - not a good idea. Skipping breakfast - not a good idea. Eating every two hours, all day - not a good idea. These things won't necessarily affect your Whole30 results (although they might), but if we can give you additional suggestions that will make your transition and your program easier and more effective, we're going to give them to you.

 

The meal plan? It includes snacks! Yes they are are ideally pre and post work out, but it does not say you can't have snacks.

 

Also, there are snacks and there are SNACKS. At worst, in W30 terminology, snack should be "mini-meals". Iow, what is eaten for a snack should resemble the wholesome balanced goodness of the 3 main meals.

 

Anyone who is genuinely hungry or has a medical need, should eat and they make that clear. The worst I've seen is a strong encouragement to take a close look at what is being eaten for the 3 main meals to be sure it's enough bc often adjusting that reduces the need for mini-meals/snacks.

 

Sometimes I was better at it than others, but no one over there made me feel badly for it. Ever. Nothing but encouragement to follow my plan as best I could.

 

And it is only 30 days. It's not like they are saying you can't ever in your life eat a chip or cupcake again ever. Just for 30 days.

 

Lots of people, like me, keep at it or modify it to make it easier to follow 365 days because the results are really worth it to them. But if someone doesn't? That's alright too bc the plan is intended to be for 30 days.

 

Anyways. Joanne doesn't like it. I do. As with most things, I suggest someone interested go check it out for themselves. :)