| potatoreplacer
|
|
|
Knock wood..despite being obese, my bloodwork was never a problem whether it is due to age, genes or some other factor. After starting SBD and consuming more eggs and red meat (albeit lean) than ever I was a bit concerned about how my bloodwork would change.
I just got my results and compared to a year earlier..they were very good and improved.
Total Cholesterol: Old 179...New 150
HDL: Old 50...New 58
LDL: Old 109...New 84
Triglycerides: Old 101...New 40
Glucose: Old 98...New 90 (I think I can improve here..not really sure)
I actually think the triglycerides number is wrong...I do not know the science but that drop seems a bit odd especially in relation to the reference of 150.
Anyway..for those looking to improve their bloodwork...KEEP GOING!!!! |
|
Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:04 pm |
|
| fifidoodles
|
|
|
Yep! This is definitely a great side effect! I'm diabetic and the first thing I notice are that by blood sugars begin to stabilize.
I will actually test my sugars more often just to see how certain foods affect my numbers. |
|
Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:09 pm |
|
| VallieGal
|
|
|
Those are great changes, Potato :)
I agree - keep chugging - not just for the size, but for the health inside too! |
|
Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:26 pm |
|
| RedRox
|
|
|
| Actually the tri-g's are affected greatly by SBD eating. I brought mine down from over 300 to under 100. Your numbers aren't unheard of, despite being well under the reference values. Great numbers! Keep going!! |
|
Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:40 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
Most Beachers that I've seen numbers for have triglycerides under 50. While those are fats in the blood, it's actually high glycemic carbs that keep your body from being able to properly metabolize the fats, so they stay in your bloodstream. SB fixes that.
Those are terrific-looking numbers! |
|
Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:06 pm |
|
| baltimore333
|
|
|
| strong work there! and fyi, the blood glucose number is NOT a number to improve on. anything between 80-110 is an ideal glucose, fasting or not, much lower would be problematic! |
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:26 am |
|
| RedRox
|
|
|
Anything between 100 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl is technically in the range of "Impaired Fasting Glucose" or pre-diabetes. (i.e. Anything in the 100 -110 mg/dl is not considered "ideal".)
There are even some in the medical community who would like to see the threshold lowered to 90 mg/dl and consider those in the 90 - 99 mg/dl range to be "cusp" individuals. http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=414662
I'm not sure how much lower the OP will see that number go, but I'd still watch it carefully. That being said, I'd be thrilled if I could get mine down that low again. |
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:36 pm |
|
| potatoreplacer
|
|
|
RedRox wrote: Anything between 100 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl is technically in the range of "Impaired Fasting Glucose" or pre-diabetes. (i.e. Anything in the 100 -110 mg/dl is not considered "ideal".)
There are even some in the medical community who would like to see the threshold lowered to 90 mg/dl and consider those in the 90 - 99 mg/dl range to be "cusp" individuals. http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=414662
I'm not sure how much lower the OP will see that number go, but I'd still watch it carefully. That being said, I'd be thrilled if I could get mine down that low again.
RedRox-
In your post you went to a place I was going. I read some information that led me to believe that 90 was good but not necessarily great and my original value of 98 was acceptable in some circles but on the higher end in others.
I have to research the glucose measurement a bit more to understand how my diet affects it and where I should be today.
Anyway...I want to get to a place where all my numbers are "better" than ideal so I have a little wiggle room as I age. |
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:32 pm |
|
| jmspeach
|
|
|
| Thats really great! Congratulations on your achievement! |
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:51 pm |
|
| mrshutch910
|
|
|
total cholesterol 208 was 189
triglycerides 58 was 126
HDL cholesterol 53 was 47
LDL cholesterol 143 was 117
glucose 105
confused about increase w/ LDL & pleased about triglycerides & HDL.
Also had a HgbA1C & was 5.9 (very high normal to low abnormal depending on lab). Don't have a baseline but never had family or indication of diabetes. However, ate way more sweets over holidays the month prior to SBD & HgbA1C is an indicator of glucose tolerance over a 3 month period. Just a reflection of where I was headed if I continued in my previous mode?
BUN 23 (was fasting for bllod work & not well hydrated)
creatnine 0.85 (same as previous & normal)
trace protein in urine- not normal but did have WBCs & + leukocyte estrace - mild infection? No symptoms (possible cause of increased protein or is it the increase in my diet?)
mildly decreased GFR (kidney function) due to mild infection?
Went on SBD b/c besides needing to lose wt. had terrible carb cravings & ate way too much. That's a whole lot better now. I eat low fat dairy & proteins w/ olive oil, grilled or sauteed. May go mildly to moderately over board on nuts, peanut butter & cool whip (w/ sf jello) & have ff half n half in AM coffee. I also drink 1-2 glasses (8-12 oz) unsweetened soy milk.
Any thoughts? |
|
Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:02 pm |
|
| frustratedieter
|
|
|
Hi Everyone! I just found this site and joined! I began the 1st phase of SB on Friday (4 days ago) and am hoping that this plan will work well for me. I plan on it being my way of life!!! My most recent "diet" experience has been "low-fat" and after alot of frustration (it's a really long story) I did some research and found that this isn't what someone with insulin resistance should be on! My fasting numbers also have me pre-diabetic and I really need to do something quickly to reverse all that. I do exercise and would consider myself moderatly active. My weekly goal is to do "at least" 3X of 30 minute/minimum of cardio (treadmill, bike, eliptical)..but if I can do more than 30 minutes and more days that's even better for my personal goals.
I'm 63 years old, female and weigh about 248. I'm in fairly good health otherwise and would like to keep it that way!
I guess my point of posting on this thread is to ask if anyone else has a similar story but is having success with SB. |
|
Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
| TheHerd
|
|
|
I've had staggering results with blood work - my Dr. actually ordered me to go back and retest because he didn't believe it. 3 months on SB, lost 30 lbs.
LDL: 205 -> 104
HDL: 35 -> 47
Triglycerides: 229 -> 104
My weight is actually where I want it, but I'm not leaving SB. That triglyceride number has a long way to go. I'm 46 and I feel better than I have since high school. And I really don't feel like I'm dieting.
If you're just starting this method of eating (I can't call it a diet), IT WORKS! |
|
Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:30 am |
|
| frustratedieter
|
|
|
I've been on SB now for about 5 weeks...lost so far (weigh in a week ago) 9 lbs! Tomorrow I weigh in again. I only do that once per week as I don't have a scale fixation.
I see my endocronologist again in about a month so will be anxious to see what my fasting blood-work will be compared to the one taken in Feb.
I'm guessing it will be different if what is shared here is true! You all are such an encouragement to me after years of not finding good weight-loss success and the same with my blood-work numbers!!! |
|
Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:41 pm |
|