[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

maybe you should read the whole thing again, more slowly.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did and its exactly as i have been saying
> anyway.
>

no

> As ive said for the 50th time now fresh, nobody
> claimed elevated triglycerides were a direct
> pathogenic factor in causing heart disease, but a
> proven solid precitor of potential increased CVD
> risk and/or other potential metabolic health
> problems such as insulin resistance, especially
> when you have LOW HDL.
>
> "May not be pathogenic" Its hardly conclusive
> evidence either, but interesting that its related
> to the slow clearance outwidth people with insulin
> resistance.

not conclusive. explanatory for her numbers that may not mean anything negative although you want so badly for them to be negative.

>
> "Although the particle size of both LDL and HDL
> tends to decrease when triglyceride levels are
> high, it is questionable whether this effect has a
> major pathogenic impact."
>
> Anyway the study claims elevated triglycerides are
> a marker for insulin resistance.
>
> Your study would have been applicable had Kristina
> only had mildly elevated triglycerides, yet she
> has many other abnormal lipid/cholesterol markers
> which again come with increased CVD risk and
> indicate insulin resistance.
>

already explained that they are not necessarily abnormal.

> If anything your study re-inforces what im saying,
> that Kristina's elevated triglycerides are
> something to worry about, because she has other
> abnormal results indicative of a metabolic
> disorder.
>

sure it does

> The fact that Kristina has developed ANY of these
> abnormal markers on a plant-based diet is
> worrying, especially becasue you're still trying
> to justify these poor lipid/cholesterol panel.


already explained.

still having trouble figuring out why harley's TG are perfect?
still trying to make it into a 801010 thing or a raw thing or a plant based thing?

I have tried to inject facts.

You can't learn when you have an agenda that you have

you can only learn when you seek facts instead of an agenda.

take care

Ha ha ha. Well what do you know there is still stuff from ye olde "Medical Hypothesis" journal that haven't been yanked yet from PubMed.


If you like that you'll love this book "A Book of Ideas Collected From Medical Hypothesis: Death Can Be Cured" by Roger Dobsen

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


Thanks for the study,it has lots of things in it that need careful studying. l saved it in my files.

Btw, is someone able to find the thread where Christina's blood results were posted? . I did see her results somewhere but have been unable to find them again. I wish to go over her results with a fine tooth comb.

www.thesproutarian.com

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually something i forgot to mention on
> Kristina's results is that the CHD risk marker is
> also flagged due to her abnormal lipid/cholesterol
> panel.
>
> Im sure fresh will have a way of justifying it
> though, even when its flagged in plain words that
> she is at increased risk of heart disease.
>

no I don't see anything that looks too bad
especially since it wasn't fasting.

but you tend to ignore facts as I said

> and of course John will do his usual and create
> another the truth has enemies thread.
>
> Kristin's iron markers were just as bad and many
> flagged as abnormal once again. Not a surprise
> since many women can't maintain healthy iron
> status as vegans.
>
> [4.bp.blogspot.com]
> AAAAAAAABLA/wKa8zYZpkAs/s1600/fullyrawvegankristin
> abloodtestresultsdebunk.png

iron levels are simply based on population averages,
already been noted that vegans are lower and there is no ill effect
same as high TG.
but then again, you have a tendency to ignore facts that dispute your position.

and i did not mean that you had an agenda against kristina,
you have an agenda against the diet.

Triglycerides

safe nonfasting TG is 200
hers is 210
5% over range.
This is what Chris is freaking out about? really?
talk about grasping at straws

LDL - subjects test results were good and low

not a problem

HDL - lower than range

NOTE: the purpose of HDL is to remove cholesterol. she is a vegan. Little need for higher HDL due to low cholesterol

not a problem

VLDL - max is 30 , hers is 42

not far out of range

I see that JR has just posted something similar.

On the other hand, maybe Dr Chris is right, maybe she should go directly to the hospital.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2015 08:26PM by fresh.

yes 5% high! oh my god! call a doctor!!

do you even know what risk ranges are for?

you think that a few points over means something?

holy moses! my BP is 121 over 81 !

I will surely die in a few minutes!!!

Triglyceride levels are relatively high in certain Third World societies which are virtually immune to coronary disease so long as they persist in their traditional very-low-fat diets; in Ornish's celebrated study, a moderate rise in triglycerides coincided with a marked reduction in coronary events.

Although the particle size of both LDL and HDL tends to decrease when triglyceride levels are high, it is questionable whether this effect has a major pathogenic impact.


The very favorable effects of very-low-fat, whole food, quasi-vegan diets on LDL cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, and body weight appear to more than compensate for this decrease in HDL; it is notable that HDL levels tend to be quite low in Third World cultures at minimal risk for coronary disease

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't get more straight forward when the
> actual CHD risk marker is FLAGGED as abnormal on
> your blood test.
>

flagged doesn't mean diddly doo.

> In denial....keep making your myriad of excuses,
> what have we had now ?
>
> non-existant oils in her diet

conjecture

> low vitamin b12 which she didn't have

no umma test

> her ranges being ok = when they weren't

make sure your BP is not 121 over 81

> high triglycerides not being proven anyway =

french fries are the same as apples

> debunked proven predictor of CHD & insulin
> resistance
> she wasn't in a fasted state, which i dont believe

of course you don't

> = but you debunked it yourself anyway, her levels
> were still high even if she hadn't somehow fasted
>

yes so very high

> good day fresh.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Triglyceride levels are relatively high in certain
> Third World societies which are virtually immune
> to coronary disease so long as they persist in
> their traditional very-low-fat diets; in Ornish's
> celebrated study, a moderate rise in triglycerides
> coincided with a marked reduction in coronary
> events.
>
> Although the particle size of both LDL and HDL
> tends to decrease when triglyceride levels are
> high, it is questionable whether this effect has a
> major pathogenic impact.
>
>
> The very favorable effects of very-low-fat, whole
> food, quasi-vegan diets on LDL cholesterol,
> insulin sensitivity, and body weight appear to
> more than compensate for this decrease in HDL; it
> is notable that HDL levels tend to be quite low in
> Third World cultures at minimal risk for coronary
> disease

Are you aware that quasi-vegan and vegan can be as far apart as your diet is from Chris' diet? To this day many, many, omnivores don't even think of fish as meat for instance. Did you forget the mention of fish oil in this non peer reviewed study or did you just consider it irrelevant? I don't think it's irrelevant. You wouldn't take it. I wouldn't take it.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't get more straight forward when the
> actual CHD risk marker is FLAGGED as abnormal on
> your blood test.
>
> In denial....keep making your myriad of excuses,
> what have we had now ?


> non-existant oils in her diet


In my case adding a ton of plant oils and fats to my diet (65%) reversed my bad lipid panel tests, which had been as bad as Kristina's were when I spent 11 months on hclf raw vegan, and left me with no flagged results and put me back to the good blood test results range I had had previously enjoyed as a mostly life long vegetarian before I went on hclf.

> low vitamin b12 which she didn't have

Once again, for new readers, my B12 was good when my lipid panel was bad. The next year, though, when my lipid panel and other blood tests were good, my B12 was bad! So both of these guesses of Fresh's seem very peculiar and backward guesses to me.


> her ranges being ok = when they weren't
> high triglycerides not being proven anyway =
> debunked proven predictor of CHD & insulin
> resistance
> she wasn't in a fasted state, which i dont believe


Technically, but not Kosher, IMO, she could have been considered "nonfasting" in the next day's explanation by the Dr. of the lipid panel results, if she took B12 orally a few hours or so before she had her blood drawn.

As I have said elsewhere I think this is likely what happened due to B12 being water soluble (so excess is usually peed out in just a few hours) and she had off the chart high amounts of it still in her blood when the blood work was drawn. But I don't know.

What I do know is that Kristina and her doctor were, at that time at least, BUSINESS PARTNERS so they both had a vested interest in her tests being shown in the very best light possible...

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you aware that quasi-vegan and vegan can be as
> far apart as your diet is from Chris' diet? To
> this day many, many, omnivores don't even think of
> fish as meat for instance. Did you forget the
> mention of fish oil in this non peer reviewed
> study or did you just consider it irrelevant? I
> don't think it's irrelevant. You wouldn't take it.
> I wouldn't take it.

correct, I wouldn't say the excerpts are strong evidence - and your point is valid.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In my case adding a ton of plant oils and fats to
> my diet (65%) reversed my bad lipid panel tests,
> which had been as bad as Kristina's were when I
> spent 11 months on hclf raw vegan, and left me
> with no flagged results and put me back to the
> good blood test results range I had had previously
> enjoyed as a mostly life long vegetarian before I
> went on hclf.


-hashimoto's
-may take more time than you think for your body to adjust
-could have been eating incorrectly
-could have been overeating during hclf and under or normal eating now

could have been a lot of things

> good, my B12 was bad! So both of these guesses of
> Fresh's seem very peculiar and backward guesses to
> me.

not my guess, it was conjecture from a study, but I will lower the probability of b12/lipid connection

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > In my case adding a ton of plant oils and fats
> to
> > my diet (65%) reversed my bad lipid panel
> tests,
> > which had been as bad as Kristina's were when I
> > spent 11 months on hclf raw vegan, and left me
> > with no flagged results and put me back to the
> > good blood test results range I had had
> previously
> > enjoyed as a mostly life long vegetarian before
> I
> > went on hclf.
>
>
> -hashimoto's
> -may take more time than you think for your body
> to adjust
> -could have been eating incorrectly
> -could have been overeating during hclf and under
> or normal eating now
>
> could have been a lot of things
>
> > good, my B12 was bad! So both of these guesses
> of
> > Fresh's seem very peculiar and backward guesses
> to
> > me.
>
> not my guess, it was conjecture from a study, but
> I will lower the probability of b12/lipid
> connection


This is the second time you have pointed at Hashimotos as possibly being the problem.

Are you implying that people who have been diagnosed with Hashimotos should not expect good results on a hclf diet? Are you just pulling this out of your butt and presenting it, like john rose does, or what?

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you implying that people who have been
> diagnosed with Hashimotos should not expect good
> results on a hclf diet?

not if they give up too soon and give strong credence to temporary blood test results.
the organs impacted by hashimotos are the same that are involved in glucose regulation and may be preferentially worse for high fruit diets initially.

carrie vitt claims to have healed hers but also says it was triggered by heavy metals

just another post from me for you to mindlessly bash. have a ball.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Are you implying that people who have been
> > diagnosed with Hashimotos should not expect
> good
> > results on a hclf diet?
>
> not if they give up too soon and give strong
> credence to temporary blood test results.
> the organs impacted by hashimotos are the same
> that are involved in glucose regulation and may be
> preferentially worse for high fruit diets
> initially.

I had good unflagged lipid panels after I spent, as I recall, around 7 months on a beginner raw gourmet type raw vegan diet (that would have included, at the onset, around 3 months of a whole plant based vegetarian diet all prepared from scratch - nothing from cans, packages, or bottles). I certainly wasn't taking in as much fat back then as I do now. I had always had good lipid panel results while on a vegetarian diet, too.

It wasn't until I spent 11 months hclf raw vegan that my lipid panel and other blood work became riddled with asterisked H's and L's. After a year on the Conductivity Diet my lipid panel and other blood work were mostly back into normal range) where they remain!


So, in summary, the only time I had poor lipid panel results and had any blood sugar problems EVER IN MY LIFE were after spending 11 symptomless months on hclf raw vegan. My lipid panels improved to the point they had previously been at after going on a high fat (65%) diet. The only way, to this day, I can keep my FBS within normal range is to keep my carb intake to <100 grams.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SueZ Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Are you implying that people who have been
> > > diagnosed with Hashimotos should not expect
> > good
> > > results on a hclf diet?
> >
> > not if they give up too soon and give strong
> > credence to temporary blood test results.
> > the organs impacted by hashimotos are the same
> > that are involved in glucose regulation and may
> be
> > preferentially worse for high fruit diets
> > initially.
>
> I had good unflagged lipid panels after I spent,
> as I recall, around 7 months on a beginner raw
> gourmet type raw vegan diet (that would have
> included, at the onset, around 3 months of a whole
> plant based vegetarian diet all prepared from
> scratch - nothing from cans, packages, or
> bottles). I certainly wasn't taking in as much fat
> back then as I do now. I had always had good lipid
> panel results while on a vegetarian diet, too.
>
> It wasn't until I spent 11 months hclf raw vegan
> that my lipid panel and other blood work became
> riddled with asterisked H's and L's. After a year
> on the Conductivity Diet my lipid panel and other
> blood work were mostly back into normal range)
> where they remain!
>
>
> So, in summary, the only time I had poor lipid
> panel results and had any blood sugar problems
> EVER IN MY LIFE were after spending 11 symptomless
> months on hclf raw vegan. My lipid panels
> improved to the point they had previously been at
> after going on a high fat (65%) diet. The only
> way, to this day, I can keep my FBS within normal
> range is to keep my carb intake to <100 grams.

Because your insulin response is weak.

You have proven what I have said.

I don't know why you are in denial about this or think that it has nothing to do with it.

your hclf diet put more demands on your insulin response than your other diets

"thyroid disorders like Hashimoto’s can cause sugar problems and put you at greater risk for hypoglycemia, insulin resistance and if nothing is corrected, diabetes."

"thyroid disorders like Hashimoto’s can cause sugar problems and put you at greater risk for hypoglycemia, insulin resistance and if nothing is corrected, diabetes."

I know you are impervious to reason, have very little knowledge, and are on a misguided and health endangering crusade, so once again, to set the record straight, (not for you but for others who may be contemplating going on a hclf raw vegan diet), my thyroid condition is under control. My yearly thyroid panel tests are always normal now and have been for over 24 years.

I see, so the only alternative is that the fruit that all other high carbers are eating is from another planet, in order for you to sustain this belief that you have that your experience with "the diet" implicates "the diet".

"I see"

No. You don't.

Many people do well on high carb

Suez did not

Suez blames the diet

Suez unable to explain the contradiction or the logic

Many people do well on high carb

Suez did not

Suez blames the diet

Suez unable to explain the contradiction or the
logic"


Hclf led me to bad lab test results. I quit hclf and went to hflc and as a result of that dietary change my lab tests went back to normal.

Hclf led to blood sugar problems which after a long time on a lchf diet my daily FBS tests finally are consistently back within normal limits where they always were until I spent 11 months on hclf.

I am no longer classified as pre diabetic as a result of my leaving hclf (which put me there) and going on a lchf raw vegan diet in other words.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2015 12:48PM by SueZ.

Suez

What kind of fats did you use to get your blood results to normal levels. What kind of fats do you consume regularly now?

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many people do well on high carb
>
> Suez did not
>
> Suez blames the diet
>
> Suez unable to explain the contradiction or the
> logic"
>
>
> Hclf led me to bad lab test results. I quit hclf
> and went to hflc and as a result of that dietary
> change my lab tests went back to normal.
>
> Hclf led to blood sugar problems which after a
> long time on a lchf diet my daily FBS tests
> finally are consistently back within normal limits
> where they always were until I spent 11 months on
> hclf.
>
> I am no longer classified as pre diabetic as a
> result of my leaving hclf (which put me there) and
> going on a lchf raw vegan diet in other words.

Are u familiar with logic?
Your answer says nothing.
I didn't ask what happened
I asked how u explain successes and failures and differing outcomes.

And if u are going to accuse me of endangering people u may want to justify your statement by saying what u think I promote and who has been hurt by it. Or do you wish to continue your lack of integrity posts
Making accusations and avoiding responsibility for your words?

if u are going to accuse me of endangering
> people u may want to justify your statement by
> saying what u think I promote and who has been
> hurt by it.

I have, many times, but I'm not on a mission to cure stupid so I'm done with you, your canned pseudo-logic, and the rest of your goofy childish bag of tricks.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if u are going to accuse me of endangering
> > people u may want to justify your statement by
> > saying what u think I promote and who has been
> > hurt by it.
>
> I have, many times, but I'm not on a mission to
> cure stupid so I'm done with you, your canned
> pseudo-logic, and the rest of your goofy childish
> bag of tricks.


You have NEVER explained it. And the more insulting you get always results from your failure to do so

One good thing, and the only one, IMO, which could possibly manifest from fresh's foolish posts is that people who have been diagnosed with thyroid problem will read his words and decide against trying the 80-10-10 diet.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One good thing, and the only one, IMO, which could
> possibly manifest from fresh's foolish posts is
> that people who have been diagnosed with thyroid
> problem will read his words and decide against
> trying the 80-10-10 diet.

still no response. i wonder why

SueZ Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know you are impervious to reason, have very
> little knowledge, and


>are on a misguided and
> health endangering crusade,

I am waiting for you to say how I am endangering anyone's health.


so once again, to set
> the record straight, (not for you but for others
> who may be contemplating going on a hclf raw vegan
> diet), my thyroid condition is under control. My
> yearly thyroid panel tests are always normal now
> and have been for over 24 years.

YOU said you HAVE HASHIMOTO'S , that was last year.
so your comment above is meaningless with respect to what is being discussed, which is your response to a hclf diet. can you understand that?

beyond that, your "hashimoto's" CAN and does impact the pancreas. I am sure you are aware of the function of the pancreas, yes?