I am trying a “modified” Carnivore diet. It’s Really more of an anti-vegan diet where I keep 90% of my food sources as animal derivatives (meat, dairy, bone broth).
I am worried about cholesterol levels with a diet made up of mainly red meat.
Does anyone know of a breakdown of HDL:LDL ration for various meat (and other) sources? Is there any real data to support the notion that “high cholesterol” is bad regardless of the HDL:LDL ratio? I am assuming with a high enough concentration of HDL, the LDL wont “stick.”
I feel you’re approaching this from a fundamentally flawed perspective. The cholesterol in the food is immaterial to your own cholesterol levels.
Here is a very brief overview on the entire subject
Man, i was really getting into this article. the sales pitch was a little off-putting.
Will definitely add the Metamucil to my diet as i was already considering it because, you know, meat and cheese.
Personally, removing metamucil from my carnivore diet was far more beneficial. I find fiber is valuable in the presence of carbs/plants in the diet, but in the absence of those, it has no benefit, and can actually be negative to digestive health.
However, I shared that article more as a leaping off point. There is a LOT of research out there on this subject. Caring about what you eat is a great idea: it’s just about caring about the right things. Rather than focusing on the cholesterol in your food, think about the fats in it. Are you eating a lot of chicken and pork? Those meats, in the states, are fed a diet rich in corn and soy and, as monogastric animals, will in turn have fats higher in Omega 6 fatty acids compared to a ruminant animal, like a cow or lamb, which has few Omega 6s and, instead, Omega 3s.
More great articles on the subject of fats
1 Like
My Harvard educated physician said that the only thing that matters is the ratio. I had awful triglycerides many years ago, like heart attack on deck level - and I did ketosis. I posed this question obviously out of concern for the high fat content. Btw, I came back to him and he said my blood was some of the best he had ever seen. Absolutely incredible what that process does.
Blaming cholesterol is a bit like blaming firefighters because you always see them at house fires. It is very nuanced. More nuanced than what the vast majority of GPs will look into. There are types of LDL not associated with heart disease and some types of HDL that are. About 50% of people with even very high cholesterol don’t get arterial plaque and about 50% of people with heart disease have in range cholesterol. It’s just not a great predictor. triglycerides are a better predictor and are elevated directly by carbohydrate intake. Chronic inflammation, obesity, and insulin resistance are better predictors. If for example, the diet gets you active, gets you to a healthy weight, and increases your insulin sensitivity you are most probably much healthier, EVEN IF CHOLESTEROL NUMBERS LOOK WORSE to a GP.
It’s also extremely myopic to look at cholesterol in isolation to heart disease. Doctors won’t tell you this (and probably don’t know) but while total cholesterol is proportionally linked to heart disease, it is inversely related to cancer. By the same logic of preventing heart disease by lowering cholesterol you are increasing your risk of some cancers. If you just look at total cholesterol as an indicator of life expectancy the maximum life expectancy for Males is in the 200-240 range. Above AND BELOW that, life expectancy starts to go down. And in that optimal range most doctors will medicate a patient to get it down.
Some of this can vary based on your individual situation, if you’ve had a heart attack, if you have measured calcification, etc.
The bottom line is that if you are really worried, go get a calcification score. But otherwise, if you are getting to a strong healthy fit weight with good energy on a diet that works for you, I wouldn’t change it over an LDL number unless there were extenuating circumstances.
1 Like