carbs consumed by animals present in meat?

Sir Benjamin Nunn said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

In other words, if an animal eats a diet of mostly carbohydrate (like
corn-fed chicken), does that make the meat more carby, or is it still all
protein/fat?

Yes, the makeup of meat is different depending on the diet.
Pasture-raised meat and dairy have much larger proportions of CLA than
grain-fed.

However, the carbohydrate in non-organ meats doesn't change at all -
muscle meats don't contain carbs. The difference I describe above is a
difference in the fatty acids that make up the fat.

Quoted message said:

And if so, how does the science work? Is it possible for one type to
effectively be converted to another.

This is a very large topic. You are basically asking what happens to
carbs, protein and fat when they are eaten and turned into bits of the
body. I could type for a week and only cover it in a very general
sense, leaving lots of bits out...

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Sir Benjamin Nunn said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

In other words, if an animal eats a diet of mostly carbohydrate (like
corn-fed chicken), does that make the meat more carby, or is it still all
protein/fat?

Let's think on this. A cow, in the wild (this is a bizarre notion to
me, but...),
eats grasses. Well, forget the cow, let's go with the wild cow, the
buffalo (loose
but workable for the purposes of our discussion). It roams the high
plains. It
eats grass. Maybe it gets some bugs in with it grass, but it doesn't
eat
prairie dogs by accident (it probably spits it out if that happens).
Yet, the muscle
of the buffalo is mostly water and protein, with some small amount of
fat (depending
on the muscle, but buffalo tend to lean) and some trace amount of
carb. Yet, it's
diet, naturally, is mostly carb. Clearly, it's not only possible, but
it happens.

Chickens, left to roam, eat other grasses, bugs, and tasty nuggets out
of cow [censored].
I would guess it's pretty high in carb. Yet, they be protein.

As Jackie points out, the big difference is in the fat composition.
I'm not smart/rich
enough to worry about that.

Quoted message said:

And if so, how does the science work? Is it possible for one type to
effectively be converted to another.

In the human body, you can take protein and make sugar. You can take
fat, and
make energy. I'm a business major, not a biochemist, but maybe you can
make
protein out of carbs assuming you have the right add ons (I think it's
mostly a matter
of nitrogen, but again, I cut a lot of chemistry and biology in high
school). Animals
that eat carbs probably have the mechanism to add the nitrogen (from
dietary sources)
to their CHO molecules, and synthesize what they need. That's the
assumption I'm
working under. But, when the chips hit the fan, I don't worry about
this too much. For
me, an animal can be a bit of a black box. Sympathetic, wonderful,
dopey, whatever, but
inputs in, steaks out.

*Anti-Vegetarian Asbestos Fire Suit On*

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Is the chlorine used when making sodium chloride present
in the salt? This question is rather like that advertising
jingle "Splenda - Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar".
Salt - Made from poison gas and burning metal so it tastes
like poison gas. Cows - Made from grass so they give paper
cuts just like grass and taaste just like grass.

In other words, no. The carb consumption of cows is not
reflected int he carb content of their meat. The carbs are
digested by cows just as the carbs are digested by us
humans.

Quoted message said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

Not with respect to carbs. There is some impact on the types
of fatty acids in the fat - Cows feed on grass and weeds have
more omega-3 fatty acids than cows stuffed with grain. They
also grow more slowly so grain fed cattle are more profitable.

Quoted message said:

In other words, if an animal eats a diet of mostly carbohydrate (like
corn-fed chicken), does that make the meat more carby, or is it still all
protein/fat?

The carbs are burned for energy. The energy gets used to
build the meat. The protein has to come from the grass the
cows eat. Some of the carbs are converted to fat.

Quoted message said:

And if so, how does the science work?

Check out a college freshmen college textbook and look at
how proteins, carbs and fats are synthesized. The science is
well known and at the freshman level (or AP courses in high
school) but it is well beyond the scope of UseNet here.

Quoted message said:

Is it possible for one type to
effectively be converted to another.

Protein can not as it contains nitrogen and often sulfur. Carbs
and fat can be converted back and forth but the process is
very inefficient. In fact, the metabolic advantage of low fat
plans is that inefficiency.

Sir Benjamin Nunn said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

In other words, if an animal eats a diet of mostly carbohydrate (like
corn-fed chicken), does that make the meat more carby, or is it still all
protein/fat?

And if so, how does the science work? Is it possible for one type to
effectively be converted to another.

BTN

Evidently, the carbon 13 isotope is present in corn in an unusual ratio.

This unusual ratio of carbon 13 is present in the meat of an animal
raised on this corn. Caarbon 13 isn't a poison, but it a marker, so it
has been claimed, for detecting grass fed vs corn fed beef.

Another marker for corn fed beef is claimed to be the percentage of
saturated fat in the fat portion of the meat.

Are you thinking that if you eat a lot of carbohydrates, then you have a
lot of carbohydrate stored or incorporated into your muscles? That would
be the logical consequence of your initial question above.

There are many conversions possible between fat, carbohydrate and
protein. One limitation is that since protein contains nitrogen in the
form of amino acids, and there is no nitrogen present in fats or
carbohydrates, then your body can't make proteins from fats or
carbohydrates.

The best thing for you is to read some kind of a book explaining how
whatever diet you undertake works. Or read the information on a website
dedicated to that particular diet.

If a food animal eats carbs, you don't get carby meat. However, if the
animal is eating industrial waste or aflatoxins, you might get a mouthful.

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

In other words, if an animal eats a diet of mostly carbohydrate (like
corn-fed chicken), does that make the meat more carby, or is it still all
protein/fat?

And if so, how does the science work? Is it possible for one type to
effectively be converted to another.

BTN

Hollywood said:

As Jackie points out, the big difference is in the fat composition.
I'm not smart/rich
enough to worry about that.

I figured that myself. Sometimes I bought meat and dairy from
pasture-raised animals, but it was so much more expensive that more
often I got the cheaper stuff. We were saving our money diligently to
buy land and once that was accomplished, we'd be eating pasture-raised
food forever, but in the meantime... well, sometimes chicken leg
quarters went on sale for $.29/lb and you just can't beat that.

However, CLA is important stuff. It's a prime candidate for the
difference between why there was almost no heart disease a hundred years
ago vs. now. There's a ton of very good research showing it's effects
on inflammation and metabolism. You can buy CLA as a supplement, but
it's so darned expensive that the pasture-raised meat and dairy start
looking like a good deal.

I am still out-of-work from my MI in May and my husband has only been
back to work for a month as he was busy caretaking me for a time. We
exhuasted all savings and ran up a lot of debt just keeping ourselves
fed and the utilities on, let alone the medical bills and meds running
between $400-1000 per month. So we're real, real broke right now. And
I only eat pasture-raised meat and dairy and organic fruits and
vegetables now - almost all whole foods, no processed stuff. It is
expensive compared to eating typical grocery fare, but I have decided
that saving money on food is false economy.

I figure it like this... had I begun doing this 2-3 years earlier and
not had the MI, we'd be $20000-30000 ahead, NOT counting the medical
expenses. The expenses related to the heart attack and unemployment
would've WAY more than paid for more expensive food. Had I chosen to be
"less frugal" about food years ago, I wouldn't *know* we were that far
ahead, I'd think I was spending more money. But we'd be WAY ahead.

Quoted message said:

Animals
that eat carbs probably have the mechanism to add the nitrogen (from
dietary sources)
to their CHO molecules, and synthesize what they need. That's the
assumption I'm
working under.

Plants make protein from nitrogen in soil.

Legume plants make it from atmospheric nitrogen in the air (with help
from bacteria), which is ultimately where all protein comes from.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?
In other words, if an animal eats a diet of mostly carbohydrate (like
corn-fed chicken), does that make the meat more carby, or is it still all
protein/fat?
And if so, how does the science work? Is it possible for one type to
effectively be converted to another.

Essentially it's the reason why we hunt/raise animals for food instead of
eating grass etc ourselves.

The way it works is this:

Animals consume (more or less carb-high) plants.

Their bodies convert those nutriments into (more or less carb-low) meat.

We kill the animals and eat the meat.

That's how the science works.

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

Check out the USDA database for info on carbs, protein, etc.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

I have no idea what the little guys eat, but they sure are tasty :-)

Mike

em said:

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal?

Check out the USDA database for info on carbs, protein, etc.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

I have no idea what the little guys eat, but they sure are tasty :-)

Great MST3K line from Crow, when the narrator of a short is talking
about studies of animal intelligence:

"How do animals learn? Well, as long as they learn to taste good, I
don't really care."

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Jackie Patti said:

Hollywood said:

As Jackie points out, the big difference is in the fat composition.
I'm not smart/rich
enough to worry about that.

I figured that myself. Sometimes I bought meat and dairy from
pasture-raised animals, but it was so much more expensive that more
often I got the cheaper stuff. We were saving our money diligently to
buy land and once that was accomplished, we'd be eating pasture-raised
food forever, but in the meantime... well, sometimes chicken leg
quarters went on sale for $.29/lb and you just can't beat that.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I figure it like this... had I begun doing this 2-3 years earlier and
not had the MI, we'd be $20000-30000 ahead, NOT counting the medical
expenses. The expenses related to the heart attack and unemployment
would've WAY more than paid for more expensive food. Had I chosen to be
"less frugal" about food years ago, I wouldn't *know* we were that far
ahead, I'd think I was spending more money. But we'd be WAY ahead.

The ounce of prevention versus the pound of cure. I'm gonna suggest
that,
at current state of affairs, I'm unlikely for MI or other heart issues
for a while.
BP good, cholesterol good. Blood sugar LC good. Pretty good family
history.
Great if you take out the smokers. And I don't smoke.

Then, there's the incentives. If I have a major health event, I have
good insurance
through my employer. I wouldn't be out the $20K. I'm not saying I want
an
MI. But the finance of it wouldn't be ruinous for me, especially since
it's unlikely
in the middle term. So, given the cash strappedness of large education
loans,
underemployment, and big city (Washington DC) rent, I'll take the cost
save
in the short term. Different strokes for different people with
different incentives.

FWIW: I used to do CLA supplementation. I don't recall why I stopped.
Maybe
something about too much of a good thing. I really don't recall.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Animals that eat carbs probably have the mechanism to add the
nitrogen (from dietary sources) to their CHO molecules, and synthesize
what they need. That's the assumption I'm working under.

Plants make protein from nitrogen in soil.

Legume plants make it from atmospheric nitrogen in the air (with help
from bacteria), which is ultimately where all protein comes from.

Thanks JP. I'd figured a cow is getting it's nitrogen through the
grasses.
Dunno that it matters to my day to day operations.

Hollywood said:

The ounce of prevention versus the pound of cure. I'm gonna suggest
that,
at current state of affairs, I'm unlikely for MI or other heart issues
for a while.
BP good, cholesterol good. Blood sugar LC good. Pretty good family
history.
Great if you take out the smokers. And I don't smoke.

I just thought I was too young... no one has heart attacks at age 45.

I was the only one in the CCU under age 80!

Quoted message said:

Then, there's the incentives. If I have a major health event, I have
good insurance
through my employer. I wouldn't be out the $20K. I'm not saying I want
an
MI. But the finance of it wouldn't be ruinous for me, especially since
it's unlikely
in the middle term.

The actual medical bills were well over $100K - I wasn't counting them
at all.

I figure if we'd been eating better food the past 5 years or so, that'd
have cost us maybe $10-15K.

I haven't worked since May. My husband just went back to work last
month as he had to be here since I couldn't feed myself, get up and down
stairs, shower, etc. I needed a lot of caretaking. So we had both of
us unemployed for most of 4 months. Luckily, we had a lot of savings -
but we wiped them out and racked up close to $5K in debt.

That's how I figure we're $20-30K in the hole from the heart attack:
what we'd have spent on more expensive food vs. living expenses during
unemployment. Depending on how long I'm unemployed (my cardiologist
said it'd likely take a year to be back to normal after CABG) it could
easily be much more before we're done.

Quoted message said:

FWIW: I used to do CLA supplementation. I don't recall why I stopped.
Maybe
something about too much of a good thing. I really don't recall.

Eating pasture-raised meat and dairy is a cheaper way of getting the CLA in.

And it tastes better than swallowing pills. I'm currently reading lots
on nutrition (and inflammation and heart disease and insulin and
endocrinology, etc.) and if I did everything that might be good for me,
I'd be swallowing scores of pills per day. As it is, I'm taking 11
pills daily (meds and supplements) and I dislike it so am trying to
figure out ways of getting more of what I need in food rather than in
pills. A pasture-fed steak is a heck of a lot more pleasant to get down
than another damned pill!

It's probably healthier too.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Jackie Patti said:

I just thought I was too young... no one has heart attacks at age 45.

I was the only one in the CCU under age 80!

You may have already explained this... and I just missed it,
but symptoms did you have with your MI? Where there any
early signs that now with hindsight you see were a warning.

I asked because we often hear that women have different
signs than men.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR said:

Jackie Patti said:

I just thought I was too young... no one has heart attacks at age 45.

I was the only one in the CCU under age 80!

You may have already explained this... and I just missed it, but
symptoms did you have with your MI? Where there any early signs that
now with hindsight you see were a warning.

I asked because we often hear that women have different signs than men.

My symptoms were that I had heartburn for about a week on-and-off. My
husband was concerned cause he is a major worrywart. Eventually his
worry infected me, I had not had heartburn since pregnancy and my
daughter was 23, so I googled to find out how to tell the difference
between a heart attack and heartburn. The answer seemed to be that you
can't tell, so to go to the ER, so we did. At the ER, they tested my
blood for the appropriate enzymes, did an EKG, pronounced me fine and
sent me home with instructions to take antacids. Boy, did I feel foolish!

The episodes increased for several days until one night when I woke with
pain repeatedly, woke and screamed and vomited for a couple hours, went
back to sleep, repeat... all night long. Eventually we went back to the
ER - I couldn't even speak or walk anymore, so hubby wheeled me in and
told them we knew I was NOT having a heart attack, but something was bad
wrong.

An EKG showed I was having a bad MI, so they put me on morphine
immediatly (I was still screaming and they needed to shut me up!), then
transferred me by ambulance to another hospital for an emergency
angioplasty, which was unsuccessful at clearing the blockage. They had
me on IV heparin and insulin for a week until I was stable enough for a
bypass.

So... far as I can tell, even the ER can't always tell if you're having
a heart attack regardless of your symptoms as they thought I was fine
just a couple days earlier.

Women often have few symptoms and diabetics are much more likely to have
"silent" heart attacks with no symptoms at all, so I was "lucky" to have
mind-boggling pain.

Since my heart attack, both my best friend's mother and my husband's
best friend's mother had heart attacks. We joked that I had started a
new fad, but we quit joking when they both died. Neither had chest pain
at all, one got dizzy and fell off a chair and the other vomitted after
knee surgery.

I've obviously become much more interested in heart disease. Turns out
the first symtpom in hlaf the people who have heart attacks is death.
Heart disease kills more people than all other causes combined.
Elevated blood glucose is a much worst risk factor than cholesterol;
being diabetic increases your chances of a heart attack as much as those
who've already had one.

So it turns out, a heart attack is the most likely thing you'll die of
and your first attack may well kill you. IMO, everyone ought to be
taking gobs of fish oil - may well save your life.

Eating pasture-raised meat and dairy are also good heart attack
preventatives which is how I got on the topic here; the expense is VERY
minimal compared to the cost of having a heart attack.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Jackie Patti said:

RRzVRR said:

Jackie Patti said:

I just thought I was too young... no one has heart attacks at age 45.

I was the only one in the CCU under age 80!

You may have already explained this... and I just missed it, but
symptoms did you have with your MI? Where there any early signs that
now with hindsight you see were a warning.

I asked because we often hear that women have different signs than men.

My symptoms were that I had heartburn for about a week on-and-off. My
husband was concerned cause he is a major worrywart. Eventually his
worry infected me, I had not had heartburn since pregnancy and my
daughter was 23, so I googled to find out how to tell the difference
between a heart attack and heartburn. The answer seemed to be that you
can't tell, so to go to the ER, so we did. At the ER, they tested my
blood for the appropriate enzymes, did an EKG, pronounced me fine and
sent me home with instructions to take antacids. Boy, did I feel foolish!

This is really shocking and a bit scarier. Do you know if
the enzyme markers are a +/- test or a level test? What I'm
wondering is if the enzyme markers are level test... and
like a lot of other level test (HA1c or T3-T4) medical pros
don't recognize a problem unless you are clearly in a danger
range.

Quoted message said:

The episodes increased for several days until one night when I woke with
pain repeatedly, woke and screamed and vomited for a couple hours, went
back to sleep, repeat... all night long. Eventually we went back to the
ER - I couldn't even speak or walk anymore, so hubby wheeled me in and
told them we knew I was NOT having a heart attack, but something was bad
wrong.

An EKG showed I was having a bad MI, so they put me on morphine
immediatly (I was still screaming and they needed to shut me up!), then
transferred me by ambulance to another hospital for an emergency
angioplasty, which was unsuccessful at clearing the blockage. They had
me on IV heparin and insulin for a week until I was stable enough for a
bypass.

So... far as I can tell, even the ER can't always tell if you're having
a heart attack regardless of your symptoms as they thought I was fine
just a couple days earlier.

Women often have few symptoms and diabetics are much more likely to have
"silent" heart attacks with no symptoms at all, so I was "lucky" to have
mind-boggling pain.

Since my heart attack, both my best friend's mother and my husband's
best friend's mother had heart attacks. We joked that I had started a
new fad, but we quit joking when they both died. Neither had chest pain
at all, one got dizzy and fell off a chair and the other vomitted after
knee surgery.

I've obviously become much more interested in heart disease. Turns out
the first symtpom in hlaf the people who have heart attacks is death.
Heart disease kills more people than all other causes combined. Elevated
blood glucose is a much worst risk factor than cholesterol; being
diabetic increases your chances of a heart attack as much as those
who've already had one.

As a woman approaching 50, the fact that I might have a
heart attach lurks in the back of my mind. My key numbers
are all good (HDL 67, BP 117/75, 5.6 HA1c) and I exercise,
but the fact is I still have a 50/50 chance of having a
heart attach. Actually from one report I read, a women with
a good cholesterol numbers might even have a slightly
greater chance of a heart attach than 50/50. So I try and
warn friends and family not to disregard warning signs. My
sister-in-law's sign was pain in her left shoulder that
radiated to the middle of her back.

It worries me when I hear others brag about getting good
cholesterol numbers -- it often sounds like they put too
much stake in that one factor. Yet it shouldn't be
surprising. Statin advertisements make it sound like if you
nail that one number you're in the free and clear.

Quoted message said:

So it turns out, a heart attack is the most likely thing you'll die of
and your first attack may well kill you. IMO, everyone ought to be
taking gobs of fish oil - may well save your life.

Eating pasture-raised meat and dairy are also good heart attack
preventatives which is how I got on the topic here; the expense is VERY
minimal compared to the cost of having a heart attack.

Hope your recovery goes quickly. Keep us posted on anything
the rest of us can learn by your experience.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR said:

Jackie Patti said:

My symptoms were that I had heartburn for about a week on-and-off. My
husband was concerned cause he is a major worrywart. Eventually his
worry infected me, I had not had heartburn since pregnancy and my
daughter was 23, so I googled to find out how to tell the difference
between a heart attack and heartburn. The answer seemed to be that
you can't tell, so to go to the ER, so we did. At the ER, they tested
my blood for the appropriate enzymes, did an EKG, pronounced me fine
and sent me home with instructions to take antacids. Boy, did I feel
foolish!

This is really shocking and a bit scarier. Do you know if the enzyme
markers are a +/- test or a level test? What I'm wondering is if the
enzyme markers are level test... and like a lot of other level test
(HA1c or T3-T4) medical pros don't recognize a problem unless you are
clearly in a danger range.

I used to know this, but I don't remember anymore. I don't even
remember which enzymes they test for.

Quoted message said:

As a woman approaching 50, the fact that I might have a heart attach
lurks in the back of my mind. My key numbers are all good (HDL 67, BP
117/75, 5.6 HA1c) and I exercise, but the fact is I still have a 50/50
chance of having a heart attach. Actually from one report I read, a
women with a good cholesterol numbers might even have a slightly greater
chance of a heart attach than 50/50. So I try and warn friends and
family not to disregard warning signs. My sister-in-law's sign was pain
in her left shoulder that radiated to the middle of her back.

Lovely HDL... can I ask what your LDL is?

Are you diabetic? I don't recall you saying so in the past. If you
are, then you're doing great.

If you're not, your A1c is very high and you might consider getting a bg
meter and testing yourself regularly to see if you can't get better bg
control.

Quoted message said:

It worries me when I hear others brag about getting good cholesterol
numbers -- it often sounds like they put too much stake in that one
factor. Yet it shouldn't be surprising. Statin advertisements make it
sound like if you nail that one number you're in the free and clear.

Yeah and it's not that easy. Personally, I am 99% certain mine was
caused by high bg. I had pancreasitis about a year before my MI and
lost bg control - low-carbing didn't do it anymore. Sugar makes all the
proteins in your blood a heck of a lot stickier and hence causes
blockages. Frankly, I was irrationally and stupidly afraid of being on
insulin - which is likely what caused my heart attack. Unfortunately,
there is no known cure for stupidity. 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it turns out, a heart attack is the most likely thing you'll die of
and your first attack may well kill you. IMO, everyone ought to be
taking gobs of fish oil - may well save your life.

Eating pasture-raised meat and dairy are also good heart attack
preventatives which is how I got on the topic here; the expense is
VERY minimal compared to the cost of having a heart attack.

Hope your recovery goes quickly. Keep us posted on anything the rest of
us can learn by your experience.

Thank you.

I'm planning to keep doing so. Almost done with a web page about dosing
insulin for low-carbing T2s. Next will be a heart-healthy diet page.
Probably pages on inflammation and endocrinology will follow. I'm
learning and trying to pass what I'm learning on as quickly as I manage
to digest it.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Jackie Patti said:

RRzVRR said:

Jackie Patti said:

My symptoms were that I had heartburn for about a week on-and-off.
My husband was concerned cause he is a major worrywart. Eventually
his worry infected me, I had not had heartburn since pregnancy and my
daughter was 23, so I googled to find out how to tell the difference
between a heart attack and heartburn. The answer seemed to be that
you can't tell, so to go to the ER, so we did. At the ER, they
tested my blood for the appropriate enzymes, did an EKG, pronounced
me fine and sent me home with instructions to take antacids. Boy,
did I feel foolish!

This is really shocking and a bit scarier. Do you know if the enzyme
markers are a +/- test or a level test? What I'm wondering is if the
enzyme markers are level test... and like a lot of other level test
(HA1c or T3-T4) medical pros don't recognize a problem unless you are
clearly in a danger range.

I used to know this, but I don't remember anymore. I don't even
remember which enzymes they test for.

Quoted message said:

As a woman approaching 50, the fact that I might have a heart attach
lurks in the back of my mind. My key numbers are all good (HDL 67, BP
117/75, 5.6 HA1c) and I exercise, but the fact is I still have a 50/50
chance of having a heart attach. Actually from one report I read, a
women with a good cholesterol numbers might even have a slightly
greater chance of a heart attach than 50/50. So I try and warn
friends and family not to disregard warning signs. My sister-in-law's
sign was pain in her left shoulder that radiated to the middle of her
back.

Lovely HDL... can I ask what your LDL is?

Now that I've looked again, my *latest* HDL was 70, LDL 104,
TRI 78. I was thinking about a couple of years ago.

Quoted message said:

Are you diabetic? I don't recall you saying so in the past. If you
are, then you're doing great.

If you're not, your A1c is very high and you might consider getting a bg
meter and testing yourself regularly to see if you can't get better bg
control.

With a wide path of family with TII I've been watching my BG
for a few years now -- have a meter and testing
periodically. This last Summer I did a couple of weeks of
testing. I'm just at the edge of trouble. Some AM readings
in the high 90's/low 100's, a few 2 hour post meal readings
a little high, etc. One of my big problems this year was
that I would get a wide range of numbers (up to 15 pts,
often 10 pts) between my two hands. One hand would offer an
AM number of 104 the other hand 93 -- for example. Bottom
line, I've got to really pay attention to my BG.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It worries me when I hear others brag about getting good cholesterol
numbers -- it often sounds like they put too much stake in that one
factor. Yet it shouldn't be surprising. Statin advertisements make
it sound like if you nail that one number you're in the free and clear.

Yeah and it's not that easy. Personally, I am 99% certain mine was
caused by high bg. I had pancreasitis about a year before my MI and
lost bg control - low-carbing didn't do it anymore. Sugar makes all the
proteins in your blood a heck of a lot stickier and hence causes
blockages. Frankly, I was irrationally and stupidly afraid of being on
insulin - which is likely what caused my heart attack. Unfortunately,
there is no known cure for stupidity. 😉

I hear you and can understand how crossing over to taking
insulin could be dramatic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it turns out, a heart attack is the most likely thing you'll die
of and your first attack may well kill you. IMO, everyone ought to
be taking gobs of fish oil - may well save your life.

Eating pasture-raised meat and dairy are also good heart attack
preventatives which is how I got on the topic here; the expense is
VERY minimal compared to the cost of having a heart attack.

Hope your recovery goes quickly. Keep us posted on anything the rest
of us can learn by your experience.

Thank you.

I'm planning to keep doing so. Almost done with a web page about dosing
insulin for low-carbing T2s. Next will be a heart-healthy diet page.
Probably pages on inflammation and endocrinology will follow. I'm
learning and trying to pass what I'm learning on as quickly as I manage
to digest it.

Good news. In the end I believe most will come around to
understanding that its inflammation (its causes and what can
reduce it) that we need to address in order to prevent CVD.
Statins may work, but they work because they reduce
inflammation -- as does the much cheaper drug aspirin.
Unfortunately now the very diet that some people follow to
avoid heart disease could cause the high BG that can lead to
damage.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR said:

Quoted message said:

Lovely HDL... can I ask what your LDL is?

Now that I've looked again, my *latest* HDL was 70, LDL 104, TRI 78. I
was thinking about a couple of years ago.

Pretty good-looking numbers. I'd like the LDL a bit lower, but I'm not
sure why it happens that way. It seems to me LDL is the hardest number
to fix with low-carb. A lot of folks seem to have very nice HDL and
TRI, but just so-so LDL.

Quoted message said:

With a wide path of family with TII I've been watching my BG for a few
years now -- have a meter and testing periodically. This last Summer I
did a couple of weeks of testing. I'm just at the edge of trouble.
Some AM readings in the high 90's/low 100's, a few 2 hour post meal
readings a little high, etc. One of my big problems this year was that
I would get a wide range of numbers (up to 15 pts, often 10 pts) between
my two hands. One hand would offer an AM number of 104 the other hand
93 -- for example. Bottom line, I've got to really pay attention to my BG.

A wise choice. It's certainly better to control bg BEFORE you actually
get diagnosed.

It's a spectrum between "normal" and "diabetic" and the crossover point
is arbitrary really anyway. Might as well act like a dibetic if it
prevents you from crossing that line, arbitrary as it may be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah and it's not that easy. Personally, I am 99% certain mine was
caused by high bg. I had pancreasitis about a year before my MI and
lost bg control - low-carbing didn't do it anymore. Sugar makes all
the proteins in your blood a heck of a lot stickier and hence causes
blockages. Frankly, I was irrationally and stupidly afraid of being
on insulin - which is likely what caused my heart attack.
Unfortunately, there is no known cure for stupidity. 😉

I hear you and can understand how crossing over to taking insulin could
be dramatic.

No, it was just stupidity. Insulin is absolutely no big deal. The
shots hurt way less than the poking-your-finger business for bg testing.

We just have this notion that insulin is "extreme" or the last straw or
something.

I've completly changed my mind about it. Now I think every diabetic
ought to know how to dose and use it. It would sure have been helpful
for me when I sometimes cheated on my diet. Even those paragons of
virtue who never cheat sometimes have high bg due to illness or
infection. there's some serious extra bg control bought by using
insulin even on an occasional basis. And if everyone who might someday
need it knew how to use it, people wouldn't be as stupid as I was just
out of irrational fear of it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm planning to keep doing so. Almost done with a web page about
dosing insulin for low-carbing T2s. Next will be a heart-healthy diet
page. Probably pages on inflammation and endocrinology will follow.
I'm learning and trying to pass what I'm learning on as quickly as I
manage to digest it.

Good news. In the end I believe most will come around to understanding
that its inflammation (its causes and what can reduce it) that we need
to address in order to prevent CVD. Statins may work, but they work
because they reduce inflammation -- as does the much cheaper drug
aspirin. Unfortunately now the very diet that some people follow to
avoid heart disease could cause the high BG that can lead to damage.

My meds were chosen while I was in the hospital, a statin, a
beta-blocker, an ACE inhibitor and aspirin. Being rather drugged up at
the time, I just did what I was told. (It takes a LOT of drugs for me
to do what I'm told!)

First one I wanted off of was the statin. I was unsure of the
controversy surrounding statins, but found the mode-of-action scary. So
I convinced the internist to prescribe Zetia instead.

Second one I was concerned with was the beta-blocker as most of these
elevate bg. The AACE suggests Coreg as it's the only beta-blocker that
lowers bg and one of it's side effects is that it reduces insulin
resistance. So I asked the cardiologist to change that one.

I haven't yet found an objection to the ACE inhibitor which likely
relieves my doctors who have discovered that when I'm not hospitalized,
I'm extremely opinionated about what they prescribe. 😉

I'm never going to argue about the aspirin... anti-inflammatories are a
no-brainer. Inflammation seems to be the key to not only heart disease
and stroke, but a huge number of other diseases as well.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Jackie Patti said:

RRzVRR said:

I hear you and can understand how crossing over to taking insulin
could be dramatic.

Quoted message said:

No, it was just stupidity. Insulin is absolutely no big deal. The
shots hurt way less than the poking-your-finger business for bg
testing.

Really? Wow. That's hard for me to accept, because every time I've
gotten a shot it hurt a lot more than poking my finger does. Are
insulin shots less painful than most other shots for some reason?

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Aaron Baugher said:

Jackie Patti said:

RRzVRR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hear you and can understand how crossing over to taking insulin
could be dramatic.

Compared to pills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, it was just stupidity. Insulin is absolutely no big deal. The
shots hurt way less than the poking-your-finger business for bg
testing.

Really? Wow. That's hard for me to accept, because every time I've
gotten a shot it hurt a lot more than poking my finger does. Are
insulin shots less painful than most other shots for some reason?

Insulin can be injected into spots that have far fewer nerve endings.
Fingertips might be the spot on the body with the most nerve
endings so the pain is greatest there. Compare with injecting
insulin into a spot on the trunk - I recall helping my ex take her
shots that way.