Turns out it was almost exactly 3 years, since my last doctor visit and lab work were done.
Time sure does fly by...
848 Days (2.32 Years) since I started on Keto.
757 Days (2.07 Years) Since I had any alcohol. That stat actually surprised me, I thought it was still just 1 year. Guess I didn't miss it that much
Prior recorded office weight 257 pounds
Current office weight was 177 pounds, for a total of 80 pounds lost.
Since I started Keto after gaining some more weight, I didn't complain too much about their recorded total loss results
Doctor said I looked great, and asked what I did with the other me. I said I left him on the side of the road somewhere
I didn't really get any flack about being on a Ketogenic diet, they actually have a box now to check for Ketogenic Diet,
I guess they got tired of typing it in
While talking to the nurse, I only got one semi outdated comment regarding being on a Ketogenic Diet.
"oh, you can't eat seeds if you have diverticulitis"
Umm, ok. Thanks for sharing something that has absolutely nothing to do with me
Blood Pressure and Fasting blood sugar were "normal", as I expected.
I was half expecting some comment on how I took myself off of all prescribe medications, especially my high blood pressure meds, with out consulting them. Unless he missed that fact, it was not even mentioned.
This was a interesting visit from my end. With the mass amount of knowledge I have gained over the last 3 years regarding health, nutrition, and the Ketogenic Diet, I am no longer the "Yes doctor, what ever you say doctor" person. Definitely have become more of a take charge of my own health person, rather then relying on the medical community to decide what is best for me.
Labs came back pretty much perfect. I haven't spoke with my doctor yet about my labs. Not sure if I will unless they call me in, since my next appointment was scheduled for a year from now
Only 2 things on my labs came back that I'll be interested to see his take on.
My WBC (white blood cell) count came in low at 3.30 Previously 6.0
This could explain or be a result of the reoccurring cold/ear infection I was having over the last couple of months. Just couldn't seem to shake it. It would last only about a day, then return about every 2-3 weeks. I think it's finally gone. It's extremely rare that I get sick at all, and when I do pick up a cold or something, it never last longer then 24-48 hrs. And normal only once a year. This time it was rather unusual having the ear infection.
Will continue to monitor.
The other thing that showed up could get interesting, and I actually would not mind having a discussion with my doctor over this, depending on how he interprets the results
Ahh, the mighty (or not so mighty) Cholesterol numbers. Big pharmacology makers have something just for you. Would you like your statin drug to go?
I debated on how much I wanted to rant on this subject area. Decided not to go too far
The basic cholesterol (lipid profile) test that we normally get (and covered by most insurance), is pretty much useless to determine atherogenic risk, without digging deeper. Yet way too many times these base numbers are read as gospel, making the multi-billion dollar statin industry very happy.
There I kept that part pretty short
I will make a book recommendation for anyone wanting to understand their Cholesterol numbers better, and why I personally would never take a statin drug.
Also available on Audio.
Now with that out of the way. How were my numbers?
My prior Total Cholesterol was "high" at 246 based on a 125-200 scale. This being the most meaningless number of all, sadly, is the number many prescribe from. Based on this number, I should have been placed on a statin as "the first line of defense". And yes, the doctor wanted to, but I declined.
On this visit, since I really didn't care what my cholesterol was, but knew it was going to be checked anyways, lets get some actual information I can use.
I asked to have a LDL Particle size test done.
Silence...
Deer in the head light look from my doctor...
Obviously, I floored him with this request.
After I explained what the test was, and why I wanted it done. I eventual got a "insurance will probably not pay for it answer". Which is really sad (and true that most insurances will not cover it), since this is the single most important test we could do, if we were truly concerned about cholesterol. Not wanting to shell out extra cash right now, I had to pass. But wish I would have just had it done. If I got some screwed up results again, I wanted more ammunition for the next statin battle.
"To believe that statin medication is the answer to everything, despite reports that these drugs haven't done much in terms of saving people's lives, is misguided. There's a lot of evidence that supports the fact that you don't need to be on a statin medication".---Dr. Fred Pescatore, MD
The results were back:
How did my dietary changes affect my results?
Total Cholesterol went from 246 to a even higher 267
Give him a statin STAT!
Hold on, not so fast. Let's see what else changed.
HDL- Which pretty much has the agreement of being the "Good Cholesterol", went from 49 to 63 on a 29-71 scale. So that's pretty "Good".
LDL- Which has been given the view for years as being the "Bad Cholesterol" is not in agreement. Basically because there are two types of LDL. Type A consist of large fluffy, generally harmless kind of particles that are "Good". Yes there is such a thing as "Good HDL". Type B consist of small dense, potentially dangerous particles that is described as "Bad". "Pattern B LDL can easily penetrate the arterial wall, compromising your heart health".
LDL is considered "High" if it's over 100.
My prior LDL was high at 141.2
My current LDL also came in shockingly higher at 193
Honesty, I was not expecting that. But here lies the problem with the current way of testing, and why the disagreement. How are you suppose to know if the LDL consist of mostly "Good" or "Bad" Cholesterol unless you test to find out? Flip a coin? This was exactly why I wanted the LDL Particle size test done.
Triglycerides- There is one thing that is not debated. Triglycerides are "Bad".
The range for Triglycerides is 0-150, my pervious result was 279
That's pretty "Bad". The most common cause of high Triglycerides is eating too many carbohydrates.
Being Low carb for over 2 years, I sure was hoping for improvement here as the last piece of the puzzle gets entered.
My previous 279 has turned into 53
That's huge. It also may give insight into the LDL particle size mystery. Short of actual LDL particle size testing, normally when you have high "Good" HDL and Low "Bad" Triglycerides, the result is a higher production of the "Good" large fluffy LDL. Ideally you want a 1:1 ratio of Triglycerides to HDL for this to occur.
My previous ratio was 5.5938
My current ratio is at 0.8412, so I pretty confident I'm full of fluff, among other things
I do plan on eventually getting the LDL Particle test done to confirm this, but since I already know a Ketogenic diet promotes the production of good fluffy LDL, and my ratios also support this, I won't be running out tomorrow to be tested. Strictly, for research purposes
"There's only one thing that causes small LDL particles and that's carbohydrates, not dietary fat".
---Cardiologist, Dr. William Davis