Carb / SFA / PUFA intake: LDL & Glycation

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
Increasing my carbohydrate intake, I'm noticing higher A1C values into the upper 5%'s. I believe this is a measure of glycation (fructose is particularly prone to glycation and glucose raises blood sugar which increases glycation), and I've read that lower intakes of carbohydrates might be better associated with longevity and much lower levels of glycation (into the lower 4%'s.) Decreasing my carbohydrates and increasing saturated fat, I've noticed a jump up in LDL-C and LDL-P, which I believe are prone to oxidation and implicated in cardiovascular disease. Decreasing SFA and decreasing carbs, I get an increase in PUFA, but blood metrics look ideal.

I'm trying to decide whether it would be more worthwhile to keep PUFA < 5g, using carbohydrates for energy (leading to blood sugar fluctuations, higher a1c, lower HDL, smaller LDL particles, and higher trigs), or, whether I should increase SFA, while keeping PUFA down under 8g and keeping carbs fairly low (leading to higher LDL-C, higher LDL-P), or, whether to decrease SFA, decrease carbohydrates, and allow PUFA to enter the 12-14g zone, which seems to keep LDL-C low, LDL-P low, A1C low, triglycerides low, particles large, and HDL high.

Where do you guys keep your A1C% and LDL-P count, and how do you achieve this through macros / caloric intake?
 

LucH

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
433
jellog said:
post 108636 Where do you guys keep your A1C% and LDL-P count, and how do you achieve this through macros / caloric intake?
Not through macro but micro-nutrition: one caps at breakfast and evening meal. Except at beginning, at each meal. 3 months cure, twice a year.
I take anti-glycation formula. With L-carnosine, Benfotiamine (B1), PQQ and other anti-oxidants.
If you take enough vitamin E [glow=red]complex[/glow] and recycle it (with vit C and selenium) you won't emphasize the problem.
The problem will be much worser with oxidised PUFA's, very ractive.
To protect fats, you need vit E and xanthine.
If you take your sugar from fruits and vegetables, they are already furnished with anti-ROS.
If you take it from fruit juice and sucrose, you'll get problems ...
You must also get unaltered K2, what Dr Preston named the x-factor.
Try some oiled butter, (organic ghee) at the summer and autumn season, from grass-fed cattle.
No trans fat, of course. Use coco oil for bakery and olive oil for salad.
:wave:
LucH
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
J

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
LucH said:
post 108642
jellog said:
post 108636 Where do you guys keep your A1C% and LDL-P count, and how do you achieve this through macros / caloric intake?
Not through macro but micro-nutrition: one caps at breakfast and evening meal. Except at beginning, at each meal. 3 months cure, twice a year.
I take anti-glycation formula. With L-carnosine, Benfotiamine (B1), PQQ and other anti-oxidants.
If you take enough vitamin E [glow=red]complex[/glow] and recycle it (with vit C and selenium) you won't emphasize the problem.
The problem will be much worser with oxidised PUFA's, very ractive.
To protect fats, you need vit E and xanthine.
If you take your sugar from fruits and vegetables, they are already furnished with anti-ROS.
If you take it from fruit juice and sucrose, you'll get problems ...
You must also get unaltered K2, what Dr Preston named the x-factor.
Try some oiled butter, (organic ghee) at the summer and autumn season, from grass-fed cattle.
No trans fat, of course. Use coco oil for bakery and olive oil for salad.
:wave:
LucH
What sort of LDL-C / LDL-P / TGs / A1C% does this regimen produce for you, and how many calories do you eat? At a low caloric intake, there's an interesting phenomenon where carbs, pufa, and sfa can all be low. I have many of those supplements / foods in my cabinet, and I get all of my nutrients from simple foods (fruits, vegetables, animals, etc.) I'll have to look more into Benfotiamine -- I read it might be carcinogenic so I've never supplemented this. Coconut oil / ghee in particular seems to raise my LDL-C / LDL-P well into the 1,000+ particle count and 200's for cholesterol.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the potential toxicity within the 12-14g PUFA zone (from fruits / nuts -- my only real source of dietary vitamin E) while consuming a diet rich in antioxidants (eg. supplemental tocotrienols / tocopherols, coq10, pqq, k2, selenium, liposomal glutathione, fruits, matcha, coffee, etc.) -- this is still a lower intake than has been consumed in over 100 years, and a lower intake than many long-lived societies. The farther I move away from this zone, the more I have to increase my sugar/carbs or increase my saturated fat intake (or both), which seem to worsen biomarkers, particularly into higher caloric intakes.

p0cOYRG.jpg
yslN7im.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Derek

Guest
jellog said:
post 108636 Increasing my carbohydrate intake, I'm noticing higher A1C values into the upper 5%'s. I believe this is a measure of glycation (fructose is particularly prone to glycation and glucose raises blood sugar which increases glycation), and I've read that lower intakes of carbohydrates might be better associated with longevity and much lower levels of glycation (into the lower 4%'s.) Decreasing my carbohydrates and increasing saturated fat, I've noticed a jump up in LDL-C and LDL-P, which I believe are prone to oxidation and implicated in cardiovascular disease. Decreasing SFA and decreasing carbs, I get an increase in PUFA, but blood metrics look ideal.

I'm trying to decide whether it would be more worthwhile to keep PUFA < 5g, using carbohydrates for energy (leading to blood sugar fluctuations, higher a1c, lower HDL, smaller LDL particles, and higher trigs), or, whether I should increase SFA, while keeping PUFA down under 8g and keeping carbs fairly low (leading to higher LDL-C, higher LDL-P), or, whether to decrease SFA, decrease carbohydrates, and allow PUFA to enter the 12-14g zone, which seems to keep LDL-C low, LDL-P low, A1C low, triglycerides low, particles large, and HDL high.

Where do you guys keep your A1C% and LDL-P count, and how do you achieve this through macros / caloric intake?

Instead of focusing on increasing one thing and decreasing another, why not just consume a balance? One option you left out is eating high carb and moderate SFA, have you tried eating this way? Are you using simple sugars or starch for carbs? Simple sugars will cause the issues that you are ascribing to carbs; however starch, with enough SFA should not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
J

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
Derek said:
Instead of focusing on increasing one thing and decreasing another, why not just consume a balance? One option you left out is eating high carb and moderate SFA, have you tried eating this way? Are you using simple sugars or starch for carbs? Simple sugars will cause the issues that you are ascribing to carbs; however starch, with enough SFA should not.
A high carb diet works well for me, other than the blood sugar fluctuations / insulinogenic effects, increased glycation, and HDL-lowering effect. I could probably do well long term on this diet, although I'm not sure if it's ideal. The more I move away from sugars and the more I move toward starches, the greater the blood sugar fluctuations / insulinogenic effects / a1c-raising effects become.

What would be considered a high amount of carb and a moderate amount of SFA for a 2500kcal diet or so? 350 grams of carbs (200g sugar?) and 40 grams of saturated fat? (the american heart association recommends keeping SFA around 11 to 13 grams -- or no more than 7%, which would be around 19 grams, where the RDA for omega-6 alone for men is set at 17 grams per day for a 2,000kcal diet.)
 

Agent207

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
618
But starch rises sugar more than fruit juices... more sugar spike > more glycation. Fat with starch doesn't prevent sugar peak, it just delays it.

I would say just lower carb intake, keeping the protein and SFA the same, and avoiding the PUFAs as possible. If your HbA1ac value rises, maybe its too much carb for your needs.
 
D

Derek

Guest
jellog said:
post 108655
Derek said:
Instead of focusing on increasing one thing and decreasing another, why not just consume a balance? One option you left out is eating high carb and moderate SFA, have you tried eating this way? Are you using simple sugars or starch for carbs? Simple sugars will cause the issues that you are ascribing to carbs; however starch, with enough SFA should not.
A high carb diet works well for me, other than the blood sugar fluctuations / insulinogenic effects, increased glycation, and HDL-lowering effect. I could probably do well long term on this diet, although I'm not sure if it's ideal. The more I move away from sugars and the more I move toward starches, the greater the blood sugar fluctuations / insulinogenic effects / a1c-raising effects become.

What would be considered a high amount of carb and a moderate amount of SFA for a 2500kcal diet or so? 350 grams of carbs (200g sugar?) and 40 grams of saturated fat? (the american heart association recommends keeping SFA around 11 to 13 grams -- or no more than 7%, which would be around 19 grams, where the RDA for omega-6 alone for men is set at 17 grams per day for a 2,000kcal diet.)

So if you feel good on high carb/sugar and are concerned with blood sugar fluctiations, increased glycation; just try eating with more protein and a little SFA. That should help with this. Or eating carbs more frequently. Are you eating balanced meals. The starch issues you speak of can be resolved by adding some fructose. Like having some potatoes with orange juice for instance. I eat starch and sugar together quite frequently. I wouldn't go by what the AHA says, who cares what their view is on SFA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
J

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
Derek said:
I eat starch and sugar together quite frequently. I wouldn't go by what the AHA says, who cares what their view is on SFA.
What sort of LDL-C / LDL-P / TGs / A1C does this sort of diet produce (how many kcal) ?
I usually eat 2 meals a day, around 1250 calories each, so, I suppose these are high fat, high carb, high protein meals. I usually hit close to 100% for all of my micronutrients, including fiber, so I suppose these are relatively balanced. I could eat more frequently, but then I'm increasing the amount of blood sugar spikes, increasing the time spent with elevated blood sugar, and decreasing the amount of time my body has to clear triglycerides and LDL particles. Doing this with more protein further increases the insulinogenic effects / IGF1, while fructose increases TGs and decreases insulin sensitivity.
 
D

Derek

Guest
jellog said:
post 108667
Derek said:
I eat starch and sugar together quite frequently. I wouldn't go by what the AHA says, who cares what their view is on SFA.
What sort of LDL-C / LDL-P / TGs / A1C does this sort of diet produce (how many kcal) ?
I usually eat 2 meals a day, around 1250 calories each, so, I suppose these are high fat, high carb, high protein meals. I usually hit close to 100% for all of my micronutrients, including fiber, so I suppose these are relatively balanced. I could eat more frequently, but then I'm increasing the amount of blood sugar spikes, increasing the time spent with elevated blood sugar, and decreasing the amount of time my body has to clear triglycerides and LDL particles. Doing this with more protein further increases the insulinogenic effects / IGF1, while fructose increases TGs and decreases insulin sensitivity.

I don't know what my LDL or TG's are because I haven't had blood work done in a long time. I consume about 4000 kcal daily. Would you rather have perfect blood work and not feel well, or have not optimal blood work but feel great? Another issue I could see is that you are consuming so many calories/food in one go. That is a lot of work for your body to do at one time, possibly increasing some issues you speak of. That's true that protein increases IGF-1 and is insulinogenic, that's why I eat carbs with my protein. Dairy increases IGF1 far greater than meat or eggs. Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but I would not worry so much about blood work and ratios of this and that and just eat a balanced healthy diet that you enjoy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
jellog said:
post 108636 Increasing my carbohydrate intake, I'm noticing higher A1C values into the upper 5%'s.
How long since you made the change?
Some people who come from low carb diets seem to have messed with their carb metabolism so that their blood sugars can be a bit more unstable. Sometimes this sorts itself out with a longer period of higher carb and lower fat consumption, and meeting other nutritional needs (but no guarantees - doesn't necessarily correct easily for everyone).

Wanna mention your age, gender, activity levels?

Peat has written about glycation and PUFAs being more heavily implicated in glycation than sugars:

Ray Peat said:
The name, “glycation,” indicates the addition of sugar groups to proteins, such as occurs in diabetes and old age, but when tested in a controlled experiment, lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids produces the protein damage about 23 times faster than the simple sugars do (Fu, et al., 1996). And the oxidation of fats rather than glucose means that the proteins won't have as much protective carbon dioxide combined with their reactive nitrogen atoms, so the real difference in the organism is likely to be greater than that seen by Fu, et al.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

If you haven't read this article, I'd recommend it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agent207

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
618
The implication of PUFAS to a greater extent for glycation doesnt negate the glycation potential for sugar itself (in absence of PUFAS) please don't dismiss this fact.

We shoudn't overlook HbA1c and fructosamine values, Im wondering how many here have them tested since peating.
 
OP
J

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
Derek said:
I don't know what my LDL or TG's are because I haven't had blood work done in a long time. I consume about 4000 kcal daily. Would you rather have perfect blood work and not feel well, or have not optimal blood work but feel great? Another issue I could see is that you are consuming so many calories/food in one go. That is a lot of work for your body to do at one time, possibly increasing some issues you speak of. That's true that protein increases IGF-1 and is insulinogenic, that's why I eat carbs with my protein.
I tend to feel great on a variety of diets, where I look to blood work for guidance. Just going by feel, a high PUFA diet feels best to me (eg. lots of olive oil, vegetables, avocado, nuts / seeds, and seafood.) I'm asian, so comfort food would also include lots of soy on everything. :D

What tends to feel a bit worse (though not bad) is one that includes more sugar / starches -- I might do better on sugars than starches (usually, sugars look worse on blood metrics, I believe.) Although, I might prefer the taste of starches to sugars (eg, lots of rice and potatoes.) Then looking more at blood work, saturated fats tend to look worse. So, if I'm not going for perfect blood work, and just going for what feels great, I'm eating PUFA and lots of foods like roasted walnuts and fried salmon with edamame and butter over rice with a coca cola chased by ice cream. Perhaps there is no ideal solution.

My activity levels aren't too high -- I run maybe 10-20 kilometers a week, and I do compound lifts maybe twice a week, with a total tonnage around 1-3 tonnes per workout. I do a lot of work around the house and moving around, and I do a lot of walking. My BMI is around 20 with a thin athletic build. Otherwise, I work at a desk in an office. It's most convenient for me to just eat one meal a day (just going by what feels best / easy), but this ends up being a 2,000+ calorie meal, so I tend to eat in the early afternoon and then cook a nice dinner in the early evening. I feel like eating more calories while also eating more frequently would not improve my situation.

Is it normal for those on a Peat diet to eat thousands of calories, lots of sugar, and lots of saturated fat, lots of protein and dairy, and not look at their own blood work since this sort of diet tastes / feels great?

I've read Peat's article on Glycation, which makes me feel like I should probably eat more sugar and more saturated fat.
 
D

Derek

Guest
jellog said:
post 108707
Derek said:
I don't know what my LDL or TG's are because I haven't had blood work done in a long time. I consume about 4000 kcal daily. Would you rather have perfect blood work and not feel well, or have not optimal blood work but feel great? Another issue I could see is that you are consuming so many calories/food in one go. That is a lot of work for your body to do at one time, possibly increasing some issues you speak of. That's true that protein increases IGF-1 and is insulinogenic, that's why I eat carbs with my protein.
I tend to feel great on a variety of diets, where I look to blood work for guidance. Just going by feel, a high PUFA diet feels best to me (eg. lots of olive oil, vegetables, avocado, nuts / seeds, and seafood.) :D

What tends to feel a bit worse (though not bad) is one that includes more sugar / starches -- I might do better on sugars than starches (usually, sugars look worse on blood metrics, I believe.) Although, I might prefer the taste of starches to sugars (eg, lots of rice and potatoes.) Then looking more at blood work, saturated fats tend to look worse. So, if I'm not going for perfect blood work, and just going for what feels great, I'm eating PUFA and lots of foods like roasted walnuts and fried salmon. Perhaps there is no ideal solution.

My activity levels aren't too high -- I run maybe 10-20 kilometers a week, and I do compound lifts maybe twice a week, with a total tonnage around 1-3 tonnes per workout. I do a lot of work around the house and moving around, and I do a lot of walking. My BMI is around 20 with a thin athletic build. Otherwise, I work at a desk in an office. It's most convenient for me to just eat one meal a day (just going by what feels best / easy), but this ends up being a 2,000+ calorie meal, so I tend to eat in the early afternoon and then cook a nice dinner in the early evening. I feel like eating more calories while also eating more frequently would not improve my situation.

Is it normal for those on a Peat diet to eat thousands of calories, lots of sugar, and lots of saturated fat, and not look at their own blood work since this sort of diet tastes / feels great?

I've read Peat's article on Glycation, which makes me feel like I should probably eat more sugar and more saturated fat.

Olive oil, nuts and seeds and avocado isn't really high PUFA, it's much higher in MUFA. It's probably sacrilege around here to say this, but maybe if that diet makes you feel best you should eat it! If olive oil, vegetables, nuts/seeds and fish make you feel good and sugar/starch makes you feel worse; I don't know why you should eat the one that makes you feel bad. A past forum member named Gbolduev talked about different oxidation rates and how for some people Unsaturated fats were poison and for others they were miraculous, depending on the oxidation rate. People with a very fast metabolisms do well eating high fat, even high PUFA. For people with hypothyroidism high fat of any kind probably isn't ideal. So again I would listen to your body and use blood work as a guide, if you prefer.

Saying I've read Peat's article and now I feel I should do this or do that, is taking things to literally. Peat provides good information in all of his articles but you have to take what he says in context. His advice does not apply to everyone. I know people who are very healthy eating olive oil, nuts, fish and vegetables!

Another idea is that maybe you don't have adequate nutrients and the unsaturated fats are just covering up a nutrient deficiency. So you feel better on them because they are suppressing metabolism and helping you to conserve nutrients!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Agent207 said:
post 108681 The implication of PUFAS to a greater extent for glycation doesnt negate the glycation potential for sugar itself (in absence of PUFAS) please don't dismiss this fact.

I'm not dismissing the possibility that chronic hyperglycemia may have some harmful effects, including contributing to glycation, in addition to the problems associated with the cells not generating enough energy because oxidative metabolism is being impaired or blocked. (I don't consider the multiple damaging effects of PUFA to be in doubt.)

What I don't know is how best to address elevated blood sugars. It is not just a matter of reducing carb or sugar intake - improving sugar metabolism would be preferable, where possible. In the short-term it may be that lower carb intake reduces blood sugars. But in the long run for at least some people, [edit for clarity:]higher carbs and lower fats seem to improve the glucose metabolism and bring the blood sugars down lower than they were on higher fat lower carb consumption. There are people who have gone from initially high blood sugar readings to normal blood sugar readings over a period when they changed to a low-fat high carb diet for a while. I've also read reports of low-carb dieters getting gradually increasing FBG readings while hardly eating any sugar or starch at all.

I guess you've read Peat's description of Budd's experiments with sugar and diabetes?:

Ray Peat said:
After Budd's detailed reports of a woman's progressive recovery over a period of several weeks when he prescribed 8 ounces of sugar every day, along with a normal diet including beef and beef broth, a London physician, Thomas Williams, wrote sarcastically about Budd's metaphysical ideas, and reported his own trial of a diet that he described as similar to Budd's. But after two or three days he decided his patients were getting worse, and stopped the experiment.

Williams' publication was presented as a scientific refutation of Budd's deluded homeopathic ideas, but Budd hadn't explained his experiment as anything more than an attempt to slow the patient's death from wasting which was sure to be the result of losing so much sugar in the urine. The following year Budd described another patient, a young man who had become too weak to work and who was losing weight at an extreme rate. Budd's prescription included 8 ounces of white sugar and 4 ounces of honey every day, and again, instead of increasing the amount of glucose in the urine, the amount decreased quickly as the patient began eating almost as much sugar as was being lost initially, and then as the loss of sugar in the urine decreased, the patient gained weight and recovered his strength.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/gl ... etes.shtml

And from the same article:

Ray Peat said:
In the 1940s, Bernardo Houssay found that coconut oil protected animals from poison-induced diabetes, while a lard-based diet failed to protect them. Later, glucose itself was found to protect the pancreatic beta-cells from poisons.

And from another article
Ray Peat said:
More important than the physiological vacuity of a simple glycemic measurement was the ideology within which the whole issue developed, namely, the idea that diabetes (conceived as chronic hyperglycemia) is caused by eating too much sugar, i.e., chronic hyperglycemia the illness is caused by the recurrent hyperglycemia of sugar gluttony. The experiments of Bernardo Houssay (1947 Nobel laureate) in the 1940s, in which sugar and coconut oil protected against diabetes, followed by Randle's demonstration of the antagonism between fats and glucose assimilation, and the growing recognition that polyunsaturated fatty acids cause insulin resistance and damage the pancreas, have made it clear that the dietetic obsession with sugar in relation to diabetes has been a dangerous diversion that has retarded the understanding of degenerative metabolic diseases.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
J

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
tara said:
Agent207 said:
post 108681 The implication of PUFAS to a greater extent for glycation doesnt negate the glycation potential for sugar itself (in absence of PUFAS) please don't dismiss this fact.

I'm not dismissing the possibility that chronic hyperglycemia may have some harmful effects, including contributing to glycation, in addition to the problems associated with the cells not generating enough energy because oxidative metabolism is being impaired or blocked. (I don't consider the multiple damaging effects of PUFA to be in doubt.)

What I don't know is how best to address elevated blood sugars. It is not just a matter of reducing carb or sugar intake - improving sugar metabolism would be preferable, where possible. In the short-term it may be that lower carb intake reduces blood sugars. But in the long run for at least some people, it seems to improve the glucose metabolism and bring the blood sugars down lower that they were on higher fat lower carb consumption. There are people who have gone from initially high blood sugar readings to normal blood sugar readings over a period when they changed to a low-fat high carb diet for a while. I've also read reports of low-carb dieters getting gradually increasing FBG readings while hardly eating any sugar or starch at all.

I guess you've read Peat's description of Budd's experiments with sugar and diabetes?:

Ray Peat said:
After Budd's detailed reports of a woman's progressive recovery over a period of several weeks when he prescribed 8 ounces of sugar every day, along with a normal diet including beef and beef broth, a London physician, Thomas Williams, wrote sarcastically about Budd's metaphysical ideas, and reported his own trial of a diet that he described as similar to Budd's. But after two or three days he decided his patients were getting worse, and stopped the experiment.

Williams' publication was presented as a scientific refutation of Budd's deluded homeopathic ideas, but Budd hadn't explained his experiment as anything more than an attempt to slow the patient's death from wasting which was sure to be the result of losing so much sugar in the urine. The following year Budd described another patient, a young man who had become too weak to work and who was losing weight at an extreme rate. Budd's prescription included 8 ounces of white sugar and 4 ounces of honey every day, and again, instead of increasing the amount of glucose in the urine, the amount decreased quickly as the patient began eating almost as much sugar as was being lost initially, and then as the loss of sugar in the urine decreased, the patient gained weight and recovered his strength.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/gl ... etes.shtml

And from the same article:

Ray Peat said:
In the 1940s, Bernardo Houssay found that coconut oil protected animals from poison-induced diabetes, while a lard-based diet failed to protect them. Later, glucose itself was found to protect the pancreatic beta-cells from poisons.

And from another article
Ray Peat said:
More important than the physiological vacuity of a simple glycemic measurement was the ideology within which the whole issue developed, namely, the idea that diabetes (conceived as chronic hyperglycemia) is caused by eating too much sugar, i.e., chronic hyperglycemia the illness is caused by the recurrent hyperglycemia of sugar gluttony. The experiments of Bernardo Houssay (1947 Nobel laureate) in the 1940s, in which sugar and coconut oil protected against diabetes, followed by Randle's demonstration of the antagonism between fats and glucose assimilation, and the growing recognition that polyunsaturated fatty acids cause insulin resistance and damage the pancreas, have made it clear that the dietetic obsession with sugar in relation to diabetes has been a dangerous diversion that has retarded the understanding of degenerative metabolic diseases.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
So, a half a lb of pure sugar a day and 1/4 lb of liquid sugar a day, with lots of saturated fat (particularly, one of the fats highest in LDL-raising / total cholesterol raising potential), with lots of insulinogenic animal protein would be useful to improve blood sugar glycation, improve LDL cholesterol, and promote longevity?

I'm not overly hyperglycemic, as a normal A1C ranges up to 6%, where diabetes is closer to 6.5%. But, I'm definitely not under 5%. With a concern of glycation being toxic, it does make me think that a lower value here would likely be healthier over the decades (similar anti-aging charts can be found for low LDL particles, low triglycerides, etc.)

oddtvTt.png
sIR2W7Y.png
PYxa8GZ.png
qU8dmFD.png


Do you do a lot of sugar / honey / saturated fat in your diet with a large number of calories for thyroid health? What sort of LDL-C / LDL-P / TGs / A1C does this produce for you? (perhaps these blood tests are irrelevant if one is avoiding essential fatty acids?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom