I'm a Lean Mass Hyper-Responder (LMHR) Now - You?

Pablo said:
That's how I feel about all these artery videos...ahhahahaaahahaa.....wasting my time!!

You know how Nick is, Mr Nuance. It answers all that is the video, you need to follow, I could while driving, no need to see their mugs..........but this is definitely is not a health - or get healthy video. It's a "sausage construction" video............a video that could be even valuable for people who groove on Oil Geek vids and his crap analysis and nothing ever blind. The talkie details - on studies and responsible data analysis and reporting. A bit on calling back and being an honest scientist.

It does sound like Clearly screwed up and how humans and AI bias data reporting.

If something smells wrong, it probably is wrong.
Click to expand...
I just did a quick search and still confused if they thought plaque builds up while on the keto diet or were they promoting that plaque actually went down during the keto diet

I guess it doesn’t matter because I’m confused what was the original position?

I did do a search = KETO-CTA study

And I saw the study with the original hundred people.
I wasn’t watching the screen either. I had my phone playing the video while I was cutting the lawn and my Bose quiet comfort earbuds in my ears. Lol

Me!?!?! I’m just staying in the course!
Lawn is cut now time to install an additional low-voltage light on one of our palms (not solar) 🤔
 
jetman said:
The max heart rate formula, 220bpm - my age 68, still doesn't work well for me. I've always been able to get 15bpm more than the the formula. So instead of setting a max HR of 152 bpm based on the generic formula, I set a max of 165 bpm in my Garmin 305.
So exercise zones end up being
1 = 85-99
2 = 99-115
3 = 115-132
4 = 132-149
5 = 149-165

Most of my daily workouts/exercise these days are near our TX home in an area called "The TX Hill Country". It's not flat :)

So, this am I put on my new to me Garmin 305 w/HR monitor and did my 1 hr morning walk around the neighborhood. My HR on levelish grd was 90ish (level1). Max HR going up hills was 128 (level3). Avg was 105 (level2).

Then I went out and did my daily hilly hide. I reached a max hr of 164 twice when I did a couple intervals on a climb. I averaged a HR of 139bpm(level4) on this 1 hr ride.
Click to expand...
Today I did the same ride as yesterday at the same avg speed/elapsed time. Today my avg HR was 150, 11 bpm higher than yesterday, and max HR was 173, 9 bpm higher than yesterday.

I guess the difference was caused because: a) It was 20 degrees warmer today and b) I rode after I ate today. Yesterday I rode before I ate.

I will raise my max HR in the Garmin to 173. Of course all my zone #s will increase a bit.

Here's the garmin connect data from today: https://connect.garmin.com/app/activity/22354801370
 
Last edited:
jetman said:
IMO
the study is not "flawed". Its a great study.
Cleerly has a hidden agenda.
Click to expand...
The way I interpreted the video, it’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of a doctor highly regarded by I think you and others.?

He retracted their report that was based on that study at least the way I interpreted it. No actually he pulled their report based on the information on that study.. It’s not my interpretation.

Either way even if it wasn’t flawed which the video says it was, 100 people for one year isn’t something I would consider proof of very much.
All good, trying to understand but not so much as this isn’t for me.

I’m wondering if we are talking about the same thing? Or maybe I need to listen to it sgain. I was cutting the lawn while I listened to it.

Post in thread 'I'm a Lean Mass Hyper-Responder (LMHR) Now - You?'
“Clearly a Mistake”
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...er-responder-lmhr-now-you.404440/post-7554449
 
Last edited:
jetman said:
Its Cleerly (the name of a company = cleerlyhealth.com )
not "Clearly"
Click to expand...
Yes I made a typo in my post. Mainly because I only listened in the truck. Heard "clearly" and should be Cleerly

Anyway Nick and cohorts are believable. I have zero idea if Cleerly did anything intentional but Nick kept repeating (basically) ".....why wouldn't Cleerly check/back check/validate the data?" (And was not blinded)

As for what I believe remains the same - at the gross level using the word "cholesterol" to indicate (poor) health, or the words "high cholesterol" to indicate poor health is just whacked and wrong. This is proven science and should not be controversial here or anywhere. Now as for all the low density and small particles the jury is STILL out. LMHR with high LDLP - I think are mostly quite healthy people if all other risk factors, including genetics are low. I'm not sure even that LIPOa/b are super risk indicators, but very small non transient particles are probably are not a positive, yet can be high in people on a weight loss transitional journey when the metabolic state of said person is being reset.

The whole blockage measurement stuff I am largely ignorant and learning, so not qualified to comment much. Only have questions.

I do believe high fasting triglycerides are not good. This always seems to be solid metric to control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arc
My take, the short version is that LDL is the ingredient for plaque formation. Blood sugar is a/the cause for the arterial damage that leads to plaque formation. Thus, when you're keto/carnivore, the LDL becomes a non-issue.

I'm willing to go along with that. At some point/condition in life, it's probably irrelevant but the earlier you get on the program, the better. It's like judging my in-laws for currently unhealthy diet. Truth is it's the decades of poor diet and lack of exercise that has lead to multiple strokes, multiple joint replacements, fatty liver disease, multiple digestive and cardiac issues. At this point about the only thing they can enjoy in life is a cheap texmex meal within 50 steps of a handicap parking spot. Why deprive?
 
Last edited:
Pablo said:
...

As for what I believe remains the same - at the gross level using the word "cholesterol" to indicate (poor) health, or the words "high cholesterol" to indicate poor health is just whacked and wrong. This is proven science and should not be controversial here or anywhere. ...
Click to expand...
Metabolically maybe though I still think controversial however you guys have watched and researched way more then me.
I dont think high cholesterol is something to ignore for other afflictions. Meaning, to single out one category of "health" and call it safe ignores the other things affecting the human body.

It's not so controversial anymore that high cholesterol feeds certain or many cancers. It helps them spread and survive. We still have a lot to learn. For me and heart disease Im not willing to gamble, To me sugar is the devil but Im not going to purposely increase my cholesterol either.

For me and post cancer which scares me way more, cholesterol is far more dangerous. We can deal with the heart and arteries way more than metastasized cancers.

Anyway, Im staying the course I have been on for decades now, still alive and living ok. HOWEVER because of threads and recent higher "pre" blood sugar, just in time I have learned the evils of refined carbs, big time, this is my next great step forward and I am "there" by avoiding them and still seeking to keep going further into it.

My post not negative to the thinking just a viewpoint from me that I have been affected in other ways. I find it invigorating, a balancing act and looking forward to a lifetime of learning.
 
Last edited:
My mother in-law who now lives with us will soon be 98. She eats whatever she wants and has never exercised a day in her life. She is a little woman and has never been overweight and never had health problems. It's all about genetics when it comes to living a long life. All the women in that family live into their late 80's and even to a 100, the men also live a long time. Not so much on my side of the family. Cancer always gets us regardless of fitness. @ 61 I'm the oldest living man on my entire side of the family and sure enough I got Cll leukemia at 50 just like my late grandmother. So much for all those years of exercise and eating right.
 
Arc said:
My mother in-law who now lives with us will soon be 98. She eats whatever she wants and has never exercised a day in her life. She is a little woman and has never been overweight and never had health problems. It's all about genetics when it comes to living a long life. All the women in that family live into their late 80's and even to a 100, the men also live a long time. Not so much on my side of the family. Cancer always gets us regardless of fitness. @ 61 I'm the oldest living man on my entire side of the family and sure enough I got Cll leukemia at 50 just like my late grandmother. So much for all those years of exercise and eating right.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sometimes you cant get past genetics. Sadly, wow that is some family history.
As far as when someone like your mother in law at 98. I have a mother in law at 94 and still to this day, is 100% there, always on her iPad and FaceTiming etc. All she takes is a statin and I THINK mild BP pill.

Anyway, up until the last 40ish years, the food we ate (and they ate) in the USA was mostly wholesome less processed including the animal protein, way more so for the first 50 years of their lives. Yes, genetics pay a roll but my Mother in law from another country is in great health, more of a 3rd world country but they are considered affluent as well as all the family members, heck live better than here in the USA. Yet here in the USA who two of her daughters came to live in their very early 20s at the time, so spent 35 to 40 years here in the USA both had to be treated for breast cancer. SO figure, yes genetics but I am a firm believer that the food we eat puts us at a disadvantage for sure.
 
alarmguy said:
Metabolically maybe though I still think controversial however you guys have watched and researched way more then me.
I dont think high cholesterol is something to ignore for other afflictions. Meaning, to single out one category of "health" and call it safe ignores the other things affecting the human body.

It's not so controversial anymore that high cholesterol feeds certain or many cancers. It helps them spread and survive. We still have a lot to learn. For me and heart disease Im not willing to gamble, To me sugar is the devil but Im not going to purposely increase my cholesterol either.

For me and post cancer which scares me way more, cholesterol is far more dangerous. We can deal with the heart and arteries way more than metastasized cancers.

Anyway, Im staying the course I have been on for decades now, still alive and living ok. HOWEVER because of threads and recent higher "pre" blood sugar, just in time I have learned the evils of refined carbs, big time, this is my next great step forward and I am "there" by avoiding them and still seeking to keep going further into it.

My post not negative to the thinking just a viewpoint from me that I have been affected in other ways. I find it invigorating, a balancing act and looking forward to a lifetime of learning.
Click to expand...
I can state it in another way, because I know I often post stuff that seems clear to my ADHD/busy/old/etc brain and not very clear to the entire ROW (rest of the world).

This is a discussion, not confrontation or recommendation.

To me, just using the word cholesterol is extremely vague. Cholesterol is not automatically bad or good. It's required for many pathways to hormone production, cellular structure, vitamin D, bile, etc. And what might be metabolically high or low to one person (say with cancer, or LMHR, or someone losing 50 pounds in 6 months, etc, and perfectly normal to another. Using a static number - 200, 30, 65, 250 whatever - alone when speaking of any lipoprotein - any form or size of cholesterol is very very statistically vague and "loose advice" IMHO, yet the medical profession does exactly this. Is this not what we are discussing?

Arc said:
My mother in-law who now lives with us will soon be 98. She eats whatever she wants and has never exercised a day in her life. She is a little woman and has never been overweight and never had health problems. It's all about genetics when it comes to living a long life. All the women in that family live into their late 80's and even to a 100, the men also live a long time. Not so much on my side of the family. Cancer always gets us regardless of fitness. @ 61 I'm the oldest living man on my entire side of the family and sure enough I got Cll leukemia at 50 just like my late grandmother. So much for all those years of exercise and eating right.
Click to expand...
Genetics absolutely play a strong role!

No one on either side of my family has T2D or any form of diabetes. Both sides lived and living long lives. Smoking got my Italian grandparents, they started 15 or younger and died in 80 YO range, other side all 90's.

My blood brother has perfect health in all ways
Me: I am TD2, was chubby (near 200#, now 155), a bit hypertensive, funked metabolism, gout, etc (all much better now though)

Why?
 
I can agree, lipid numbers are static. I guess the why is that they individualize them into one neat formula for everyone. We are in the dark ages and dont have the capability to treat the person as an individual including based on your specific genetic make up..
I suspect MAYBE one day, we wont be on this earth but AI will have your metabolic requirements individualized for you and your body. I mean, really, even reading all we read, nothing is for everyone, it's all trial and error, guess work. That day will be in the past someday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Please discuss Pre-diabetes here
2 3
Replies
52
Views
7K
M56959
Back
Top Bottom