cholestorol and diabetes

[TheBigNewt]

However, in 2010 an analysis of 6801 women led by Dr Samia Mora (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA), which included the JUPITER study, showed that statin therapy does provide a primary prevention benefit to women. In a gender-specific analysis of JUPITER , rosuvastatin (Crestor, AstraZeneca) significantly reduced the relative risk of the primary end point—a composite of MI, stroke, revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, and death from cardiovascular causes—by 46%. The decrease was driven by a reduction in the risk of revascularization and hospitalization for unstable angina.

So they didn't find a mortality difference, but the women needed fewer stents and had fewer hospitalizations for CAD. But there's not been a primary prevention trial just using women. And there may possibly never be one because these trials are expensive and every statin except Crestor (the most potent one) is now generic, so no drug company is gonna foot the bill. But heart disease is the leading killer of women now I think. I say if your cholesterol is pretty high you outta take one unless you're over 70 years old.

 

[librarising]

However, in 2010 an analysis of 6801 women led by Dr Samia Mora (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA), which included the JUPITER study, showed that statin therapy does provide a primary prevention benefit to women.

Dr Kendrick's take on the JUPITER study :
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2017/06/06/what-causes-heart-disease-part-xxx/
Love his comment "and so what exactly ?"
Geoff

 

[librarising]

But heart disease is the leading killer of women now I think. I say if your cholesterol is pretty high you outta take one unless you're over 70 years old.

I guess you're at a disadvantage on this forum, since it feels to me that a fair number (I can't quantify, sadly) of members have acquired a healthy questioning of medical advice. They/we have done their/our own research, and are not ready to just accept a 'conclusion' when our own 'authorities' seem able to expose the 'conclusion' as misleading.
I admire your attempts to un-delude us, but for some, we're too far down the rabbit hole.
Many simply don't and won't accept the cholesterol hypothesis.
However, long live the debate !
Geoff

 

[TheBigNewt]

I guess you're at a disadvantage on this forum, since it feels to me that a fair number (I can't quantify, sadly) of members have acquired a healthy questioning of medical advice. They/we have done their/our own research, and are not ready to just accept a 'conclusion' when our own 'authorities' seem able to expose the 'conclusion' as misleading.
I admire your attempts to un-delude us, but for some, we're too far down the rabbit hole.
Many simply don't and won't accept the cholesterol hypothesis.
However, long live the debate !
Geoff

Yeah, don't accept the cholesterol hypothesis. Like people with Familial Hypercholesterolemia, homozygous, who run cholesterols of like 700 and die of coronary disease before they turn 30. They recently released injectable medication for this, that costs a gazillion dollars. But these cases are rare fortunately. But I'm hoping that Green Tea and cinnamon will do the trick lol.

 

[douglas99]

I guess you're at a disadvantage on this forum, since it feels to me that a fair number (I can't quantify, sadly) of members have acquired a healthy questioning of medical advice. They/we have done their/our own research, and are not ready to just accept a 'conclusion' when our own 'authorities' seem able to expose the 'conclusion' as misleading.
I admire your attempts to un-delude us, but for some, we're too far down the rabbit hole.
Many simply don't and won't accept the cholesterol hypothesis.
However, long live the debate !
Geoff

To be fair, he has to be wrong to a fair number of members, otherwise a fair number of members who have thrown their hats in with Kendrick and Harcombe will die an early and fairly unpleasant death.
Me, I take the view that the classic cholesterol numbers are the safest place to be for a long, healthy, productive life.
But I do admire those that are prepared to take the chance, and be the guinea pigs for the high cholesterol gurus.
Time will tell.
(Interestingly, have you ever seen Hendrick and Harcombe publish their blood test results? Do they lead from in front, or behind?)

 

[covknit]

To be fair, he has to be wrong to a fair number of members, otherwise a fair number of members who have thrown their hats in with Kendrick and Harcombe will die an early and fairly unpleasant death.
Me, I take the view that the classic cholesterol numbers are the safest place to be for a long, healthy, productive life.
But I do admire those that are prepared to take the chance, and be the guinea pigs for the high cholesterol gurus.
Time will tell.
(Interestingly, have you ever seen Hendrick and Harcombe publish their blood test results? Do they lead from in front, or behind?)

It is the parameters for the ideal cholesterol that seem to be lacking. Insofar as my limited trawl through the www has produced any date so far I have arrived at the following targets.

Total cholesterol >200mg dl <330mg/dl . I asked my diabetic nurse how I convert my readings to meet this target. She looked confused. Said she did not know but it was "American" and therefore not applicable to me. I have not got round to wondering about the differences between American and British genetics yet. And still do not know how to convert

hdl/total ratio should be >24% . It is dangerous at <10%

Small dense, fatty, oxygenated, rusty ldl <1 no SDLDL : >1.5 bad . >1.2 there is small dense LDL
and trig/hdl ratio <2% : <1 = no small dense LDL http://www.hughcalc.org/chol-si.php

Then there is the question of whether I should target plant based fats as our bodies evolved to process animal fats. That is A bit of a rewording of Paleo and Harcombe. The old Olive oil v fatty meat.

Is there a better method of determining the best diet than reviewing the diet v health outcomes of our grandparents and their family?

 

[douglas99]

It is the parameters for the ideal cholesterol that seem to be lacking. Insofar as my limited trawl through the www has produced any date so far I have arrived at the following targets.

Total cholesterol >200mg dl <330mg/dl . I asked my diabetic nurse how I convert my readings to meet this target. She looked confused. Said she did not know but it was "American" and therefore not applicable to me. I have not got round to wondering about the differences between American and British genetics yet. And still do not know how to convert

hdl/total ratio should be >24% . It is dangerous at <10%

Small dense, fatty, oxygenated, rusty ldl <1 no SDLDL : >1.5 bad . >1.2 there is small dense LDL
and trig/hdl ratio <2% : <1 = no small dense LDL http://www.hughcalc.org/chol-si.php

Then there is the question of whether I should target plant based fats as our bodies evolved to process animal fats. That is A bit of a rewording of Paleo and Harcombe. The old Olive oil v fatty meat.

Is there a better method of determining the best diet than reviewing the diet v health outcomes of our grandparents and their family?

It's a cute notion we all evolved running around bringing down wild boar, bears, and sabre tooth tigers.
Sadly, my genes came from those of our ancestors than must have evolved eating tubers, fruits, and grain, watching the entertainment as the hunter gatherers got ripped to bits.
Saturated fats push my cholesterol through the roof, and rest assured, my hunter gatherer only goes as far as getting the vacuum pack off the meat from Tesco's, and I need a sharp knife provided by the same shops to even do that when I do occasionally eat it.

 

[librarising]

To be fair, he has to be wrong to a fair number of members, otherwise a fair number of members who have thrown their hats in with Kendrick and Harcombe will die an early and fairly unpleasant death.
Me, I take the view that the classic cholesterol numbers are the safest place to be for a long, healthy, productive life.
But I do admire those that are prepared to take the chance, and be the guinea pigs for the high cholesterol gurus.
Time will tell.
(Interestingly, have you ever seen Hendrick and Harcombe publish their blood test results? Do they lead from in front, or behind?)

Time will tell. Indeed. Just like the success low-fat has been.
There's been no throwing in of hats. When you've been misled, you become mistrustful, and have more time for the whistleblowers. Simple as. My health is too important to wait for the supertanker of medical concensus to turn round. It is. Slowly.
Mistrust obviously has to be followed by self-education - thank goodness for Google !
Classic numbers ? From when ? 1930s ? 1950s ? 1970s ?
Anyone who's read Gary Taubes' The Diet Delusion (aka Good Calories, Bad Calories) knows how data was used /misused to promote an agenda (Ancel Keys, anyone ?) and establish a new medical concensus, a new 'classical'.

I didn't know it was a thing that people posted their blood results. The only instance I can think of is in the documentary Cereal Killers, where the subject Donal O'Neill's cholesterol figures were compared pre- and post- a high-fat diet. His total went up (6.5 to 7.2). His LDL went up. Alarm bells ring. His particle size is tested - all large,'friendly' particles. Alarm bells turned off.

To keep repeating the names Kendrick and Harcombe seems to imply they are lone voices. There are many around the world, including cardiologists and heart surgeons who endorse a LCHF diet, and reject the cholesterol hypothesis.
I was on this forum when lowcarbers were routinely attacked, and eventually driven from the forum. I could hardly believe the change, when I returned here, following my switch from T2 to LADA. It was promoting lowcarb. Time did tell. Time will tell again.
Geoff

 

[librarising]

Total cholesterol >200mg dl <330mg/dl . I asked my diabetic nurse how I convert my readings to meet this target. She looked confused.

To convert US cholesterol readings to UK figures divide by 38.6, so 200 becomes 5.18, 330 becomes 8.5.
Given modern medicine's obsession with lowering cholesterol, those figures seemto be a bit dated. Do you remember where you found them?
N.B. Triglycerides are converted from US to UK by dividing by 88.5
Geoff

 

[douglas99]

Time will tell. Indeed. Just like the success low-fat has been.
There's been no throwing in of hats. When you've been misled, you become mistrustful, and have more time for the whistleblowers. Simple as. My health is too important to wait for the supertanker of medical concensus to turn round. It is. Slowly.
Mistrust obviously has to be followed by self-education - thank goodness for Google !
Classic numbers ? From when ? 1930s ? 1950s ? 1970s ?
Anyone who's read Gary Taubes' The Diet Delusion (aka Good Calories, Bad Calories) knows how data was used /misused to promote an agenda (Ancel Keys, anyone ?) and establish a new medical concensus, a new 'classical'.

I didn't know it was a thing that people posted their blood results. The only instance I can think of is in the documentary Cereal Killers, where the subject Donal O'Neill's cholesterol figures were compared pre- and post- a high-fat diet. His total went up (6.5 to 7.2). His LDL went up. Alarm bells ring. His particle size is tested - all large,'friendly' particles. Alarm bells turned off.

To keep repeating the names Kendrick and Harcombe seems to imply they are lone voices. There are many around the world, including cardiologists and heart surgeons who endorse a LCHF diet, and reject the cholesterol hypothesis.
I was on this forum when lowcarbers were routinely attacked, and eventually driven from the forum. I could hardly believe the change, when I returned here, following my switch from T2 to LADA. It was promoting lowcarb. Time did tell. Time will tell again.
Geoff

Well, if you're right, and the figures are from the thirties, I guess everyone is dead or dieing from low cholesterol.
If not, we'll have some figures for high cholesterol within a couple of decades either way.

I wouldn't entirely throw my hat in to the 'thank goodness for google' philosophy either.
I'm not entirely sure everything I read may be 100% accurate.

 

[librarising]

It is the parameters for the ideal cholesterol that seem to be lacking.

Decades ago saturated fat was demonised.
Following that cholesterol was demonised. To reinforce this, LDL cholesterol was dubbed 'bad' cholesterol. Eggs were demonised for being too cholesterol rich. People learned to fear potential health risks : chicken skin, fatty meat, red meat, anything that wasn't low-fat.

My research leads me to believe that OF ITSELF
-total cholesterol isn't bad.
-high LDL isn't bad

LDL is only bad when it's composed of small particles. Your best guide (in the absence of direct testing) to the particle size of your LDL is your triglycerides. Guidelines say it should be under 1.7 mmol/L. Your trigs/HDL ratio can be used to assess whether you have more Smallparticles or large. Above a ratio of 1.33 you'll have increasingly more smallparticles. Under 1.33 you'll have increasingly fewer. My ratio is 1.
https://profgrant.com/2016/12/01/the-importance-of-the-fasting-tghdl-ratio/

N.B. triglycerides must be tested when fasting
Geoff

 

[librarising]

I wouldn't entirely throw my hat in to the 'thank goodness for google' philosophy either.
I'm not entirely sure everything I read may be 100% accurate.

I'm entirely sure that not 100% of what I read will be accurate, which is why I study, investigate, compare, repeat etc.
I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to keep information away from me.
I'm suspicious of studies that hide raw data.
I'm quite capable of assessing opposing viewpoints and reaching a reasonable decision.
Should some people keep away from Google ? Of course !

Having had an interest in health matters for some decades, research is far easier now. Long gone are the days of ordering a book through the local library.
Geoff

 

[covknit]

It's a cute notion we all evolved running around bringing down wild boar, bears, and sabre tooth tigers.
Sadly, my genes came from those of our ancestors than must have evolved eating tubers, fruits, and grain, watching the entertainment as the hunter gatherers got ripped to bits.
Saturated fats push my cholesterol through the roof, and rest assured, my hunter gatherer only goes as far as getting the vacuum pack off the meat from Tesco's, and I need a sharp knife provided by the same shops to even do that when I do occasionally eat it.

Yep. The best diet indicator I have found so far is the outcome of direct line ancestors. For me it is awkward fish stocks have been decimated so badly. Will have to be lamb and seaweed. Hmmm perhaps I will carry on researching.

 

[covknit]

To convert US cholesterol readings to UK figures divide by 38.6, so 200 becomes 5.18, 330 becomes 8.5.
Given modern medicine's obsession with lowering cholesterol, those figures seemto be a bit dated. Do you remember where you found them?
N.B. Triglycerides are converted from US to UK by dividing by 88.5
Geoff

Yay. That makes my chol good. Thank you. I remember trawling through and verifying my notes to compile my personal data sheet for essential readings together with min/max levels the first week of May. That does not preclude the source being of ancient origin but because I was preparing the data sheet for myself, family and production to our various health professionals I was diligent in ensuring the information was more than a bit of industry implant or troll bite. I started with a series of links provided by andbreathe. If I recall on a thread I started because I thought I had a hypo waiting for my blood test. Actually my blood glucose was 5 so I was not really. Other data originated from various futurelearn courses. I need to go out in 15 or I would get my notes out to see if I have recorded the source but giving up making that sort of data record is one of the joys of giving up work.

 

[Freema]

I understand - this is from conversations with someone in another country who primarily accesses his countries medical info rather than anything written in English that the health benefits of cinnamon are ascribed to a certain type which is quite expensive and definitely not the sort we buy in the spice jars for day to day cooking. We came to the conclusion that it was another of those "superfoods" so beloved of the product placement experts of the PR industry. I am not saying it will not work just saying make sure you get the right type of cinnamon if you give it a try.

I put my faith in turmeric and olives (not together) but who knows what to believe? I remember how the food placement marketing trolls behaved if anyone suggested we should use butter instead of margarine and am overly cynical of any claims made.

I have taken 2 statins and had muscle pain the next day although it was on the right side which has a sort of random paralysis -undiagnosed. My mother always did what her very nice doctor told her and took her statins. She has alzeimers. I am going to take my mother in laws attitude as my life model - she was very forthright about "twaddle and weedle". She lived to 100 and only needed "intensive" help with meals and hygiene for her last 9 months. We are all different caveat does apply of course.

Actually it is the cheapest cinnamon that is the best the expensive one hasen't got the chemical that lower blood glucose

 

[covknit]

Actually it is the cheapest cinnamon that is the best the expensive one hasen't got the chemical that lower blood glucose

I thought it was the Ceylon cinnamon but as I recall there seemed to be several types

 

[Freema]

I thought it was the Ceylon cinnamon but as I recall there seemed to be several types

well i may be wrong in this it seems to be the Ceylon cinnamon that lowers blood glucose...
http://www.naturalnews.com/043477_Ceylon_cinnamon_blood_sugar_levels_diabetes_treatment.html
https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2016/08/01/which-cinnamon-is-better-for-blood-sugar/

well these sites does not really agree the last says it is probably the cassia sinnamon which is the cheap one in supermarkets...

 

[TheBigNewt]

And Garlic, let's not forget about garlic people.

 

[Indy51]

I didn't know it was a thing that people posted their blood results.

Actually, it does seem to be a thing - in some circles at any rate

This dude is carrying out some very interesting n=1 experiments and other people are adding their own results: http://cholesterolcode.com/

If you haven't already seen it, you might find this review of the statin evidence interesting, Geoff:
http://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/11/26

 

[librarising]

If you haven't already seen it, you might find this review of the statin evidence interesting, Geoff:
http://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/11/26

Thanks for that @Indy51. Some reading there !
Just up, and needing a breakdown of the UK election results,so read the conclusion of the review. Very interesting.
Geoff