• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Cholesterol Guru's Info please!

millenium said:
I do not understand why weight loss will increase cholesterol level as you have said? Usually it will be the reverse as cholesterol level in the body has a rather strong correlation to body weight.
Click to expand...
Weight loss through low carb means turning stored fat into fuel.. this in turn usually raises circulating fats in the bloodstream.
As the various lipoproteins are fat transporters then levels are likely to be elevated when in weight loss.
That's an incredibly simplified description but I think sums it up ok.
 
At my test result review when DN was going on about the increased risk of stroke or heart disease, because of my high cholesterol levels, I just preempted her by saying I'm not taking statins ( possibly a bit forcefully) and she shut up.... Then I came home, worried about it until I posted my own thread and the responses from the guys on this forum eased my mind. (Thank you folks you know who you are).

Saw my GP for a different reason the other day, he looked at my blood test, said you have done really well getting your bloods down, I mean you have done REALLY well and then said but what have you done to your cholesterol and laughed. No mention of statins from him. Actually went through everything on my blood test results to explain what they meant and what to look out for when assessing in the future. I have said this before but I really want to adopt that man.
 
Last edited:
CondorX said:
I brushed off his plea to prescribe statins and said as I was still losing weight, the cholesterol levels would come down once my weight loss had stabilised.
Click to expand...

When talking about statins you may find this Youtube Video interesting. As someone who put up with the muscle pain and brain fog for far too long, the presentation being given by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, mentions how test subjects in clinical "pre-trials" were removed from the trial, so their results were never included. Also very interesting that nobody can see the results and I think I'm right in saying that further tests are "banned".
 
DavidGrahamJones said:
When talking about statins you may find this Youtube Video interesting. As someone who put up with the muscle pain and brain fog for far too long, the presentation being given by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, mentions how test subjects in clinical "pre-trials" were removed from the trial, so their results were never included. Also very interesting that nobody can see the results and I think I'm right in saying that further tests are "banned".
Click to expand...
*Looks around for the You Tube link! :joyful::hilarious:
 
I found an article on the BMJ Open site which said - basically 'we decided to check and actually high cholesterol is no big deal and a high LDL was found in people who died at a greater age - so yes they are dead, but the LDL cholesterol didn't kill them'.
Good thing that there are some checks being done, pity it has taken so long for someone to think that they might be a good idea.
 
Not a guru by any means, but
  • as a diabetic, statins were raising my glucose levels (a known issue), which dropped when I refused to take them any longer. (I was taking them pre diagnosis and I've said elsewhere I partly blame them for causing my diabetes though I wasn't aware of this relationship at the time)
  • my understanding is that our bodies make cholesterol, and will adjust according to requirements, so dietary fats should have little effect overall
  • neither statins nor eating LCHF made very much difference to my cholesterol levels (up or down)
  • however, I've noticed when I've been eating a bit less fat, my cholesterol levels have gone up slightly from just under 5 to just over...
Since diagnosis I've always fasted prior to blood tests (like @Brunneria has suggested you do)

Robbity

PS I can get printouts of my results - no problem, but there isn't always a complete cholesterol breakdown.
 
Rachox said:
*Looks around for the You Tube link! :joyful::hilarious:
Click to expand...

Sorry, the brain fog I experienced while taking statins never really disappeared. I'm tempted to think that the side effects of taking statins is more permanent that I care for. I have been concerned about my memory and mental ability for a long time but told I'm just being stupid.

Anyway, one URL
 
Some of us with type two diabetes also have 'dyslipidemia', as well as the hyperglycemia, and hyperinsulinemia in my case, which basically means, in practical terms, that along with the shot blood glucose regulation and too much insulin being shot out to cope with the too much glucose being shot out of one's shot liver (well, you get the picture), one also has shot cholesterol levels. Everything is all shot together! As it were. (It's about the role of free fatty acids in relation to the glucose and the insulin, and the lipid system when it goes wrong basically all being 'wrong' together.)

I have had a high LDL level for a bit over 10 years, before the diabetes kicked in five years ago. High LDL can be the case regardless of plumpness/fatness/BMI, and weight loss and subsequently being normal weighted (which is my case). I have high LDL levels regardless of what kind of diet I am eating.

So of course my medical practice wanted me to go on statins, upon diagnosis of type two. I said an initial no, and put them 'on hold' until I did my own research. (Medical professionals are basically obliged to suggest/prescribe statins in this scenario. They are going against 'best practice' if they do not, and they are judged on best practices.)

I went away and booked the lit from the library, read up as much as I could on it, watched youtubes, watched docos (particularly a fan of 'Statin Nation'), discussed and read other diabetics on this and other forums on the subject. And listened a lot to my parents who both had on-statin experiences (and as I share so much DNA with them, etc etc, I take close note of how drugs and so on affect them).

I came back with a definitive 'no', and talk a lot about the fact that I particularly keep an eye on my fasting trig levels (which shows how your body is dealing with the fat you are eating), and watch my trig/HDL ratio, and I would love to be tested for calcification of my arteries, but that is probably a fantasy-wish. My trig/HDL ratio is pretty good. My blood pressure is pretty good (I bought a blood pressure meter to test at home for a fullsome profile to discuss with my GP in light of the no-statins decision.)

I wish the labs would stop suggesting I be tested for familial hyperlipidemia (hey lab-folks - it's the diabetes!).

I personally believe it is a situation where you absolutely have to balance up the info - the pros and the cons - for your personal condition and health status, absolutely taking on also what your medical professionals are suggesting and prescribing. Bearing in mind that underlying this whole topic - it's about your cardio vascular disease and event risk - and strokes and CVD generally, I believe from memory, is what kills about 50% of those with diabetes too early. (Can't remember where I read that stat.)

Anyway, I hope my experience helped a bit, with your own decision-making process.
 
If you haven't come across Ken Sikaris yet I highly recommend watching his presentations.

As far as cholesterol goes I find his explanations based on the thousands of lab results he has access to as a pathologist make a lot of sense.

To summarize, nobody quite knows the destiny of those with super high total cholesterol but provided they have low triglycerides and higher HDL, good ratios of total cholesterol to HDL, and no other obvious markers of inflammation, then the total cholesterol isn't as big a deal for them.

However, since most of us here have other things going on, this video I found helpful to assess our CVD risk.
He shows how the HbA1c can be used to assess your CVD risk and how our risk of CVD starts with a HbA1c of 37 (5.5) but because we aren't diagnosed with diabetes until later, we might not realise it would be helpful make lifestyle changes that early.


He mentions as well that although many like to have a full lipid panel done to see how much small dense LDL they have (a big risk factor), triglycerides are a pretty reliable marker to show who does actually have sdLDL so the LDL break up into small dense LDL and large fluffy LDL might not even be necessary. Just watch that triglycerides are measured after 12 - 14 hours fasting and watch for things like coffee which will raise your triglycerides and may alter the result.

Ken Sikaris' other talks on cholesterol:


 
Last edited:
I managed to get the results-
Total C 8.4
HDL. 1.91
LDL 6.0
Trig 1.07

Cholesterol Code Calc seems to reflect opinions from here, which make sense to me. Hughs Calc I think seems to think I am about to keel over

I am more concerned about my prediabetic partners Lipids at TC 5.6, trig 1.8, HDL 2.09 LDL 2.7 than I am with my own but hers was non fasting so the trigs are prob meaningless.
 
DavidGrahamJones said:
Sorry, the brain fog I experienced while taking statins never really disappeared. I'm tempted to think that the side effects of taking statins is more permanent that I care for. I have been concerned about my memory and mental ability for a long time but told I'm just being stupid.

Anyway, one URL
Click to expand...

Nice post.
Enjoyed.

Loved how the French cut through the BS.

Screenshot_2019-08-27-20-56-03-535_com.android.chrome.png

Sorry it didn't clear up for you,



But as always the transparency is what is needed, nott just being herded along like cattle.

Truthful TRUSTED advice..wins everytme.
The moment the water gets murky, then trust starts to wobble.
 
Last edited:
My feeling about any discussion about blood lipids, and those of us high risk of CVD (ie those with diabetes), is, to remind us all that the best thing you can do to offset this risk is keep fit (as fit as you can), keep your muscles as strong as possible, keep that heart pumping, the blood in your arteries and veins etc flowing freely - as much as possible. And the best way to do that is to be as active as you can. We need to remind ourselves of this, imho, whenever we discuss medication possibilities to lessen our CVD risk.

There is no pill that will provide heart health as well as physical activity can. Is my understanding.

And hey! @Cocosilk (gorgeous handle btw), my Swedish coffee-loving side calls out, 'Nooooooo' (or 'Nejjjjjjjjj), at the idea that coffee drinking raises our trigs. I can't imagine going to get my bloods done of a morning, well fasted, of course, without at least one strong cup of coffee flowing through my veins. But, like folks and their bread ('cut carbs to lose weight/improve heart health/don't get type two? - nooooooo - don't take my bread away from me!'), I say, as any common-place drug addict - nooooooo - don't take my coffee away from me! :D

 
CondorX said:
I managed to get the results-
Total C 8.4
HDL. 1.91
LDL 6.0
Trig 1.07

Cholesterol Code Calc seems to reflect opinions from here, which make sense to me. Hughs Calc I think seems to think I am about to keel over

I am more concerned about my prediabetic partners Lipids at TC 5.6, trig 1.8, HDL 2.09 LDL 2.7 than I am with my own but hers was non fasting so the trigs are prob meaningless.
Click to expand...

Trigs post eating are not entirely meaningless - but reflects how much fat you have eaten, and how much is circulating in your bloodstream when you got the test. So a trig reading of 1.07 is really good! If she had had a meal prior to the test. Basically the lower the trig reading the better, is a good way to look at that number, with less than 1.7 being what I was taught at my diabetes self-management course in Kiwiland back in the day. (I have read somewhere under 2.0, but cannot remember where...). Mind you, they also taught me total cholesterol under 4, LDL under 2.5 as optimal, and mine are WAY higher than that. (Like your partner's.)

Your partner's HDL is good, isn't it? (course taught over 1, so the higher a number here the better?) So with good trigs and good HDL, your partner's lipid panel looks much better, as her trig/HDL ratio, and her chol/HDL ratio are pretty good? (I haven't worked them out, but they look similar to mine... and I work out my own ratios there, as does the lab, as does my GP, as does the life insurance underwriters....) (There are good ratio calculators online...)

The other really important reading, vis a vis CVD risk and how the blood is pumping and flowing - is of course the all-important blood pressure readings. For you, and your partner. I bought my own BP meter to keep an eye on that. (And is a really good way to see how physical activity brings improvements to your BP.) But if you don't have 'white coat syndrome', or you didn't walk/cycled to the medical clinic without relaxing 15 minutes prior to the BP meter reading, or your med professionals don't know about the right posture you should have to get a correct reading, then your clinic/GP/hospital readings should be fine to get a good picture.
 
AloeSvea said:
My feeling about any discussion about blood lipids, and those of us high risk of CVD (ie those with diabetes), is, to remind us all that the best thing you can do to offset this risk is keep fit (as fit as you can), keep your muscles as strong as possible, keep that heart pumping, the blood in your arteries and veins etc flowing freely - as much as possible. And the best way to do that is to be as active as you can. We need to remind ourselves of this, imho, whenever we discuss medication possibilities to lessen our CVD risk.

There is no pill that will provide heart health as well as physical activity can. Is my understanding.

And hey! @Cocosilk (gorgeous handle btw), my Swedish coffee-loving side calls out, 'Nooooooo' (or 'Nejjjjjjjjj), at the idea that coffee drinking raises our trigs. I can't imagine going to get my bloods done of a morning, well fasted, of course, without at least one strong cup of coffee flowing through my veins. But, like folks and their bread ('cut carbs to lose weight/improve heart health/don't get type two? - nooooooo - don't take my bread away from me!'), I say, as any common-place drug addict - nooooooo - don't take my coffee away from me! :D
Click to expand...

Blame it on Dave Feldman.
https://cholesterolcode.com/guest-post-impact-of-coffee-on-triglycerides/

Or just abstain from coffee on the morning of your next test ;)

P.S. The flower in my handle is a semi-wilted Calendula from my garden. They grow so beautifully here all winter and look just as good even when they are starting to dry out.
Drop their dried petals in olive oil and you've got a beautiful moisturiser as well.
 
Last edited:
AloeSvea said:
Trigs post eating are not entirely meaningless - but reflects how much fat you have eaten, and how much is circulating in your bloodstream when you got the test. So a trig reading of 1.07 is really good! If she had had a meal prior to the test. Basically the lower the trig reading the better, is a good way to look at that number, with less than 1.7 being what I was taught at my diabetes self-management course in Kiwiland back in the day. (I have read somewhere under 2.0, but cannot remember where...). Mind you, they also taught me total cholesterol under 4, LDL under 2.5 as optimal, and mine are WAY higher than that. (Like your partner's.)

Your partner's HDL is good, isn't it? (course taught over 1, so the higher a number here the better?) So with good trigs and good HDL, your partner's lipid panel looks much better, as her trig/HDL ratio, and her chol/HDL ratio are pretty good? (I haven't worked them out, but they look similar to mine... and I work out my own ratios there, as does the lab, as does my GP, as does the life insurance underwriters....) (There are good ratio calculators online...)
Click to expand...

Her trigs are 1.8 but as it wasn't fasting I thought that might have taken them up a little. Mine are 1.07!!
I checked using both the Hughes and CholsterolCode calculators - Hughes had hysterics at mine and announced I was "HIGH RISK" but CC puts me in the hyper responder group which makes sense as I am still losing weight - lost about 28 lb / 13kg since end April 2019.
 
Krystyna23040 said:
There was a very interesting article in the 'i' today about MP Norman Lamb headed ' Statins Review Urgently needed to end confusion. This is the link to the fuller article on the 'I' website. Very interesting reading.
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/statins-review-nhs-government-chief-medical-advi.ser-norman-lamb/
Sorry - couldn't get this link to work properly and am now going off to work.
Click to expand...

This one should work

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/statins-review-nhs-government-chief-medical-adviser-norman-lamb/
 
bulkbiker said:
Be nice if it ever happens.. although vested interests and the positions that Prof Sir Rory Collins of Statinshire has may make it slightly complex.. Hard to accept a reversal of the position he has taken over the years.
Click to expand...
Yes - I agree - it will be really hard for Prof Collins of Statinshire to make a complete U Turn.
 
Back
Top