• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

New blog post (and book plug) by Dr Kendrick on LDL and heart disease

Interesting read.
Ran the QRisk3 without and with TC/HDL and my number went from 17.9% to 18.3% with the control being 11.2%, an increase of 1.6.....
Not going to lose any sleep over it.
 
@bulkbiker thank you for the link. I may well ask Santa for the book.
@hankjam I also ran the Q risk calculator and was 16.2% without my postcode and 18.5% with it, all the rest of the numbers stayed the same. Why on earth would my address increase my death risk??? IMHO it just shows how useless the Qrisk calculation system is. I am not losing sleep over it.
 
Bildad said:
@bulkbiker thank you for the link. I may well ask Santa for the book.
@hankjam I also ran the Q risk calculator and was 16.2% without my postcode and 18.5% with it, all the rest of the numbers stayed the same. Why on earth would my address increase my death risk??? IMHO it just shows how useless the Qrisk calculation system is. I am not losing sleep over it.
Click to expand...
The way they drive around where I live I can relate to the post code thingy :eek: deff a risk to life if nothing else!
 
My risk when I put 'type 1' in was 10.5% and when I put no to that question, it came down to 3%, as a 60 year old female. I know they can't make allowances for every individual but it takes no account of whether a person is a 'well controlled' diabetic, if you are then as far as I am concerned the risk must be lowered.
 
Bildad said:
@bulkbiker thank you for the link. I may well ask Santa for the book.
@hankjam I also ran the Q risk calculator and was 16.2% without my postcode and 18.5% with it, all the rest of the numbers stayed the same. Why on earth would my address increase my death risk??? IMHO it just shows how useless the Qrisk calculation system is. I am not losing sleep over it.
Click to expand...

Because they sort of stereotype. The postcode I believe represents 'poorer' areas and of course that must mean bad eating and less access to medical care et al! I do understand that those issues for some individuals may contribute to a poorer outcome anywhere but to place everybody in a higher risk category based on such criteria is misleading. Same as insurance I suppose.
 
OK, so if we assume he's right...what can we do to prevent cardiovascular disease?
He stops short of that point, any knowledge any one?
 
@Mr_Pot I understand that some areas are more deprived than others but I didn't think that where I lived was one of those areas. It seems as if I am somewhat deluded. It is a working class area of the North West of England but fairly rural.
@MrsA2 that is, a good question. I wonder if the book offers an answer.
 
MrsA2 said:
OK, so if we assume he's right...what can we do to prevent cardiovascular disease?
He stops short of that point, any knowledge any one?
Click to expand...

I haven't got or read the book yet but by the sounds of it avoiding things that might cause blood clots would be a good place to start.

I guess I'm quite lucky in that I'm a "bleeder" with quite slow clotting mechanism so hopefully more likely to die from something else.
 
Bildad said:
@Mr_Pot I understand that some areas are more deprived than others but I didn't think that where I lived was one of those areas. It seems as if I am somewhat deluded. It is a working class area of the North West of England but fairly rural.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a generalisation about a population rather than a fact about an individual. Consider someone who has lived most of their life somewhere rural and recently moved to an inner city, their health doesn't suddenly change. All of the Qrisk factors are just statistical probabilities, although I believe the test has been validated using actual deaths. One of its big weaknesses for the members of this forum is that it asks if you are diabetic without asking about control.
 
Mr_Pot said:
One of its big weaknesses for the members of this forum is that it asks if you are diabetic without asking about control.
Click to expand...

This is true but it also occurs to me that perhaps the major risk factor is the underlying pathology of metabolic syndrome and all of its associated health problems rather than blood glucose data per se.
 
Mr_Pot said:
Of course it is a generalisation about a population rather than a fact about an individual. Consider someone who has lived most of their life somewhere rural and recently moved to an inner city, their health doesn't suddenly change. All of the Qrisk factors are just statistical probabilities, although I believe the test has been validated using actual deaths. One of its big weaknesses for the members of this forum is that it asks if you are diabetic without asking about control.
Click to expand...
You would need to ask how you controlled your diabetes since studies of those with very tightly controlled glucose but achieved through use of insulin and sulphonyureas (glicazide etc) had to be halted because this group had worse CVD outcomes.
 
NicoleC1971 said:
You would need to ask how you controlled your diabetes since studies of those with very tightly controlled glucose but achieved through use of insulin and sulphonyureas (glicazide etc) had to be halted because this group had worse CVD outcomes.
Click to expand...
Agreed. In my own case, as a diet controlled type 2 with non diabetic Hba1c my doctor was happy not to tick diabetic when he ran the Qrisk calculator. Not that it makes much difference, apart from not recommending statins.
 
Jim Lahey said:
This is true but it also occurs to me that perhaps the major risk factor is the underlying pathology of metabolic syndrome and all of its associated health problems rather than blood glucose data per se.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but the calculator isn't clairvoyant
 
bulkbiker said:
T2 makes mine go from 8.4% to 14.7% everything else the same. Almost doubling the "risk".

Nonsense of course but still not insignificant.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that the Qrisk score doesn't make much difference. Most of the factors you can't alter and the rest you probably knew were risks anyway.
 
To be honest I think I’ll just settle for real natural food and hope for the best. Can’t be dealing with deciding my fate based on a computer model. May get a CAC scan some day but probably not.
 
Back
Top