Goodbye

[JohnEGreen]

@Indy51 Spot on, thanks.

 

[Vidgren]

Our kids will be better at using the internet than we are.

A forum is filled with knowledge and stupidity. If you trust everything you read on a forum or a website it is going to get you sick/killed.

This forum has helped me alot but i never stop question the info and advice im given.

Its sad that someone feel they have to leave but its more sad that people trust blindely on information given by an unknown person behind a computer.

But as i said:

This forum has helped me alot and i am grateful for all the help!

 

[Julia99]

I have been eating a lot of both. I always ate a lot of cheese, so that is not a change. I hardly used to eat nuts at all. Then when I went on the low-carb diet, nuts (specifically macadamia and pecans) became my go-to snack to ward off hunger. They are a great appetite-cutter and have fat and protein.

Now however I have cut out the nuts altogether, after suffering two kidney stones in six months (my first ever). Take my word for it, you don't ever to have a kidney stone. Unfortunately my research seems to indicate that nuts are among the causative factors for kidney stones. Trouble is, the stones can take months to form, so I won't know whether this dietary adjustment is "working" until many months from now.

Almonds are the worst. 2 years ago I had a 1.5cm stone removed by laser. I never want to go through that again. It took the surgeon over 2 hours to remove all the fragments after he blasted it with the laser and I had kidney pain and bladder problems for over a year!

 

[hankjam]

I have been eating a lot of both. I always ate a lot of cheese, so that is not a change. I hardly used to eat nuts at all. Then when I went on the low-carb diet, nuts (specifically macadamia and pecans) became my go-to snack to ward off hunger. They are a great appetite-cutter and have fat and protein.

Now however I have cut out the nuts altogether, after suffering two kidney stones in six months (my first ever). Take my word for it, you don't ever to have a kidney stone. Unfortunately my research seems to indicate that nuts are among the causative factors for kidney stones. Trouble is, the stones can take months to form, so I won't know whether this dietary adjustment is "working" until many months from now.

This was news to me.... so might have to pull back a bit as I've been going through walnuts and almonds.....

 

[Pinkorchid]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and is welcome to express that opinion, so long as they stay within the forum rules and remain civil.

An opinion is one thing but trying to frighten people into not taking a certain medication is dangerous and that is medical advice that should not be allowed.

 

[Grateful]

This was news to me.... so might have to pull back a bit as I've been going through walnuts and almonds.....

I just want to clarify that nuts appear on some lists of foods known to favor the development of kidney stones. I mentioned this to the specialist who is treating my kidney-stone condition and he pretty much shrugged his shoulders. Mind you, when I asked him for dietary advice to lower my risk of developing stones, he had nothing much to say, except "drink a lot of water." (As it said in his written notes, "I encouraged fluid gluttony.")

Most kidney stones are made of something called "calcium oxalate." Apparently, they form when the nutrients in your diet get out of wack -- so it is not a simple question of eating too much of this, or too much of that, but getting the balance between them wrong.

One thing that is supposed to help is making sure one gets enough citric acid. So I have been drinking the juice of half a lemon in my mineral water with lunch daily. Unfortunately I did get a second stone, hence my latest ploy of eliminating nuts altogether to see what happens.

Edited to add something that might be pertinent for some: An extra issue is that if you are diabetic, you may develop a special type of kidney stone called a "uric acid" stone. The specialist said that was one reason to watch my condition a bit more closely, and in particular, for them to analyze the stone in the lab. Yep, I "harvest" the stones from the toilet bowl. (Sorry, TMI.) By the way, my first kidney stone was a boring old calcium oxalate one. The second one, which is sitting in a Ziploc® bag here as we speak, is to be analysed next month.

 

[bulkbiker]

An opinion is one thing but trying to frighten people into not taking a certain medication is dangerous and that is medical advice that should not be allowed.

No-one is trying to frighten anyone.. however I think its a good idea to inform people of the possible side effects of medication so they can make an informed decision about whether they want to take them or not. This is especially true in the case of statins that seem to be given out almost like sweets by most GP's when the benefits to most are dubious to say the least.

 

[Mep]

No-one is trying to frighten anyone.. however I think its a good idea to inform people of the possible side effects of medication so they can make an informed decision about whether they want to take them or not. This is especially true in the case of statins that seem to be given out almost like sweets by most GP's when the benefits to most are dubious to say the least.

Yes, true. Although for people like me taking statin med has been of benefit.... so it's not all bad. People are free to make their own choices.

 

[bulkbiker]

Yes, true. Although for people like me taking statin med has been of benefit.... so it's not all bad. People are free to make their own choices.

Agree completely.. if you have benefitted then great.. but if people are not informed about the possibility of side effects (and lets be honest here most doctors don't do that) then how can they make an informed decision. I'm interested too in what benefits you have had from taking them?

 

[JohnEGreen]

@Mep You may find this an interesting read, or not.

"
A basic tenet of modern cardiology is that elevated cholesterol increases the risk of myocardial infarction (MI). Significantly lowering cholesterol should, therefore, reduce MI risk. Statins reduce cholesterol and, in some contexts, adverse heart outcomes, but meta-analyses of primary prevention clinical statin trials have found no statistically significant cardioprotective effect for women.[1,2,3,4] These meta-analyses reasonably reflect the individual primary prevention trials. Of these studies, none showed statistically significant cardioprotection for women and some yielded hazard ratios exceeding one.[5,6,7,8,9] The meta-analyses are consistent with the absence of effect for women in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT), atorvastatin's (Lipitor®) primary prevention clinical trial, and are also consistent with the unpublished Carotid Atorvastatin Study in Hyperlipidemic Postmenopausal Women (CASHMERE) atorvastatin clinical trial,[27] which demonstrated no improvement in carotid intima-media thickening (IMT) in a study limited to postmenopausal women. The cholesterol-heart attack link and the achievement of lowered cholesterol without protective effect is an important scientific puzzle.
Several responses exist in regards to the absence of evidence of primary prevention benefit for women despite lowered cholesterol. First, the negative CASHMERE results have been dismissed by some owing to the IMT end point used.[28] Second, primary prevention benefits for women have been claimed based on extrapolation from men, as stated by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).[10] Third, the absence of primary prevention benefits for women might be ignored in light of evidence of women benefiting in some secondary prevention clinical trials. These responses are not fully satisfactory solutions to the puzzle."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/587563

 

[Brunneria]

An opinion is one thing but trying to frighten people into not taking a certain medication is dangerous and that is medical advice that should not be allowed.

For the third time: if you see a post that you think gives medical advice, then report it at the time.

Do not wait for days or weeks and then make vague unsubstantiated comments that imply vast numbers of posters are breaking the forum rules and running amok - because that simply is not the case.

 

[Crystalwand]

I have been taking stains, for around 15 years now dose 20, I found that they made my legs ache, etc told the doctor this all he said was, but you still need to take them so now, I bracket them in half, have never once ask why I don't reorder them on a regular basis, all blood fine, funny that, also LC, losing the weight so I thank you people for that, BG down too, what I am saying, I still a brain and use it, like reading etc testing BG to see what's going on

 

[kokhongw]

 

[JohnEGreen]

This thread is beginning to make me think of the film, The Long Goodbye.

 

[Mep]

Agree completely.. if you have benefitted then great.. but if people are not informed about the possibility of side effects (and lets be honest here most doctors don't do that) then how can they make an informed decision. I'm interested too in what benefits you have had from taking them?

The benefit for me is I can now control my cholesterol with the restricted diet I'm on. I had to eliminate a lot of healthy foods from my diet because of my bladder condition. My GI conditions also are problematic as vegetables cause me a lot of pain and so does red meat. I can't eat processed meats like bacon either. As a result the 'safe' foods are mostly carbs and fats but they both aren't good for me either as raises sugar and raises cholesterol. If I'm being honest, pretty much all food is not good for me.... but I have to eat. I also have problems with choking on food due to my throat not moving properly. With this restricted diet my cholesterol sky rocketed again simply because I wasn't eating what I used to eat. My doc put me on a low dose statin and it's worked taking my level down from 6.8 to 4.4. High cholesterol and heart disease is prevalent in my family so I can't take the risk of not trying to control my cholesterol. I wish I could eat whatever I wanted to as then yes I could control my cholesterol... but I can't. I eat the wrong thing and I'm in even more pain which puts my sugar level up as well.

 

[Mep]

@Mep You may find this an interesting read, or not.

"
A basic tenet of modern cardiology is that elevated cholesterol increases the risk of myocardial infarction (MI). Significantly lowering cholesterol should, therefore, reduce MI risk. Statins reduce cholesterol and, in some contexts, adverse heart outcomes, but meta-analyses of primary prevention clinical statin trials have found no statistically significant cardioprotective effect for women.[1,2,3,4] These meta-analyses reasonably reflect the individual primary prevention trials. Of these studies, none showed statistically significant cardioprotection for women and some yielded hazard ratios exceeding one.[5,6,7,8,9] The meta-analyses are consistent with the absence of effect for women in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT), atorvastatin's (Lipitor®) primary prevention clinical trial, and are also consistent with the unpublished Carotid Atorvastatin Study in Hyperlipidemic Postmenopausal Women (CASHMERE) atorvastatin clinical trial,[27] which demonstrated no improvement in carotid intima-media thickening (IMT) in a study limited to postmenopausal women. The cholesterol-heart attack link and the achievement of lowered cholesterol without protective effect is an important scientific puzzle.
Several responses exist in regards to the absence of evidence of primary prevention benefit for women despite lowered cholesterol. First, the negative CASHMERE results have been dismissed by some owing to the IMT end point used.[28] Second, primary prevention benefits for women have been claimed based on extrapolation from men, as stated by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).[10] Third, the absence of primary prevention benefits for women might be ignored in light of evidence of women benefiting in some secondary prevention clinical trials. These responses are not fully satisfactory solutions to the puzzle."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/587563

Yes, thanks. So it seems I'm doomed then. lol. Seriously though I'd much rather get cholesterol controlled than not as I mentioned already my family has a history of heart disease with both men and women and all of them with it have high cholesterol. So for me cholesterol is clearly a problem.

 

[Crystalwand]

Great video, so more tests, to see what's going on, that will never happen, I will just carry on with what I'm doing it works for me, but thanks for the video

 

[lucylocket61]

For the third time: if you see a post that you think gives medical advice, then report it at the time.

Do not wait for days or weeks and then make vague unsubstantiated comments that imply vast numbers of posters are breaking the forum rules and running amok - because that simply is not the case.

I have been thinking about this. The problem is that the boundary between medical and non-medical advice is not clear. If someone states that a medicine is dangerous, and advises someone to stop taking it, that is clear-cut. But if someone says that they consider a medicine or diet to be dangerous, and strongly suggest, in wording just oblique enough to stop at actual medical advice, that the person stop taking it or re-consider taking it, then its less obvious what to report, but the danger to the original poster is just as clear.

Another example is if someone is talking about their diet, and posters tell them to stop all bread, potatoes, cereal etc without asking further questions about the type of diabetes, medication and any other medical conditions.

Its the potential for harm in these less clear cut cases which seems to be the problem. I think the forum rules need adding to to cover this as it seems this is not covered. I am not saying anything negative about the moderating - the Mods can and do mod the rules, but the rules, in this situation, are not as clear cut as they could be.

I suggest that should posters step back, stick to giving their own experiences, clearly saying that it is their own experience and saying their experience is maybe something the poster may wish to consider, and stop there until further clarification, information etc comes from a poster.

(ducks under duvet and waits for the flack)

 

[Boo1979]

I totally agree that the forum needs to be clearer about the position regarding giving medical adice
Another example is the situation where someone is advised to demand x from a healthcare professional, particularly where it is something like a recent post I reported where someone was advised to demand that a primary care health professional (GP) change the medication that the secondary care team had in place. I am unlikely to bother reporting another post

 

[Grateful]

Almonds are the worst. 2 years ago I had a 1.5cm stone removed by laser. I never want to go through that again. It took the surgeon over 2 hours to remove all the fragments after he blasted it with the laser and I had kidney pain and bladder problems for over a year!

I only just saw this (must have scrolled past it too fast yesterday). That sounds awful, and I know just what you mean about never wanting to go through that again! (For me, was bad enough without the laser stuff.)

Just as a matter of interest, did your doctors specifically indicate that nuts might have been a factor? My specialist doctor had nothing to say about diet, which was frustrating.

To me, never having had a kidney stone in my life, it was very suggestive:

• Switch to low-carb diet. Among other things, nut consumption goes from virtually zero to several nut-snacks per day. (Pecans, macadamias, Brazils, a small dessert-plateful each time!).
• Exactly three months later, kidney stone passes. Only change I made to diet afterwards was (a) drink a lot more water daily, and (b) after Internet research, drink the juice of half a lemon daily.
• Nearly six months after start of LC diet, another kidney stone (and about twice as large as the first one). This time, I am dropping nuts (altogether) in hopes that they were the culprit (they do appear on several lists of known stone-causing foods).

Of course it could have been a total coincidence that I became a kidney-stone factory just after making a huge change in my diet, but I have my suspicions!!!