Anyone got advice on cholesterol please?.

[carbman]

Check out the facts. For Men over 60 years of age. The lower the total cholesterol the nearer you are to death. Statins are not the answer. This applies to Women over 50 more so.

Statins the biggest con since religion. No offence intended for religious people.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

My propaganda?!? As opposed to what you are doing Sid?

And what is it that I am doing exactly? I dont tell anyone to eat more of anything and I certainly dont post random videos with no explanation = propaganda.

Piano man, I agree with all you are saying...but you are flogging the proverbial dead horse let him get on with it.

I know that some here would like everyone to be hoodwinked into believing that what a very few people say is the truth and that everything that is commonly held as truth by 99.9% of the medical profession is lies but not everyone is as paranoid as that.

So I shall get on with it thank you very much all the time people post things which I disagree with or would you prefer it if I was gagged by the mods?

Shall we just agree that it is best for diabetics to cut some of the carbs out of their diets and leave it at that or shall we all start promoting our particular diets?

 

[pianoman]

The Impact of Protein Intake on Renal Function Decline in Women with Normal Renal Function or Mild Renal Insufficiency... http://www.annals.org/content/138/6/460.full.pdf+html

Background: In individuals with moderate to severe renal insufficiency, low protein intake may slow renal function decline. However, the long-term impact of protein intake on renal function in persons with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency is unknown.

Objective: To determine whether protein intake influences the rate of renal function change in women over an 11-year period.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Nurses’ Health Study.

Participants: 1624 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study who were 42 to 68 years of age in 1989 and gave blood samples in 1989 and 2000. Ninety-eight percent of women were white, and 1% were African American.

...

Conclusions: High protein intake was not associated with renal function decline in women with normal renal function. However, high total protein intake, particularly high intake of nondairy animal protein, may accelerate renal function decline in women with mild renal insufficiency.

Implications
High protein intake is associated with declining GFR among women with mild renal insufficiency. A causal connection has not been demonstrated. Additional studies are needed to show that reducing protein intake protects the kidney. –The Editors

 

[Fallenstar]

Promote what you want Sid...if that's what makes you happy I'm all for that!

 

[pianoman]

...or shall we all start promoting our particular diets?

...I can say categorically that no one will convince me that a diet high in fat and protein is a good idea for a diabetic. ...

So you have not been not promoting your particular diet so far? On the other hand I have not even mentioned LCHF but instead posted a presentation (in context of the thread discussion) by a professor of cardiac surgery who explains that saturated fats are not the health-risk they have been made out to be; rather they are essential to good health. If you take that as an endorsement to eat "high fat" whatever that seems to mean* to you then, whose problem is that?

*I suspect you think it means sitting on the settee with a spoon and tub of lard? Whereas from my point of view the term low-this or high-that or the other refers to the percentage of energy derived from each of the macronutrients -- carbohydrate, fat and protien. So when you say "...it is possible to cut carbs and not have to increase either fat or protein" you are already increasing the percentage of energy coming from the fat and protein as you reduce the percentage from carbs... they all still have to add up to 100%

If you do the maths you can see that with fat at 9 calories per gram and carbs at 4, the simple replacement of 100g of carbs with only 43 g of fat, in around a 2,500 calorie per day diet, can be enough to shift the energy percentages from "high-carb" to "high-fat". And this can be accomplished simply, just as you describe, by not avoiding fat. You can remain isocaloric while eating 57g less food.

I find it amazing that for decades we have been -- and obviously many still are -- convinced that "low-fat" is a balanced, moderate approach and yet when anyone has the temerity to suggest "have you considered low-carb instead?" it is jumped on as a fad, as unbalanced, immoderate -- why on earth would you want to cut out an whole food group?!? Low-fat is invariably high-carb, just as low-carb is invariably high-fat... protien tends to stay constant.

 

[carbman]

Low-fat is invariably high-carb, just as low-carb is invariably high-fat... protien tends to stay constant.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

And when exactly have I mentioned a low fat diet?

All I have ever talked about is a balanced diet consisting of all food groups and encompassing all the required nutrients, vitamins and amino acids needed for good health.

You are the only ones talking about low fat as you assume that if someone does not need or want to eat more fat they must be eating less :lol:

Low-fat is invariably high-carb, just as low-carb is invariably high-fat... protien tends to stay constant.

Ain't that the truth.

Er no, I eat a diet much lower in carbs than I used to and dont feel the need to eat more fat, I just eat less of everything than I did pre diabetes as like most of the western peoples I tended to eat too much generally, in fact I probably still do.

Eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you, go to work on an egg, eggs are all contaminated with salmanilla (spelling) these are just a few of the statements said about one food product in my lifetime I could also mention salt, sugar, wine and alcohol in general along with a host of other foodstuffs that have been given a similar contradictory spin by the powers that be and the press in general, I tend not to believe any of it too much now just as I tend not to believe that I/we should eat more fat as it is good for us. Fat is essential for us but like most things that we need too much is never a good idea.

There so now you may care to put more words into my mouth :silent:

 

[daisy1]

Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

 

[noblehead]

Believe me it is possible to cut carbs and not have to increase either fat or protein I think they call it a balanced diet, everything in moderation

Absolutely agree! :clap:

 

[phoenix]

where to start?
Back to the original question about diet and cholesterol. This source has general info on fat and cholesterol
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... full-story
This one is about the portfolio diet, a group of foods which together have been shown in a clinical trial to lower blood cholesterol as effectively as a low dose statin.
http://www.heartuk.org.uk/artman/publis ... _549.shtml

Pianoman
The history recounted in the video, is selective and very much to do with the US .It ignores a whole wealth of research from elsewhere and the dietary history of US guidelines has little to do with Europe and or the UK. (and in the US I don't see much evidence of the guidelines being followed by many).
It has been interesting to read Denise Mingers interpretation of the Ancel Keys 'cherrypicking' story. (for those who haven't heard of her she is a young blogger who has been a favourite of low carb and paleo followers for a scholarly demolition of much of the China study) Ancel Keys has been demonised yet was one of the first to point to the effects of trans fats on cholesterol back in 1960 and as quoted by MInger dismissed the idea that that dietary cholesterol (nb cholesterol not fats) had anything to do arterial disease (he wouldn't have condemned egg)
Anyone who wants to read the history of the cholesterol controversy in the UK rather than the US could follow these references ( the second is very detailed but difficult to read as it is an oral history)
http://www.britathsoc.org/bas_gil_thompson_talk.html
CHOLESTEROL, ATHEROSCLEROSIS AND
CORONARY DISEASE IN THE UK, 1950–2000
Mingers blog about Ancel Keys 'cherrypicking'
(caution statistics) http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-tr ... -it-wrong/


In the UK in the last 50-60 years, not only have the types of foods eaten changed, but the relative proportions of fats and carbs.. and it's not higher carbs. In the 1940s each kJ of carbohydrate in the diet was associated with 0 6 kJ of fat and in the 1990s with 0.9 kJ of fat, an increase of 50% . Paradoxically people were eating fewer calories overall. On the other hand they were also doing far less exercise with large segments of the population doing very little at all.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7640595

Carbman

Check out the facts. For Men over 60 years of age. The lower the total cholesterol the nearer you are to death. .

Superficially true, very low cholesterol levels are associated with high mortality. They are also associated with" with low weight or BMI, or weight loss, poor physical functioning, infections, and other markers of lower health, like low serum albumin and iron. Those with the lowest levels are often those who have dropped from previously high levels "
"Average cholesterol levels fall with increasing age...Cholesterol loss appears to be greater in those with an initially high level."
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/ ... 133-2.html
You get old and sick , develop renal or heart problems and cholesterol falls . I could find you similar graphs to show the lowest levels of blood glucose associated with more mortality for much the same reasons. (in fact my 85 year old father has much lower lipid and glucose levels than I, he also has congestive heart failure )That doesn't mean that the opposite ie high levels are good

 

[pianoman]

...
The history recounted in the video, is selective and very much to do with the US .It ignores a whole wealth of research from elsewhere and the dietary history of US guidelines has little to do with Europe and or the UK. (and in the US I don't see much evidence of the guidelines being followed by many). ...

As I already stated above, I posted the presentation... "to let others know that there are established health care professionals -- even in the field of cardiology -- who do not agree with the consensus." It was not intended to be all things to all men. There is controversy, and I do not unquestioningly accept appeals to authority or "consensus" as the final word in any matter. I'd be glad to read/view an all-encompassing and unbiased review of the current state of the science if you have one.

I do read and also recommend, Denise Minger's blog -- including her recent piece on Ancel Keys. I find her approach to be open-minded, and unbiased. She examines the facts and applies critical thinking to the alternate interpretations.

 

[Superchip]

Well done Pianoman, A great presentation. Pity some people didn't have the courtesy to see it through.
I cook everything in beef dripping, the flavours take you back to the days when we didn't have this current idiocrasy of 'FAT' is bad, eat your low fat cr"p we shovel at you from the bulging supermarket shelves of carbs. If you took all the dreaded carbs out of Sainsburys you could get in a whole army battalion and a squadron of Vulcan bombers !

My history - 18 years post total transplant
I eat lots of good fatty meats ( local grown ) virtually NO carbs.Absolutely minimal use of the PROCESSED nonsense.
Total Chol 6.6 Hba1c 5.6 NO F****** statins ( the euthenasia drug)
Most people just follow the herd when it comes to dietary advice from the food police !

 

[Riesenburg]

Humm, usually cholestorol increases as a result of either:

1. Lack of exercise (which is a capital offense for ANY diabetic in my opinion)
2. Eating too many fats (fixed via diet)
or 3. Hormonal disruption

1 and 2 are pretty self explanatory. 3 is the tricky one, because cholesterol is the building block of all hormones (the body just splits the fat molecule and builds hormones from it) if you have higher cholesterol it means you are not producing the hormones right. I would look at fixing that problem out first and foremost. If you are not exercising now is the ideal time to look at the possibility of starting with something nice and easy. Also remember that the reading you have is total cholesterol what you need to get an accurate view is your HDL/LDL ratio, sometimes your total cholesterol can be a little higher but you can have a good ratio. If the ratio is good then it's not usually deemed to be ok.

I would only look at statins are an absolute last resort, GPs are way too eager to prescribe them these days without actually understanding their side effects. Remember cholesterol and hormones are intrinsically linked so things should be done with extreme caution otherwise you risk disrupting the entire chemical messaging systems of your body.

The thyroid hormones actually regular your base metabolic rate, when set right it could very well burn off these extra fats.

Hope that helps, do let us know how you get along!
Frankie

 

[xyzzy]

1. Lack of exercise (which is a capital offense for ANY diabetic in my opinion)
2. Eating too many fats (fixed via diet)
or 3. Hormonal disruption

Afraid I would have to disagree with you somewhat with 1. and a lot with 2.

Exercise for anybody is important however I don't believe it's a capital offence not to do it. That's far too dogmatic and ignores the fact that some diabetics may not be able to exercise because of pre-existing health conditions such as being wheelchair bound or having heart conditions etc. Other diabetics like myself with perfectly healthy BMI's (mine is 23) do very little formal exercise simply because we loathe it. I just walk the dogs which is far more enjoyable that madly exerting yourself to lose a few calories only to put them all back on again as heavy exertion makes you hungry. Walking is an ideal exercise for someone following a low carb diet as it encourages the body to use its fat reserves rather than drive itself on glucose.

However where I really disagree though is your statement that eating too much fat causes high cholesterol levels. Many like myself eat high saturated and unsaturated fat diets and have excellent lipid profiles. My diet is around 65% fat and I have perfectly healthy cholesterol levels in fact they have normalised since I adopted my low carb high fat diet. There is far more evidence that a diet high in processed carbohydrate will give you higher cholesterol than a high fat diet as has been known in other communities such as the body building community for quite some while. Of course a diet both high in carbohydrate and high in fat will kill you dead.

 

[librarising]

xyzzy wrote
However where I really disagree though is your statement that eating too much fat causes high cholesterol levels.

Thanks xyzzy. I nearly 'rose' to that (to me) provocative statement, especially the 'self-explanatory' bit.
I debated for a while whether to reply, but reasoned that to someone to whom it is 'self-explanatory' there was little point.
I hope to educate, not correct.
Hopefully others who visit the forum fairly regularly will be aware that other viewpoints do exist, and validly so.

So, a sort of +1, if I can slip it in under the radar :lol:

Geoff

 

[phoenix]

As librarising says, there are various viewpoints.
This article is from a mainstream sources (Havard nutrition). It discusses the various arguments about fat in the light of recent research.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... ull-story/

 

[xyzzy]

especially the 'self-explanatory' bit.

Yes it's the self explanatory bit that got me to reply. I realise some people don't pay much attention to cholesterol levels at all and they have every right to have that belief and explain why they believe that. However my personal belief is there is an upper safe level to cholesterol levels and therefore I should try and keep levels reasonably good.

Likewise those who adopt a low fat regime are perfectly entitled to do so it's when that low fat advocacy becomes dogmatic in its approach such as stating high fat necessarily causes high cholesterol that I feel a problem arises.

Regardless of the dietary regime you are on If you are, like me, of the belief that high cholesterol levels may be harmful then you should have regular lipid blood tests to ensure you are ok and if not discuss the options with your doctor.

 

[hanadr]

There's actually pretty much no evidence that slightly high cholesterol is at all harmful. High HDL is desirable and the only kind that really isn't too good is the VLDL. Total cholesterol doesn't actually provide any useful information. the whole thing is based on the assuption that LDL cholesterol "furs up" arteries. It's never been proven to do so. Read Gary Taubes latest book "why we get fat...." and don't worry. Low cholesterol is probably more dangerous to health.
Hana

 

[librarising]

hanadr wrote
There's actually pretty much no evidence that slightly high cholesterol is at all harmful ... Low cholesterol is probably more dangerous to health.

I agree 100%.
That's one of the major reasons you're never getting me on a statin.

Geoff

 

[Superchip]

Afternoon all ! Especially librarising. - Hanadr - SPOT ON !

Lets all ask our GP's if they take a statin ? I may have a job to ask mine, don't know if he's out of re-hab yet.
UP with Cholesterol DOWN with carbohydrates ! T-Shirts will be available depending on your order levels ! PM's only !

GLA Superchip.