Glucose Levels

[Totto]

I say it depends on the breakdown. I was wrong to say 3.9 was too low as it is breakdown that matters.

Cholesterol is vital, we can´t function without it. I am not impressed by the research claiming low cholesterol is good for diabetics. I do however believe low triglyceride is good, as is high HDL. Regardless of the total.

 

[Alanp35]

Trigs were 1.7 I believe just not sure about HDL and LDL levels.




Late onset T1, several auto immune issues.
Humalogmix25 twice a day, Methotrexate 25mg once per week, FolicAcid 5mg once per week, prednisolone 5mg daily, Allopurinol 300mg, Calcichew-D3 800iu, Levothyroxine 50mcg, Atenolol 50mg, Losarten 100mg, Aspirin 75mg, Nicorandil 20mg, Nitrolingual GTN spray, Metformin 2000mg, Allimemazine 10mg, Lanzoprazole 30mg, Atorvastatin 20mg, Co Codamol 8/500mg, Depo Medrone (Methylprednisolone) or double Prednisolone for 7 days in case of RA flare.

 

[Spiker]

I say it depends on the breakdown. I was wrong to say 3.9 was too low as it is breakdown that matters.

Cholesterol is vital, we can´t function without it. I am not impressed by the research claiming low cholesterol is good for diabetics. I do however believe low triglyceride is good, as is high HDL. Regardless of the total.

Definitely. Total cholesterol by itself is almost meaningless, at best it's a clue to do some more detailed investigation. LDL/HDL ratio is a much better predictor of harm or health, as is a VLDL count. On another thread it was said that the trig to cholesterol ratio is a very powerful predictor, more so than trig count alone. The trick is persuading hospitals and GPs to do these more detailed lipid tests.

Also trigs can be transiently higher during ketosis and are not necessarily a bad thing on a ketogenic diet. On a carb diet they are more clearly a bad sign.

 

[Spiker]

Trigs were 1.7 I believe just not sure about HDL and LDL levels.

Under 1.7 is the NHS target for trigs. As far as I know there is no different target for diabetics for trigs.

 

[donnellysdogs]

There is new data around nowadays that is slowly dripping out that under 4.0 total cholesterol for diabetics is not a good recommendation. It was on a posting here only last week.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Spiker]

There is new data around nowadays that is slowly dripping out that under 4.0 total cholesterol for diabetics is not a good recommendation. It was on a posting here only last week.

There is a general finding that people with lower cholesterol, die earlier - all causes - and people with higher cholesterol, live longer.

It would be interesting to see the reports relating to diabetics.

 

[jack412]

There is a general finding that people with lower cholesterol, die earlier - all causes - and people with higher cholesterol, live longer.

It would be interesting to see the reports relating to diabetics.

Its for a old age group and I would want to look into that more, observation vs causation, chronic illnesses may be a factor in lower chol and earlier death within that age group, than someone in better health and appetite within the same old age group.
Up to age 60? lower chol have less deaths, the graphs I have seen on net are infact U shaped, too low and too high has higher risk

 

[Spiker]

Its for a old age group and I would want to look into that more, observation vs causation, chronic illnesses may be a factor in lower chol and earlier death within that age group, than someone in better health and appetite within the same old age group.
Up to age 60? lower chol have less deaths, the graphs I have seen on net are infact U shaped, too low and too high has higher risk

That's fair. However the causation question applies in spades to the cholesterol - CVD link and is the core of the statin controversy. If high cholesterol is just an indicator of cardiovascular disease, and not the actual cause, then suppressing cholesterol with statins would just be like turning off a warning light.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Totto]

Hadn't we agreed total cholesterol is utterly uninteresting? I seem to remember a couple of studies saying that high HDL is beneficial for all age groups.

And Spiker, is VLDL the same as trigs? If not, what is it?

 

[Spiker]

Hadn't we agreed total cholesterol is utterly uninteresting? I seem to remember a couple of studies saying that high HDL is beneficial for all age groups.

And Spiker, is VLDL the same as trigs? If not, what is it?

Well total cholesterol is irrelevant to cardiovascular disease, but it has some interesting links to longevity and to death from all causes.

VLDL is not the same as free triglycerides. VLDL is Very Low Density Lipoprotein. It is one of the components of (total) cholesterol. VLDL is a molecule produced in the liver to transport fat out of the liver, through the bloodstream, to other parts of the body, particularly the fat that is synthesised in the liver as a way of clearing up excess carbs. VLDL is a "big" (in microscopic terms) bubble that gets filled with fat.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[jack412]

I don't know about CVD other than lots of small ldl is bad

 

[Thommothebear]

Thommo, may I ask if this was due entirely to your diet, or to your exercise?

Hard to say, but the diet certainly didn't hurt me. Mind you, at the time the test was done I was so unfit I was not able to exercise as hard as I was able a couple of months later.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Bluetit1802]

Hard to say, but the diet certainly didn't hurt me. Mind you, at the time the test was done I was so unfit I was not able to exercise as hard as I was able a couple of months later.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

It was probably a combination of both. Whatever it was sure worked for you.