Atkins Horror!

[noblehead]

Brilliant results Nigel! Especially the HDL. Did you say you were considering statins? Those results don't seem to justify that.

I do wonder how much of it is to do with diet, and how much is genetic. My scores have always been low - as a low-carbed as a high-carber.

Considering statins I was (and still am :roll: ) but this was after my consultant thought I should be on them last year when my TC was 4.1 but changed his mind this time around for some reason now my TC is 3.8....why 0.3 would make a difference but I suppose it is under the recommended level of 4.

My TC levels have been at their highest 4.3 and the lowest 3.8 as I got last week, I believe a good proportion of it is down to a good diet/lifestyle but also agree that genetics play a big part too, my brother is on statins after being discovered with a cholesterol level of 9+ from a works medical, and my late father was diagnosed with CVD in his 50's so my risk factor is greater than most......which is why I am obsesssed with keeping things into perspective.

 

[borofergie]

My TC levels have been at their highest 4.3 and the lowest 3.8 as I got last week, I believe a good proportion of it is down to a good diet/lifestyle but also agree that genetics play a big part too, my brother is on statins after being discovered with a cholesterol level of 9+ from a works medical, and my late father was diagnosed with CVD in his 50's so my risk factor is greater than most......which is why I am obsesssed with keeping things into perspective.

Wow 9! You're right to be vigilent, I would be I was in your shoes (or maybe your genes) too...

 

[xyzzy]

How does one work out that, a success has been made when 52% of the people failed to adhered to the diet regime!

Let's just compare like with like shall we. What is the point of a study if it doesn't compare against ongoing data.

It was a study of T1 people who low carbed. The achieved a 48% adherence rate
In the UK T1's are give dietary recommendations. They achieve a 33% adherence rate.

So 48 - 33 = 15

Or 15% more kept to the low carb regime.

What can be more simple than that.

But I really don't call a 1% drop of HbA1c as significant

Well apparently its twice as significant as adopting a low GI diet.

UK national diabetic guidelines read them here as Phoenix posted a while back to show low GI as a very effective mechanism. I didn't disagree.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Reports/Nutritional_guidelines200911.pdf

Recommendations
• Weight management should be the primary nutritional strategy in managing
glucose control in Type 2 diabetes for people who are overweight or obese. (A)
• Regular, moderate physical activity can reduce HbA1c by 0.45 – 0.65 per cent
independent of weight loss. (A)
• Focus should be on total energy intake rather than the source of energy in the diet
(macronutrient composition) for optimal glycaemic control. (A)
• The total amount of carbohydrate consumed is a strong predictor of glycaemic
response and monitoring total carbohydrate intake whether by use of exchanges,
portions or experience-based estimation, remains a key strategy in achieving
glycaemic control. (A)
• Low GI diets may redcue HbA1c up to 0.5 per cent . (A)

How can a treatment that's twice as effective as a low GI regime be so easily dismissed?

 

[noblehead]

Wow 9! You're right to be vigilent, I would be I was in your shoes (or maybe your genes) too...

Initially they put him on 80mg of Simvastatin and reduced this down to 40g after a while, his TC now is in the 3's but he has improved his diet and lifestyle so it's not all solely down to work of the statins.

 

[Grazer]

jopar wrote:
But I really don't call a 1% drop of HbA1c as significant

The NHS and actuaries would tell you that gives a 40% reduction in your risk of cardiovascular disease and an "episode" in the next 10? (i think) years. Hardly insignificant.

 

[borofergie]

jopar wrote:
But I really don't call a 1% drop of HbA1c as significant

The NHS and actuaries would tell you that gives a 40% reduction in your risk of cardiovascular disease and an "episode" in the next 10? (i think) years. Hardly insignificant.

It's worth about 6 months on your life according to the actuarial tables that I have.

I'll take every 6 months that I can get my hands on...

 

[xyzzy]

In case anyone missed my thread on Statins last week here is my latest cholesterol results:

LDL: 2.0 HDL: 1.7 Triglycerides: 0.7 Total cholesterol: 3.8


Now don't all rush at once to comment

Excellent results .... :clap:

 

[RoyG]

So now we want the straight shoot-out between you and Wiflib! Who gets the LCHF gold star for outstanding results!

She does, she beat me on almost every score:

HbA1c=4.9%
Total = 3.6
HDL = 0.9
Trigs = 0.99
LDL = 2.2
Total/HDL = 3.6

I'm glad, because wiflib is my low-carb hero.

As far as I know, me and Lib are the only two that religiously follow Bernstein at <30g a day. Do you think it's a coincidence that our results are so good?

I eat over 80% of my calories as fat, as much of it as possible as saturated fat. I'd be surprised if wiflib was much different.

Do we still think that eating saturated fat is bad for your blood lipid profile.

No statins for me today.

RESULT!!!! RESULT!!!!!! all hail borofergie :clap: :clap: :clap: Just told the wife to shove the low fat **** back in the dogs cupboard, and to break out the Butter, double cream and 16oz er's again steak for tea wah hoooooooo.

 

[Grazer]

In case anyone missed my thread on Statins last week here is my latest cholesterol results:

LDL: 2.0 HDL: 1.7 Triglycerides: 0.7 Total cholesterol: 3.8


Now don't all rush at once to comment

Great result; ratio about perfect I'd have thought.

 

[borofergie]

RESULT!!!! RESULT!!!!!! all hail borofergie :clap: :clap: :clap: Just told the wife to shove the low fat **** back in the dogs cupboard, and to break out the Butter, double cream and 16oz er's again steak for tea wah hoooooooo.

Thanks Roy!

Not just steak. It has to be fatty steak. You can stick your filet - I always look for the most marbeled piece of ribeye I can find.

 

[jopar]

How does one work out that, a success has been made when 52% of the people failed to adhered to the diet regime!

Let's just compare like with like shall we. What is the point of a study if it doesn't compare against ongoing data.

It was a study of T1 people who low carbed. The achieved a 48% adherence rate
In the UK T1's are give dietary recommendations. They achieve a 33% adherence rate.

So 48 - 33 = 15

Or 15% more kept to the low carb regime.

What can be more simple than that.

Sorry, but it's not as simple 48-33=15 as you need to work out, the percentage of T1's who adhere to the Swedish currant dietary advice, before you can start to say, well 48 is reflective of the 33 etc...

But I really don't call a 1% drop of HbA1c as significant

Well apparently its twice as significant as adopting a low GI diet.

But were aren't comparing the VLC diet to GI diet, so again a misleading argument there! Nor are we comparing to UK outcomes...


UK national diabetic guidelines read them here as Phoenix posted a while back to show low GI as a very effective mechanism. I didn't disagree.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Reports/Nutritional_guidelines200911.pdf

Recommendations
• Weight management should be the primary nutritional strategy in managing
glucose control in Type 2 diabetes for people who are overweight or obese. (A)
• Regular, moderate physical activity can reduce HbA1c by 0.45 – 0.65 per cent
independent of weight loss. (A)
• Focus should be on total energy intake rather than the source of energy in the diet
(macronutrient composition) for optimal glycaemic control. (A)
• The total amount of carbohydrate consumed is a strong predictor of glycaemic
response and monitoring total carbohydrate intake whether by use of exchanges,
portions or experience-based estimation, remains a key strategy in achieving
glycaemic control. (A)
• Low GI diets may redcue HbA1c up to 0.5 per cent . (A)

How can a treatment that's twice as effective as a low GI regime be so easily dismissed?

Haven't you got to combine, the .45.0-0.65 to the 0.5% to get a more accurate figure of reduction, then you would achieve better than the VLC!

But as I said in the T1 forum, to you...

That even though I agreed that it's theory suggested it worked, but because of the drop out rate, and the authors calculations that a take up rate of 10-20% when rolled out into main stream advice meant that it's basically a failure overall!

Because you would only end up having 10-20% adherence rate, which is a very big drop from the currant 33% currant adhesion rate! So assuming that adhesion or the lack of it, then going by these figures taking a VLC stance would mean that long term complications are likely to increase rather than decrease!

Because success and/or failure can only be judge when it's main stream!

 

[Defren]

In case anyone missed my thread on Statins last week here is my latest cholesterol results:

LDL: 2.0 HDL: 1.7 Triglycerides: 0.7 Total cholesterol: 3.8


Now don't all rush at once to comment

Brilliant results Nigel - good job!

 

[RoyG]

I got my blood print outs today off Doctors they where great about it and done it while I saw Dietician. Me thinks I got a bit of work to do :!: 28-02-12 readings where;
Serum trig Hi 2.9
Serum HDL Chol 1.2
Serum LDL Chol 2.9
total Cholesterol: HDL 5 ooooops I got more sheets with Abnormal wrote on them than would like to count.

 

[Grazer]

RESULT!!!! RESULT!!!!!! all hail borofergie :clap: :clap: :clap: Just told the wife to shove the low fat **** back in the dogs cupboard, and to break out the Butter, double cream and 16oz er's again steak for tea wah hoooooooo.

Thanks Roy!

Not just steak. It has to be fatty steak. You can stick your filet - I always look for the most marbeled piece of ribeye I can find.

Not really called Jack Sprat are you Stephen?

 

[IanD]

Just had a 20 min chat with DUK Careline about low carb. I haven't been able to contact the young lady I met at the Hounslow meeting. She insisted on the importance of carbs in the diet, accepted that my experience was of interest, & recommended thatI send my data to their research dept.

She insisted I needed carbs for energy. I've just had 5 sets of tennis - over 40 games - in 2 1/2 hours.

I had a ham salad for lunch, with an orange for afters. A chicken & cheese salad for evening meal. No carbs.
Check my BG after all that energy expenditure - 6.7.

 

[RoyG]

Just had a 20 min chat with DUK Careline about low carb. I haven't been able to contact the young lady I met at the Hounslow meeting. She insisted on the importance of carbs in the diet, accepted that my experience was of interest, & recommended thatI send my data to their research dept.

She insisted I needed carbs for energy. I've just had 5 sets of tennis - over 40 games - in 2 1/2 hours.

I had a ham salad for lunch, with an orange for afters. A chicken & cheese salad for evening meal. No carbs.
Check my BG after all that energy expenditure - 6.7.

The thing is if you don't take in enough Carbs and do exercise your liver will oblige and dump a load of sugar into your blood stream for your body to use because your burning it, best thing before doing any activity have a few more carbs to compensate.

 

[xyzzy]

I got my blood print outs today off Doctors they where great about it and done it while I saw Dietician. Me thinks I got a bit of work to do :!: 28-02-12 readings where;
Serum trig Hi 2.9
Serum HDL Chol 1.2
Serum LDL Chol 2.9
total Cholesterol: HDL 5 ooooops I got more sheets with Abnormal wrote on them than would like to count.

Bit of work required but you can turn it around. My "Diabetes - My Personal Record" book that the DSN fills in and apparently "Contains useful charts, information and guidance" says

At Diagnosis in Dec 2011 I was

Total : 4.9
HDL : 1.00
LDL : 3.08
Trig : 1.97

3 months later after stopping all but 60g of carbs / day and eating copious random fats and protein instead.

Total : 3.8
HDL : 1.36
LDL : 1.89
Trig : 1.19

LCHF rules!

 

[RoyG]

I got my blood print outs today off Doctors they where great about it and done it while I saw Dietician. Me thinks I got a bit of work to do :!: 28-02-12 readings where;
Serum trig Hi 2.9
Serum HDL Chol 1.2
Serum LDL Chol 2.9
total Cholesterol: HDL 5 ooooops I got more sheets with Abnormal wrote on them than would like to count.

Bit of work required but you can turn it around. My "Diabetes - My Personal Record" book that the DSN fills in and apparently "Contains useful charts, information and guidance" says

At Diagnosis in Dec 2011 I was

Total : 4.9
HDL : 1.00
LDL : 3.08
Trig : 1.97

3 months later after stopping all but 60g of carbs / day and eating copious random fats and protein instead.

Total : 3.8
HDL : 1.36
LDL : 1.89
Trig : 1.19

LCHF rules!

The sheets look like my Liver has gone to the Bahamas for holiday, sgg hi @ 96 range 0-50, ALT/SGPT hi @ 38. and my bloods are out RBC hi@ 5.9 ? MCHC lo @ 31.9 meaning iron deficiency. I am wondering why the Doctor is not looking a bit more closely at them? and yes my cholesterol needs a good bit of work, will it ever end?

 

[IanD]

Just had a 20 min chat with DUK Careline about low carb. I haven't been able to contact the young lady I met at the Hounslow meeting. She insisted on the importance of carbs in the diet, accepted that my experience was of interest, & recommended thatI send my data to their research dept.

She insisted I needed carbs for energy. I've just had 5 sets of tennis - over 40 games - in 2 1/2 hours.

I had a ham salad for lunch, with an orange for afters. A chicken & cheese salad for evening meal. No carbs.
Check my BG after all that energy expenditure - 6.7.

The thing is if you don't take in enough Carbs and do exercise your liver will oblige and dump a load of sugar into your blood stream for your body to use because your burning it, best thing before doing any activity have a few more carbs to compensate.

Does that mean I did need carbs? But I didn't - I did not run out of energy. Am I damaging my liver?

 

[borofergie]

The thing is if you don't take in enough Carbs and do exercise your liver will oblige and dump a load of sugar into your blood stream for your body to use because your burning it, best thing before doing any activity have a few more carbs to compensate.

Does that mean I did need carbs? But I didn't - I did not run out of energy. Am I damaging my liver?

No. This is an urban myth, you don't need carbs to exercise, it's unlikely that you would deplete your muscle glycogen enough to damage your performance in a game of tennis.

Your liver dump is just your body's way of refuelling your muscles. After exercising, your insulin sensitivity should be enhanced, and your muscles will quickly mop up any excess glucose.

I run a 5k race on Saturday mornings, at about 93% of my max-heartrate. It causes a huge liver dump than cen put my BG over 10mmol/l. I've tried eating carbs before I exercise to prevent it, but it doesn't work, and can add to the strength of the spike.

Anyway, emptying your liver glycogen stores is a ket benefit of exercise, you don't want to do anything to prevent it from happening.