cholesterol and diabetes

[diment]

I was worried about my high cholesterol....271mg/dl up from 230mg/dl a month before should be under 200mg/dl.so i started reading about cholesterol.its seems that the numbers dont mean that much and i should not be too worried.i read about statins being the answer,but no not for me after reading about all the side affects.
Then i read a story about a doctor telling some one that cholesterol is made by your own liver....how can your own liver make something that will be harmful to you ? it goes on to say only a small percentage of cholesterol comes from food we eat and most is made by our own liver and for good reason.it appears we need cholesterol to repair our bodies cells etc especially when we have .. inflammation ....im thinking what is wrong with my body !!! what inflammation could i have . easy ive been a diabetic for more than 20 years with bad blood sugar numbers.Then i found the Atkins lifestyle and now my numbers are down to HbA1c 5.4..... .but after 20 years of high sugar in my blood...all that sugar scratching and scraping the insides of my veins and arteries ...equals...inflammation,so my body is making lots of cholesterol to repair my damaged veins and arteries..inflammation !
im sure if i take care of my sugar numbers that my liver (cholesterol) will fix my inflammation in time and then i will see my cholesterol numbers come down.
i live in thailand and its only $20 to have blood tests done here so i will do one every month and log my progress.
if i had never started Atkins my sugar would have been out of control and my body making more and more cholesterol until it did clogg my arteries and stroke...heart disease.
so i have a good reason to stay on Atkins lifestyle.i wish some health care worker had told me this a long time ago....but the drug companies love to get us all on there statins....

 

[librarising]

diment wrote
I was worried about my high cholesterol ... so i started reading about cholesterol.its seems that the numbers dont mean that much and i should not be too worried.i read about statins being the answer,but no not for me after reading about all the side affects.
Then i read a story about a doctor telling some one that cholesterol is made by your own liver....how can your own liver make something that will be harmful to you ? ... it appears we need cholesterol to repair our bodies cells etc especially when we have .. inflammation
im sure if i take care of my sugar numbers that my liver (cholesterol) will fix my inflammation in time and then i will see my cholesterol numbers come down.
i wish some health care worker had told me this a long time ago....but the drug companies love to get us all on there statins....

What a great story. Many of us discovered what was best for our bodies only after diagnosis.
Agree when you say that "numbers dont mean that much."
You may not need to lower your levels, only if HDL is too low, and triglycerides are too high.
'Bad' is a label which was mis-chosen for LDL, merely because it carried cholesterol into the body, whereas HDL carries it away. That's like saying toilets are good because they carry away your waste deposits, while food is bad because it gives you waste deposits. You want your LDL to be large and fluffy, not small and dense. Lower triglyceride levels are a good indicator in this regard.

Great to have you on the forum. Welcome aboard !

Geoff

 

[noblehead]

Agree when you say that "numbers dont mean that much."

Numbers certainly mean a lot to me, do you work in Cardiovascular Health Geoff?

 

[librarising]

noblehead wrote
Numbers certainly mean a lot to me, do you work in Cardiovascular Health Geoff?

No, neither am I a dietician, but I'm able to choose a healthy diet for myself.
The reason I said the above is not to convince you or followers of the lipid hypothesis (ever wonder why it's STILL called a hypothesis ?????), but because I've read a number (small but increasingly growing) who do work in Cardiovascular Health, and tell me that numbers don't necessarily 'mean a lot.'
They come across as reasonable, intelligent, and caring people. They often believed what they now say is wrong. Something changed for them, as it's changed for me.

I post in order to point others to the possibility that there are other hypotheses which can equally explain those we've been 'fed' for the last fifty years or so. If I'd seen better health outcomes during that period, I might start to consider the powers that be had it right all along.

Till that day ..........

 

[noblehead]

So you don't Geoff and just read a few books, I thought you perhaps worked in Cardiovascular health and were talking from a professional capacity......hence why you tell people not to worry about cholesterol and put them off using statins.

 

[librarising]

noblehead wrote

So you won't be watching this documentary when it comes out ?

http://www.statinnation.net/
Shame, you might have learned something. From health professionals.

Are you open-minded enough for that, or only if your GP advises you ?

Geoff
ps if you can avoid sarcasm in your posts, I'll try and do the same.
Till then ..........

 

[borofergie]

So you don't Geoff and just read a few books, I thought you perhaps worked in Cardiovascular health and were talking from a professional capacity......hence why you tell people not to worry about cholesterol and put them off using statins.

Peter Attia MD has worked in Cardiovascular Health. Here is his take on Cholesterol and what the numbers actually mean...
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... rol-part-i

By all means listen to your HCP, but at least do so as an informed patient, and not take everything they say for granted.

In the words of the great philosopher Sir Bruce Springsteen: "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed".

If I'd taken my GP's advice literally I'd probably be 310lbs and on insulin today. Just sayin'.

 

[noblehead]

Certainly won't be watching it and will continue to take the advice of my HCP when it comes to cardiovascular health, thanks Geoff for clearing it up that you speak with no authority when it comes to cardio health.

 

[librarising]

noblehead wrote wrote
So you don't Geoff and just read a few books

I can't for the life of me work out why a sub-section of this forum have an antagonism, which borders on rabid at times, against reading books and INCREASING your knowledge through self-education.

Don't kid yourselves your GPs and other HCPs are keeping up-to-date by reading them on your behalf.

Till then .............


Geoff

 

[diment]

thanks geoff,
its nice to know there are normal free thinking people around like myself.your post sounded ok and correct to me.i think we are on the same ideas....to read and try to make sense of all this diabetes complications and side affects.
dont respond to these other posts they are bored people and just trolling for kicks....stay focused.
ken

 

[Mileana]

Guys both of you are getting a little off topic and you're both intelligent chaps.

Be careful when advicing people against the official advice. It looks better include some research and ask people to make up their own mind on it, Geoff. The stuff you linked me the other day is helpful in understanding the points you are making and enable people to make informed choices.

Noblehead... Could you consider instead of mocking the man for his viewpoints to either add some reasons why you think as you do about the actual topic, or ask him to provide some evidence.

Don't get personal - go for the ball.

Thanks, both.

 

[librarising]

Mileana wrote
Don't get personal - go for the ball

Ken, the OP, thought my original reply was okay, as do I.
Did you notice who introduced the ad hominem attack ?
All my subsequent replies attempted to answer this attack.
I'm glad to be as Ken, the OP says, a normal free-thinking person.

My stance is I'm happy for anyone to make what choices they want.
I'm happier for people to make informed choices.This may entail people being alerted to other possibilities.
Sometimes links are posted. Ken didn't need them, nor did noblehead. If people are intrigued they should do their own research, and when asked I will always supply links, or books to read.

I don't speak as an authority, and don't seek to give authoritative advice. My words are often guarded.

When the ad hominem attacks are stamped upon and stopped such exchanges will miraculously 'disappear.'
And normal exchange of views will return.

Over to the mods, then ...

Geoff

 

[phoenix]

Then i read a story about a doctor telling some one that cholesterol is made by your own liver....how can your own liver make something that will be harmful to you ? it goes on to say only a small percentage of cholesterol comes from food we eat and most is made by our own liver

Some people absorb far more cholesterol from food than others . Some people manufacture far more cholesterol in their bodies than others. The net result should be balanced but it some cases, and one of those is diabetes , they may make a great deal more(3x) or may absorb a great deal more resulting in far higher cholesterol levels than normal.
Interestingly there may be a difference between T1 and T2 in the way our bodies deal with/create cholesterol. I found this interesting. Basically T2s may make more of their own cholesterol in the liver and T1s may absorb more of it from food.

DM & Cholesterol metabolism
• Type 2
– Increased cholesterol synthesis
– Increased biliary cholesterol secretion
– Decreased intestinal cholesterol absorption
– Effect of dietary modification on reducing serum cholesterol is variable
• Type 1:
– Increased cholesterol absorption
– Decreased synthesis
– Reducing dietary cholesterol is highly efficacious in lowering plasma cholesterol
– Statin efficacy has not been studied in particular in Type 1DM.
http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/User/bcozza/Kidambi.pdf

Cholesterol from food aside, most researchers consider that the type of fats is important in determining cholesterol levels.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... ull-story/

I personally don't want to go back to is the state of my lipids on diagnosis. My plasma was described as opalescent , I had sky high lipids on diagnosis. This was due to the breakdown of fats in DKA. There was a high level of fat in the blood. I think from the description my plasma looked like this (caution if squeamish icture of blood in testube, don't scroll down as there are other graphic images on the page)
http://www.duke.edu/~ema5/Golian/Slides ... ages1.html
My husband has familiar hyperlipidemia (ie a family history of high lipds/early heart disease.
His blood untreated might look something like this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlipidemia
I have taken statins, my OH still takes medication as his body will continue to make too much cholesterol.
We don't eat a particularly low fat diet but we do try to choose our fats carefully as in the Harvard advice above. we exercise a fair amount .
Fortunately neither of us has high LDL or trigs now and our HDL is in the desirable bracket.The plasma is described as clear and straw coloured.

 

[sterling]

It seems to be well established that smoking, high blood sugar, high blood pressure and cholesterol all crtically affect the life expecatancy of a diabetics.

Hence the NUMBERS are most important.

If a diabetic can bring those numbers under good control using medical advice or otherwise then the outlook for the diabetic appears to improve.

I am pleased to take statins because they bring my numbers under control without causing me any apparent upset.

 

[Mileana]

I noticed both aspects which is why I commented on both aspects.

-M

 

[noblehead]

Be careful when advicing people against the official advice.

Hence why I asked Geoff if he was coming at the thread from a professional capacity, anyone reading this thread should take on board the advice of their gp or cardiologist when it comes to cholesterol levels and not assume someone with no medical qualifications knows better them.

Diabetes puts us a a greater risk of heart disease, strokes and diabetic retinopathy, to say 'cholesterol numbers don't mean much' could be potentially dangerous to some people viewing the forum.

Hope that clears things up for you Mileana

 

[borofergie]

Diabetes puts us a a greater risk of heart disease, strokes and diabetic retinopathy, to say 'cholesterol numbers don't mean much' could be potentially dangerous to some people viewing the forum.

The LDL-C, HDL-C, and TC numbers that you get from NHS lipid tests really don't mean very much, and they are not paticularly good predictors of cardiovascular disease especially in diabetics, who often show discordant trends.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... rol-part-i

Proper blood lipid profiles (especially those that include LDL-P and HDL-P tests) are useful for determining the risk of CV disease, but the numbers have to to be interpreted properly. I think that it is relatively unlikely that you'll get the proper tests, or the proper interpretation from your GP. In any event, doing your own research is always going to be beneficial in interpreting your doctor's advice. There are many GPs that would happily prescribe statins to women, without an ounce of evidence that it does them any good at all.

In the words of the 80s AIDS commerical: "Don't die of ignorance".

 

[librarising]

Mileana wrote
Be careful when advicing people against the official advice.

Geoff wrote
You may not need to lower your levels, only if HDL is too low, and triglycerides are too high.
'Bad' is a label which was mis-chosen for LDL, merely because it carried cholesterol into the body, whereas HDL carries it away. You want your LDL to be large and fluffy, not small and dense. Lower triglyceride levels are a good indicator in this regard.

This is the nearest I got to advising anyone. Where's the problem ? I said 'may.'

The whole situation (and the problem with Mileana'a statement) is summed up by an expert who IS a cardiovascular specialist

The reality is that over the years, and around the world we have killed literally millions of diabetics by advising them to eat a high-carb diet and avoid fats. Only now is it being recognised that previous advice was and remains useless, dangerous and scientifically illiterate

Dr Malcolm Kendrick

Geoff

 

[xyzzy]

This one is worth a read

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01767.x/pdf

The HUNT 2 study published last year. A ten year study of fifty thousand plus Norwegians so not trivial. The bottom line is the "risk of death graph" shown below.



Shows that for men the total cholesterol level with the highest survival rate is in the 5 to 6 band so risks begin to increase below 5

For women it shows a decreasing risk as total cholesterol rises.

I assume this is where Stephen gets his "statins are pointless for women" from.

I asked my gp about this study and his reply was to say they currently use an older study of studies for the recommended safety levels. Cholesterol is a case of do you own research. I personally rate having moderately high (by NICE recommendations) cholesterol levels as a lesser risk than hBA1c or blood pressure especially if you are not overweight but that's just me.

 

[borofergie]

Shows that for men the total cholesterol level with the highest survival rate is in the 5 to 6 band so risks begin to increase below 5

Hmmmph. My TC = 3.6 mmol/l. Which is much lower than the "safe" band. (Despite eating as much saturated fat as I can lay my hands on).

The conventional wisdom is that the because certain fatal diseases cause low-cholesterol (ie cancer), that low-cholesterol is wrongly associated with a higher risk (it's the cancer that causes the cholesterol, not the cholesterol that causes the cancer).