• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Cholesterol

Saying I wouldn’t touch them is not advising somebody else not to touch them, each individual needs to choose whether to do their own reading and research, or not. Doctors are not Gods and relevant medical research is readily available now for people to read for themselves. Each of us is responsible for our own health and well-being. It is up to the individual.
BrianTheElder said:
Agreed, but only one thing is definite, for those who have heart problems or a high risk of that, statins are effective.
Click to expand...

The most effective statin reduces the relative risk by about 44%, they reduce the absolute risk by about 1.5%. So for every 100 people that take a statin 1-2 will avoid a further ‘cardiac event’ - many people think that is sufficient benefit, that’s fine. Each individual should make their own decision.
 
TheBigNewt said:
Effective in reducing the likelihood of another coronary event (heart attack, stent, bypass) by roughly 30%. Effective enough that another randomized trial using statins vs placebo in CAD patients will never be done because it would be unethical to randomize people to receive placebo. What do you think the prognosis of the guy I saw yesterday who had a bypass at age 43 was at that time AFTER he had suffered a heart attack? He takes Lipitor 80mg/d and is 54 working full time in a casino security 11 years later and has not had any stents or heart attacks. His LDL is now 100mg/dl. Imagine what it was before Lipitor, probably 200. Don't bore me with the "LDL isn't important" stuff. Please.
Click to expand...

I think you are living in a different world.

There are a number of posters from the UK running much higher total cholesterol levels with no apparent signs of CVD and not taking statins.

The current UK guidance is more concerned with ratios that total cholesterol.

Feel free not to be bored; you don't have to read the threads.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
I think you are living in a different world.

There are a number of posters from the UK running much higher total cholesterol levels with no apparent signs of CVD and not taking statins.

The current UK guidance is more concerned with ratios that total cholesterol.

Feel free not to be bored; you don't have to read the threads.
Click to expand...
The point is that imo the TC is not that important, unless you have had a heart attack, in which case most people are happy to go onto statins because they do decrease your risk of dying. It is the one thing on which most people agree, unlike most things to do with statins, so not worth getting upset about.
 
AtkinsMo said:
Saying I wouldn’t touch them is not advising somebody else not to touch them, each individual needs to choose whether to do their own reading and research, or not. Doctors are not Gods and relevant medical research is readily available now for people to read for themselves. Each of us is responsible for our own health and well-being. It is up to the individual.


The most effective statin reduces the relative risk by about 44%, they reduce the absolute risk by about 1.5%. So for every 100 people that take a statin 1-2 will avoid a further ‘cardiac event’ - many people think that is sufficient benefit, that’s fine. Each individual should make their own decision.
Click to expand...
I think that, after having had a heart attack or becoming more at risk of cardiac disease, someone may well change their attitude.
 
Jc3131 said:
Hello Jenny, I'm sort of in the same boat as you.

My hba1c was 103 when I was diagnosed. Then it was 44 and the one just after Christmas was 41. I though I was doing well then I was told my cholesterol was high. It was 5.5, 2mmol good and 3.5 bad. I have the triglycerides result and I've posted it in the type 1 forum as I don't really understand it. They prescribed statins last week which I haven't collected as I don't want to take them. I saw my diabetes nurse yestersay and she said to have a think about the statins. I am still unsure as I want to reduce my cholesterol myself.

I don't think I helped myself as I got a taste for peanut butter and I was eating loads of it every day and even eating straight from the jar.

It's a hard decision to make regarding the statins and no doubt it's what they will offer you.
Click to expand...
LDLc of 3.5 is 135mg/dl here (not bad at all). HDL 2=77mg/dl (really good). I wouldn't recommend statins for you you're probably pretty young too right?
 
BrianTheElder said:
I think that, after having had a heart attack or becoming more at risk of cardiac disease, someone may well change their attitude.
Click to expand...
For sure. You got coronary disease for a reason, and LDL is the biggest risk factor, Type 2 diabetes probably the next biggest. So no matter what your LDL is, if you had a coronary event you should take a statin and not look back.
 
TheBigNewt said:
LDLc of 3.5 is 135mg/dl here (not bad at all). HDL 2=77mg/dl (really good). I wouldn't recommend statins for you you're probably pretty young too right?
Click to expand...
No im 43 so just creeping over the hill, even though I feel like im on my way down the other side.

The nurse said being a type 1 they want our cholesterol under 4.0 as we are a higher risk. I've only been diagnosed 8 months and the nurse said I've been caught really early because of a routine blood test. My cholesterol was 5.0 in total when I was diagnosed, so it's gone up. I blame the peanut butter.
 
Jenny40 said:
I was diagnosed as a Type 1 in July last year.

I have been doing so well and have brought my Hba1c down from 127 at diagnosis to 44 in November. However, I visited my GP on Monday for my routine check up and foot check, all good but they told me I needed a blood test to check my Cholesterol, well today I had a call from the doctors to say that it is high at 5.6 and they need me to go in and talk to the doctor.
I have tried so hard to watch what I eat and I really haven't changed what I eat, other than I eat less now, no snacks in between so my diet food wise is the same but I have never had high Cholesterol before! What am I doing wrong, just when I thought that I had got on top of this I am now worried that I have done something wrong,.
Is this something that happens when you are a diabetic?

Any help would be great, or any ideas ;-)

Thanks
Jenny
Click to expand...

Swings and roundabouts.

9 months ago my total cholesterol was 4.5 and a1c was 49.

In the autumn of last year (whilst still on lchf) I was experimenting with higher carb foods and covering them with high fatty foods - with great success and seeing my BGs not only stay steady, but also lower than previously. This was in readiness to cope with Christmas treats...

Now, recent a1c test has reduced to 45, but cholesterol is up to 7.9 HOWEVER, I know that is purely down to thoroughly enjoying lots of double cream on everything!

The DN wanted to put me straight onto statins; saying there were two types which would give me no/few side effects. We checked back in my history and those had both previously been tried with devastating side effects - hence a polite "no thank you, I can sort this in other ways!"

So, have now cut out the double cream; was surprised to find 3 pots in the fridge - it had become a staple food without me realising it. It did mean a very tasty Christmas though :) Anyway, back on the yoghurts again now.

Next a1c test in 6 months will see my cholesterol back where it 'should' be I'm sure. Though I do recall reading that more folk die of low cholesterol than those with high cholesterol!

Overall, very pleased to have a1c down to 45 from its high of 101 just three years ago.
 
A1c is by far the most important thing, in my ‘umble opinion! Keep the A1c low, keep the inflammation down
 
AtkinsMo said:
A1c is by far the most important thing, in my ‘umble opinion! Keep the A1c low, keep the inflammation down
Click to expand...

I say keep the insulin down to keep the inflammation down.
The A1c is an average and doesn't tell the whole story or show any roller coaster spikes and troughs.
 
lets loose some of the guilt on Cholesterol most is nothing to do with your food so although peanut butter is the food of the devil its not the cause of a raised level. it just another wonderful trick nature has given us. maybe it was a survival tool in the past.
 
paulus1 said:
lets loose some of the guilt on Cholesterol most is nothing to do with your food so although peanut butter is the food of the devil its not the cause of a raised level. it just another wonderful trick nature has given us. maybe it was a survival tool in the past.
Click to expand...
Yep, he's right about that. Your cholesterol levels have very little to do with what you eat. Unfortunately.
 
Nidge247 said:
So, have now cut out the double cream; was surprised to find 3 pots in the fridge - it had become a staple food without me realising it.
Click to expand...
Alas, this seems to be exactly how human psychology works - slacken attention for one second and one is on the slippery slide to the everlasting bonfire! Without even knowing it. This is one reason I have to keep on testing. The moment I stop, motivation falters and I'm buying an extra tub of cream (or two) and stashing it in the fridge all innocent and unaware. Or in my case, reaching for yet another slice of cheese. I too have sacrificed my cholesterol to my A1c and am now trying to cut down. It would be easier if we knew for certain who is right - the doctors attributing heart attacks to LDL or the sat fat- bombers.
 
Ahh well. With my LDL currently at 5.8 it gives me something to aim for; LCHF has been pretty easy to do (to my surprise) and has huge benefits for my health as a whole. It certainly won't ne difficult in the short term to bring the LDL down, though as my body is (unfortunately) disposed to produce excess cholesterol, I can see it being a long-term goal.
It's nothing I'm going to lose any sleep over, just another tick-box on the list of life.


Sent from my SM-G930F using DCUK Forum mobile app
 
I would like to ask you all a question. Did you know that the recommendations of <5 for the general population and <4 for those with Diabetes were numbers that were plucked out of thin air? As has been said, dietary cholesterol accounts for so little of the body's total cholesterol that 'aiming' for 5 is meaningless, really. Sat fat does not make you fat and sat fat does not cause cardiac disease.
 
The presumption is that, because statistically, people with diabetes are more likely to have heart disease, then, if you believe the diet / health / Cholesterol hypothesis the target for cholesterol should be lower than for the general population.

But, if you don’t believe the diet / Health / Cholesterol hypothesis, like me, if you think it was based on dodgy science in the first place and driven by profit driven pharmaceutical companies ever since, then you’d just ignore Cholesterol levels and focus entirely on driving down blood glucose levels and insulin levels to minimise inflammation, and maybe build in some additional cardio protecting exercise, for me it’s daily brisk walking.

Malcolm Kendrick’s latest blog post is superb!

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
 
Guzzler said:
I would like to ask you all a question. Did you know that the recommendations of <5 for the general population and <4 for those with Diabetes were numbers that were plucked out of thin air? As has been said, dietary cholesterol accounts for so little of the body's total cholesterol that 'aiming' for 5 is meaningless, really. Sat fat does not make you fat and sat fat does not cause cardiac disease.
Click to expand...

To me, if a limit is put on total cholesterol, be it 5 or 4, it is ridiculous - what if a large proportion is good stuff (HDL)? The standard range for HDL is 1.2 to 3.5 (for women). If it happens to be 3.5 it doesn't take much of the "bad" stuff to bring it over 4.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
To me, if a limit is put on total cholesterol, be it 5 or 4, it is ridiculous - what if a large proportion is good stuff (HDL)? The standard range for HDL is 1.2 to 3.5 (for women). If it happens to be 3.5 it doesn't take much of the "bad" stuff to bring it over 4.
Click to expand...

That makes even more sense.
 
Back
Top