Me too!
Me too!I went from non-diabetic to diabetic in the space of 12 months, and my HbA1c on diagnosis was only 53, so I'm not too worried about prior damage either. I hope your theory that damage can be reversed is right.
My hba1c was 48 on diagnosis but rose to 54 when I started taking statins. Hopefully the 8-10 weeks I was on them didn't do too much damage!I went from non-diabetic to diabetic in the space of 12 months, and my HbA1c on diagnosis was only 53, so I'm not too worried about prior damage either. I hope your theory that damage can be reversed is right.
We have shown that according to authoritative CVD guidelines, 75% of the adult Norwegian population would be deemed at risk for CVD and in need of clinical attention (advice and supervision) [25,26]. Consequently, we have questioned the theoretical basis of the guidelines. In the present study, we look specifically at the validity of guidelines’ risk estimations involving cholesterol. In particular, we challenge the widespread assumption of a linear relationship between total cholesterol levels and disease development (expressed as mortality in our analysis).
The current guidelines also say that EVERY person diagnosed as diabetic should be on a statin.Extracted from the article:
I have read much the same about the UK; current guidelines allegedly suggest that every male over 60 and female over 75 should be on statins.
Some clinicians find this hard to credit.
These are the words of Bluetit's GP and, quite honestly, I find them complete nonsense. I'm sure many of us can produce examples from our own experience of reversed damage. The Big One for us was the reversal of prolific retinopathy. Left to its own devices, the body is very good at healing itself, after all, what did it do for millions of years before we had the benefits of Big Pharma?you have no idea what damage was done before gaining control of BS, and having gained control this damage is most likely irreversible.
These are the words of Bluetit's GP and, quite honestly, I find them complete nonsense. I'm sure many of us can produce examples from our own experience of reversed damage. The Big One for us was the reversal of prolific retinopathy. Left to its own devices, the body is very good at healing itself, after all, what did it do for millions of years before we had the benefits of Big Pharma?
Sally
While I hear what you say, @Bluetit1802 , I wonder what her evidence is that once you have had a high sugar level, the damage in CVD terms is irreversible. I can't imagine that there is enough of us, being closely monitored, for long enough to say that there is nothing you can do about CVD risk, apart from take statins and consume the Eat Well plate.I should have made it clearer that she was referring to CVD rather than general diabetic complications. We had been discussing the ins and outs of the Q-Risk formula.
Extracted from the article:
I have read much the same about the UK; current guidelines allegedly suggest that every male over 60 and female over 75 should be on statins.
Some clinicians find this hard to credit.
While I hear what you say, @Bluetit1802 , I wonder what her evidence is that once you have had a high sugar level, the damage in CVD terms is irreversible. I can't imagine that there is enough of us, being closely monitored, for long enough to say that there is nothing you can do about CVD risk, apart from take statins and consume the Eat Well plate.
Sally
Mine was 46 on T2 diagnosis I have annual blood tests so knew I did not have it longer than a year. It went down to 44 and then 42 at my next two HbA1c's and I was taking statins and had been for a few years. My doctor would like me to get my cholesterol under 5 it was 5.2 the last time I had my HbA1cMy hba1c was 48 on diagnosis but rose to 54 when I started taking statins. Hopefully the 8-10 weeks I was on them didn't do too much damage!
You should show them that study and tell them you'd prefer your TC >7.Mine was 46 on T2 diagnosis I have annual blood tests so knew I did not have it longer than a year. It went down to 44 and then 42 at my next two HbA1c's and I was taking statins and had been for a few years. My doctor would like me to get my cholesterol under 5 it was 5.2 the last time I had my HbA1c
I can almost guarantee that there is none... and she was making it up.. or half remembered something from her training in 1980..I completely agree. I have no idea what her evidence is. It just threw me a bit.
Isn't the problem with the general population that they have pretty much all got low HDL? If you do not take hdl into the equation you can get some idea why they just prescribe statins on total cholesterol! It doesn't make sense to me but its policy.D
Thanks John I didn't know that. Is the reduction significant? regards DerekMetformin reduces cholesterol levels in particular LDL and total cholesterol.
I was told the HDL/LDL ratio was the thing to check, and most of all triglycerides (though I never got an agreed answer on whether these should be tested fasting or not -- results differ enormously if they are -- what have other people been told?).
Her answer was simply, you have no idea what damage was done before gaining control of BS, and having gained control this damage is most likely irreversible..............................
I should have made it clearer that she was referring to CVD rather than general diabetic complications. We had been discussing the ins and outs of the Q-Risk formula.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?