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

For those worried about cholesterol levels..

Ah maybe my 55 helps a bit then..
I have just done mine and I should have been dead at least ten years ago, so another year without statins or dementia is a bonus! At 78 having survived advanced cancer and septicemia also now with electronic ignition and a tricky adrenal gland I can skip all that rubbish and concentrate on what really matters. regards Derek
 
Well, all I can say is that I have had no problem taking Statins for 12 years, no Angina, no heart probs since the heart attack all tests that I have done every year come back good. I notice this guy is also an author selling a book for £14.99, he seems to have an opinion on quite a few other medical complaints also. He has a number of books out on different ailments and other drugs. According to some on here people who have been eating fat, it has lowered their cholesterol, so now what? do we not eat fat if our cholesterol is low? I have read on you tube people's posts saying that their total cholesterol decreased being on Keto. I won't take this graph too seriously to be honest. If I did I would be worrying myself into an early grave lol
I think the key is to look at total mortality risk, not just cardiovascular mortality risk. One of Dr. Kendrick's theories is that stress is the main culprit for causing heart disease, so you definitely should try not to worry about anything. I don't think you should read too much into the fact that he authors books (not "many", just 2) and sells them - that doesn't automatically mean that the content isn't true, does it? I bet he'd make a lot more money helping big pharma push statins. The books he writes include lots of references to studies that back up what he claims. I agree that the graphs should be taken with a grain of salt - the error bars are huge and the vast majority of people in the study likely follow a standard western diet of lots of carbs and lots of highly processed factory food. However, I think there is very little scientific evidence that very low total cholesterol levels or taking statins are good for prolonging human life spans.
 
Last edited:
Well, all I can say is that I have had no problem taking Statins for 12 years, no Angina, no heart probs since the heart attack all tests that I have done every year come back good. I notice this guy is also an author selling a book for £14.99, he seems to have an opinion on quite a few other medical complaints also. He has a number of books out on different ailments and other drugs. According to some on here people who have been eating fat, it has lowered their cholesterol, so now what? do we not eat fat if our cholesterol is low? I have read on you tube people's posts saying that their total cholesterol decreased being on Keto. I won't take this graph too seriously to be honest. If I did I would be worrying myself into an early grave lol
I only linked it via Dr Kendrick's site because he has an easy to read explanation.
The original paper is quoted there as well as his explanation.
 
I think the key is to look at total mortality risk, not just cardiovascular mortality risk. One of Dr. Kendrick's theories is that stress is the main culprit for causing heart disease, so you definitely should try not to worry about anything. I don't think you should read too much into the fact that he authors books and sells them - that doesn't autmatically mean that the content isn't true, does it? I bet he'd make a lot more money helping big pharma push statins. The books he writes include lots of references to studies that back up what he claims. I agree that the graphs should be taken with a grain of salt - the error bars are huge and the vast majority of people in the study likely follow a standard western diet of lots of carbs and lots of highly processed factory food. However, I think there is very little scientific evidence that very low total cholesterol levels or taking statins are good for prolonging human life spans.
Check out this one..

"Interpretation
High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings."

From The Lancet UK medical journal today!
 
Check out this one..

"Interpretation
High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings."

From The Lancet UK medical journal today!
Yes, it's big news here, I guess because it's a Canadian study.
 
Check out this one..

"Interpretation
High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings."

From The Lancet UK medical journal today!
I would have thought that smoking was the main cause of heart disease, I know that stress can play a part. I am a sceptic of so many books that he has written. He does not seem to come up with any solutions if we do not take the drugs that are perscribed to us. Is he advocating cold Turkey?
 
I would have thought that smoking was the main cause of heart disease, I know that stress can play a part. I am a sceptic of so many books that he has written. He does not seem to come up with any solutions if we do not take the drugs that are perscribed to us. Is he advocating cold Turkey?
If I remember correctly he does state that smoking is a big cause of CVD and recommends not to smoke, but really everyone knows this so I didn't really think it was important to discuss. He concludes that statins do very little to reduce the risk of CVD and can increase the risk of premature death from other causes. Since he thinks stress (assuming you don't smoke) is the most significant cause of CVD, he recommends trying to avoid chronic stress or at least lower stress levels. Easier said than done, of course. I think he includes both psychological stress (e.g. a stressful job) and physical stress (e.g. elevated air pollution).
 
I would have thought that smoking was the main cause of heart disease, I know that stress can play a part. I am a sceptic of so many books that he has written. He does not seem to come up with any solutions if we do not take the drugs that are perscribed to us. Is he advocating cold Turkey?
I'm not sure who the "he" is? Do you mean Dr Malcolm Kendrick? The quote I just posted was from "The Lancet" the results of a new study which shows that high carb diets are worse for all cause mortality (death) than high fat diets (which appear to be positively beneficial).
 
I would have thought that smoking was the main cause of heart disease, I know that stress can play a part. I am a sceptic of so many books that he has written. He does not seem to come up with any solutions if we do not take the drugs that are perscribed to us. Is he advocating cold Turkey?

If you play about with the Q-risk3 trying smoking (moderate) and T2, non smoking, no diabetes etc. you will see that it shows a greater risk if you are a T2 non-smoker than if you are a non-diabetic smoker. So that implies having T2 is more of a risk than smoking
 
If you play about with the Q-risk3 trying smoking (moderate) and T2, non smoking, no diabetes etc. you will see that it shows a greater risk if you are a T2 non-smoker than if you are a non-diabetic smoker. So that implies having T2 is more of a risk than smoking
That's assuming that the Q-risk3 algorithm is accurate. However, it's possible that high blood glucose levels and high insulin levels are worse for you than smoking. Maybe all the stress about having diabetes contributes as well.
 
I just found this report - my cholesterol has gone from 7- 7.1 since my test in March this year - the doc wanted me to go on statins but i refused and will never take them and I have my reasons .

https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/j...cam-people-with-high-cholesterol-live-longer/

As said many, many times on this forum, the total cholesterol is meaningless. It is a total of the good and the bad stuff. If the bad stuff stays the same, and the good stuff increases, then the total will increase. The Trigs/HDL ratio is the important one.
 
As said many, many times on this forum, the total cholesterol is meaningless. It is a total of the good and the bad stuff. If the bad stuff stays the same, and the good stuff increases, then the total will increase. The Trigs/HDL ratio is the important one.
I only know my bad raised from 7-7.1 I don't get to see the rest of the results for some reason - I even asked for a copy of my results and all i got was the hba1c and nothing else , was disappointed as i wanted to see the rest such as liver kidney good bad cholesterol but that was kept from me .
 
I only know my bad raised from 7-7.1 I don't get to see the rest of the results for some reason - I even asked for a copy of my results and all i got was the hba1c and nothing else , was disappointed as i wanted to see the rest such as liver kidney good bad cholesterol but that was kept from me .

Try asking for all the test results from bloods taken that day - they should all be on the same print outs although there may be 2 pages of them. You could do with knowing all these things. They are important.
 
Try asking for all the test results from bloods taken that day - they should all be on the same print outs although there may be 2 pages of them. You could do with knowing all these things. They are important.
I agree - when my husband had his results he did have two full pages and everything was on it . I can still ask and I will do I am entitled to see this I think .
 
I agree - when my husband had his results he did have two full pages and everything was on it . I can still ask and I will do I am entitled to see this I think .

Are you in England? If so you should be able to see all your results (and a lot more) on-line. All surgeries were asked to put them on-line by April 2016, although some haven't done this as yet. It is worth asking how to register for this. Scotland also has a similar system.
 
Are you in England? If so you should be able to see all your results (and a lot more) on-line. All surgeries were asked to put them on-line by April 2016, although some haven't done this as yet. It is worth asking how to register for this. Scotland also has a similar system.
Yes I am in England - I never knew about that will ask about it thank you .
 
Yes I am in England - I never knew about that will ask about it thank you .

Its easy. Ask the receptionist to become an online patient. (This jyst means that you can view all test results that the GP does or results that xrays or mri scans ordered by GP etc. Also appoinments and prescriptions.

The test resukts for past loads of years shoukd be visible. You still see your doctor as normal.

You are given a bit of paper with your login name and temporary password... do not lose it!! Then login and finaluse set up at home.

Worth its weight in gold....
 
Back
Top