Great hbac poor cholesterol is this common

[DavidGrahamJones]

Always assuming that lowering cholesterol is a "good" thing..

A very good point. I'm always amazed that something so essential for the body to work properly and actually produced by the body if there isn't enough, is deemed to be so terrible.

 

[Dr Snoddy]

Can’t get link to work is it something I could search for looks like it could be useful thank you for your support

Thanks to Jo-the-boat for the link. I have exactly the same problem as Shelley: Low HbA1c (36 consistently over 3 years but Total cholesterol has increased to 7.3. I cut out all saturated fat for 3 months but my total cholesterol did not change. However, HDL is 2.4 so my ratio of HDL to total cholesterol is less than 4 and so within NHS limits. I no longer get a triglyceride reading but am going to ask for it or sdLDL if poss. I will be offered statins. I will continue to say no thank you.

 

[Guzzler]

Thanks to Jo-the-boat for the link. I have exactly the same problem as Shelley: Low HbA1c (36 consistently over 3 years but Total cholesterol has increased to 7.3. I cut out all saturated fat for 3 months but my total cholesterol did not change. However, HDL is 2.4 so my ratio of HDL to total cholesterol is less than 4 and so within NHS limits. I no longer get a triglyceride reading but am going to ask for it or sdLDL if poss. I will be offered statins. I will continue to say no thank you.

sdLDL is not measured as standard (if at all) by the NHS. I am not even sure if it is offered privately here but stand to be corrected. The full story per sdLDL is still not known.

 

[shelley262]

You've had some great replies so far and I repeat : it is essential your triglycerides are measured (preferably fasting) and I'd refuse to act until they were. If high (a risk factor), reducing carbohydrate in your diet is the best way to reduce them.
If you haven't looked into the exaggerations about statins, and the difference in relative risk and absolute risk, this video (which I've just watched) explains it all

It's just one of many great YT videos debunking claims about statins.
Geoff

Excellent thank you

 

[shelley262]

We have had about fifty years of lo fat brainwashing and we have developed a fear of fat so strong that a lot of folks just can't get past it. I try to convince them to do their own research but what really helps is that top notch scientists are now becoming less afraid to speak out against it with actual proof that the diet/heart connection re natural fats is a complete myth. In my humble opinion the cholesterol scaring tactics will go the same way.

I’m going to learn as much as possible and thank you so much for your support and advice

 

[shelley262]

Thanks to Jo-the-boat for the link. I have exactly the same problem as Shelley: Low HbA1c (36 consistently over 3 years but Total cholesterol has increased to 7.3. I cut out all saturated fat for 3 months but my total cholesterol did not change. However, HDL is 2.4 so my ratio of HDL to total cholesterol is less than 4 and so within NHS limits. I no longer get a triglyceride reading but am going to ask for it or sdLDL if poss. I will be offered statins. I will continue to say no thank you.

Interesting about the three month cut in saturated fat you’ve done the experiment for me! I need to get the triglyceride done too

 

[bulkbiker]

A very good point. I'm always amazed that something so essential for the body to work properly and actually produced by the body if there isn't enough, is deemed to be so terrible.

Me too that's why I don't believe that high cholesterol is of necessity "bad".

 

[Guzzler]

Do your research folks!

I read in an old article that the only people who should artificially lower their cholesterol are those who 'suffer' hpercholesterolaemia. The article also stated that these people suffered a much shorter life span.
A newer article I read said that hypercholesterolaemics suffer no such loss of longevity.

I left my reading there with the conclusion that, as Prof. Sikaris says, the full story of cholesterol's roles in the body are as yet unknown and this push by doctors to attain numbers that are plucked from the air could prove to be disastrous.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

Just watched David Diamond's lecture. Interesting, informative and clear.
I was speaking with a friend just yesterday (75-year-old English lady. Intelligent, retired nurse with a history of stroke herself and diabetes in her family). The fact that she's alive, alert and healthy (as far as I know) says something about her lifestyle and medical regimen, which does include small-dose statin and aspirin. We chatted about my LCHF diet and frankly, she was not overly impressed. This despite my weight loss. Why? Well, it was not the way she was taught. Not balanced enough, bad for the gut, we need carbs for energy etc. Not that she was unimpressed, just less impressed than I'd hoped.
I've just sent her a link to DD's video. I suspect that the first thing she'll say when I see her again is, 'Oh, he's American then?' (That's if she actually watches it).
David Diamond, the name, does sound a bit like a guy who could make airplanes disappear in a cloud of smoke or purport theories of man-made hurricanes or that the earth is flat. He might indeed do those things! But he also comes over as a very bright, unbiased man.
What I'm saying is that it's easy to debunk something for the wrong reasons, just as it's easier to follow the path of least resistance and heed the message of historical thinking, to take a pill, go home and watch TV.
Let's face it YouTube is so full of **** that anything meaningful gets swamped and tarred with the same brush. Who the hell wants to take any notice of people called Diamond or Fung when we can watch Slack Alice doing her finger-nails in skimpy underwear? Basically, it's only people in a mess (like you and me, to varying degrees) who need to search out anything meaningful.
Of course, changing peoples thinking is very difficult, particularly when so deeply ingrained in our collective conscience.
I hope my friend comes back and says something positive.

 

[shelley262]

Just watched David Diamond's lecture. Interesting, informative and clear.
I was speaking with a friend just yesterday (75-year-old English lady. Intelligent, retired nurse with a history of stroke herself and diabetes in her family). The fact that she's alive, alert and healthy (as far as I know) says something about her lifestyle and medical regimen, which does include small-dose statin and aspirin. We chatted about my LCHF diet and frankly, she was not overly impressed. This despite my weight loss. Why? Well, it was not the way she was taught. Not balanced enough, bad for the gut, we need carbs for energy etc. Not that she was unimpressed, just less impressed than I'd hoped.
I've just sent her a link to DD's video. I suspect that the first thing she'll say when I see her again is, 'Oh, he's American then?' (That's if she actually watches it).
David Diamond, the name, does sound a bit like a guy who could make airplanes disappear in a cloud of smoke or purport theories of man-made hurricanes or that the earth is flat. He might indeed do those things! But he also comes over as a very bright, unbiased man.
What I'm saying is that it's easy to debunk something for the wrong reasons, just as it's easier to follow the path of least resistance and heed the message of historical thinking, to take a pill, go home and watch TV.
Let's face it YouTube is so full of **** that anything meaningful gets swamped and tarred with the same brush. Who the hell wants to take any notice of people called Diamond or Fung when we can watch Slack Alice doing her finger-nails in skimpy underwear? Basically, it's only people in a mess (like you and me, to varying degrees) who need to search out anything meaningful.
Of course, changing peoples thinking is very difficult, particularly when so deeply ingrained in our collective conscience.
I hope my friend comes back and says something positive.

Hi I found the stats presented in this lecture particularly interesting and persuasive and what I do know about carbs and low fat is that they didn’t do me any favours in the past and lCHF is working for me now. We are all different too re our carb and medication tolerance etc too. My 87 year old diabetic mum who’s still dancing at times btw! Is a staunch believer in carbs, Metformin and statins and thinks quite frankly I’m mad why do that when you can take the pills and have the treats! However her kidney function is not good after 20 years of diabetes we have all to make individual choices based on as much unbiased info as we can get hold of. I just find it difficult when medical staff don’t support the positive bits and look for the negative evidence to support their way of thinking. Some people are lucky enough to stay fit and healthy despite what they do or which pills they do or don’t take! Some of us have to do the research and take action!

 

[Jo_the_boat]

Hi I found the stats presented in this lecture particularly interesting and persuasive and what I do know about carbs and low fat is that they didn’t do me any favours in the past and lCHF is working for me now. We are all different too re our carb and medication tolerance etc too. My 87 year old diabetic mum who’s still dancing at times btw! Is a staunch believer in carbs, Metformin and statins and thinks quite frankly I’m mad why do that when you can take the pills and have the treats! However her kidney function is not good after 20 years of diabetes we have all to make individual choices based on as much unbiased info as we can get hold of. I just find it difficult when medical staff don’t support the positive bits and look for the negative evidence to support their way of thinking. Some people are lucky enough to stay fit and healthy despite what they do or which pills they do or don’t take! Some of us have to do the research and take action!

Quite right Shelly, it's a very personal thing. How we got here, how we deal with it.
We read, watch and listen and try and make our minds up - it's not easy sometimes and categorically not one single solution.

 

[Guzzler]

Just watched David Diamond's lecture. Interesting, informative and clear.
I was speaking with a friend just yesterday (75-year-old English lady. Intelligent, retired nurse with a history of stroke herself and diabetes in her family). The fact that she's alive, alert and healthy (as far as I know) says something about her lifestyle and medical regimen, which does include small-dose statin and aspirin. We chatted about my LCHF diet and frankly, she was not overly impressed. This despite my weight loss. Why? Well, it was not the way she was taught. Not balanced enough, bad for the gut, we need carbs for energy etc. Not that she was unimpressed, just less impressed than I'd hoped.
I've just sent her a link to DD's video. I suspect that the first thing she'll say when I see her again is, 'Oh, he's American then?' (That's if she actually watches it).
David Diamond, the name, does sound a bit like a guy who could make airplanes disappear in a cloud of smoke or purport theories of man-made hurricanes or that the earth is flat. He might indeed do those things! But he also comes over as a very bright, unbiased man.
What I'm saying is that it's easy to debunk something for the wrong reasons, just as it's easier to follow the path of least resistance and heed the message of historical thinking, to take a pill, go home and watch TV.
Let's face it YouTube is so full of **** that anything meaningful gets swamped and tarred with the same brush. Who the hell wants to take any notice of people called Diamond or Fung when we can watch Slack Alice doing her finger-nails in skimpy underwear? Basically, it's only people in a mess (like you and me, to varying degrees) who need to search out anything meaningful.
Of course, changing peoples thinking is very difficult, particularly when so deeply ingrained in our collective conscience.
I hope my friend comes back and says something positive.

Slack Alice, now that dates you! Ahem... and me lol