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

High cholesterol on a lchf

Actually these studies were part of the movement that proved thst TC is meaningless, not the other way around. Considering the target group were 85 years old, then they probably did no last too long anyway after the study. Just long enough to show up the control group. As I said I had found and read the study itself, so have some confidence in the results over just a blog.
Although this study is not the one I reviewed, it is pointing in the same direction with its conclusion. I have not managed to access its data tables though.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12974874

And this is from the Lancet
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...oldest_old/links/0c96051c167cd74824000000.pdf
Edit to Add the followingL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23273646
 

I've always said you can find a study that proves anything, if you look hard enough.
Then you can find someone to convince you you've found the holy grail, if you look for them as well.

I've made my decision on what I would like my cholesterol to be, now I eat to achieve it.

It's harder than eating, then finding a study to prove whatever number I end up with is the right one, but it's the method I prefer.
And even then, it still fits into the centre group, at the bottom of the curve, in all the studies, so I reckon I'll keep it there.
 
If you like reading, then although this is a blog, it has a very good list of source references. I think the report I saw was the one that mentioned Framlingham study. It is in the Archive of Internal Medecine, but needs a professional membership to access it. Somehow I got to view a copy but cannot find it again yet. At least I now know who wrote it.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/27/myth-9/
 
Although, high cholesterol is better than very low cholesterol, I tend to pass over many bloggers that gloss over the fact that the position between higher, and lower, is found to be a better position than either extreme.
 
Interestingly, there are more than a handful of studies suggesting low TC is linked to greater likelihood of stroke. My frustration as a patient within the UK NHS framework, is the lack if deep knowledge by the GP cohort. For instance within our 5/6 year medical courses, future medics receive just 10 hours of nutritional education....really
 


Urban myth I'm afraid.
(Unless you have a link?)
 
I don't want to worry anyone, but during my research done for this thread, I came across several reports where low cholesterol is strongly linked to increased suicide, and aggressive behaviour leading to ABH or murder. These are what one would normally accept as being 'proper studies', but I have not posted their links here. I want a quiet life, so as I said - I will take the high road.
I think the telling thing for me was all the post mortem reports for CVE in general that showed the majority of events were associated with cadavers with low cholesterol (<3) but there seems to be an argument that the diseases suffered somehow caused the low cholesterol, i.e heart failure -=> dropped cholesterol. These blog discussions came up with interesting theories as to the causes (high BP, infections, post mortem degradtion of bloods), but totally ignored the obvious question - had the patients had high TC before they became ill, or were they always low, or taking statins/ dietary stanols?
EDIT TO ADD: the following is not quite the same thing, but is connected in that it is another lowered cholesterol study recently published in the BMJ 2016
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SunnyExpat, I'll go back into my archive and see if I can find a link
 
Sorry, I meant the urban myth that5/6 year medical courses only spend a day on nutrition.

I have never disputed abnormal cholesterol reading carries a greater risk.
Potentially greater lower, but as I said, I'll minimise my risk entirely and aim for the sweet spot in the middle.
 
I am not sure it matters anyway, since what they are taught may not be correct in the end. But your clarification helps. I do note that there have been some recent reports from Scandinavia that LCHF is being decried now as being ineffective and dangerous. This may be a backlash from the pseudo-food industry or big pharma, but it is growing louder. Greatest gripe seems to be that it does nothing to cure obesity, rather than any particular safety risk.
 
Very good Oldvatr! "Since what they are taught may not be correct in the end" spot on
 
KevinPotts said:
Very good Oldvatr! "Since what they are taught may not be correct in the end" spot on
Click to expand...

Nothing comes with a 100% guarantee.
Knowledge grows day by day.

I'm taking the chance it's not all 100% incorrect though.
 

It's like any diet.
Eat too much on the diet, it won't work.
Eat to the diet, finish the diet, and go back to your old ways, weight comes back on.

I have found the only way I lose weight, is to eat less food than the amount that makes me put it on.
Then continue eating less than the point at which I increase weight.

Self education, and realising I need to impose limits on myself.
I think that is why the Scandinavian way isn't following through, it was sold as a magic bullet, eat as much as you want of certain types of food, without changing the underlying attitude to food overall.
We're living in an age with a glut of food, and it's cheap, and easily available.
 

Actually, a quick google came up with this from 2013, so maybe it isn't just obesity worrying them.
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5606616
 
 
Don't you just love it when people use the 'but it doesn't cure obesity' defence?

No sh%t Sherlock!
If they had actually FOUND a universal obesity-cure for ALL then none of us would be fat.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…