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

High cholesterol on a lchf

Brunneria said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately LCHF seems to be in there with all the other diets at the moment, so you're right, it's not a cure all that ails you.
 
 
Brunneria said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like the new Avatar, B
 
Yes it does SunnyExpat. I watched the Statins 2 video last night and was intrigued by the Japanese Prof summarising the analysis of several in depth cholesterol RCTs, where the total mortality rate for low cholesterol was in every instance higher than the high cholesterol sufferers. Really quite interesting.
 

The danger with that is the making of the assumption it's the cholesterol that kills you.
It could be equally valid to go with the popular premise that too high cholesterol leads to death.
And many, many people have high cholesterol, so the aim of the game is to reduce that number to a normal figure.
Unfortunately, many seem to assume because HCP's like to decrease the high figure, (to a normal reading), it's then acceptable to quote studies where cholesterol is too low, and show that is bad, and make a leap that HCP's want to reduce the cholesterol to as low as possible. (They don't, guidelines have a clear minimum figure)
So, if we dismiss that there is no bottom limit in the HCP's guidelines, clearly too low is indeed bad.
So statins, diet, any control comes with guides to high, and low numbers.
It's not the free for all some would claim.

But, low cholesterol?
Two things to consider there.
A much smaller number of people have lower, rather than higher cholesterol.
So it's not a major killer, and won't attract the resource needed to save a much lower amount of lives.
And what if the mechanism is entirely different?
We all agree cholesterol is required, at a target number.
So, instead, what if the patient has an illness, that is causing them to die, and one of the symptoms of that illness is lowering cholesterol?
Rather than low cholesterol is the illness?

So, effectively, high cholesterol kills you.
But the other side of the coin, whatever kills, you, lowers cholesterol beyond a survivable point?
 
What I take from this discussion is that high TC values show higher risk of ischemic stroke, but no increase in other CVE's. Low cholesterol increases risk of haemorrhagic stroke (sp?) and other non CVE mortality so that total mortality risk is increased compared to a high TC.
If you can keep in the sweetspot then it is good, but as we grow older, it seems the sweetspot moves up higher.
 
Do you ever wonder if you are over-thinking this? Don't wish to be rude, but none of us are immortal - we are all going to die of something, and we can each only die of one thing!
Since my major DVT incident 18 months ago, I've gotten significantly more philosophical - I've chosen the theories that impress me / I wish to adhere to - and I just follow those. None of us are ever going to be immortal, I would prefer to go to something swift than something that leaves me lingering in a vegetative state. I think that much of modern medicine is garbage - watch your back medecine - nothing to do with promoting wellness and everything to do with preventing legal come-backs. Just my thoughts, hope I'm not being offensive!
 
I hope you do not think me offensive if I disagree with that. The Forum is a meeting place to discuss topics that interest or affect us. If it had not been for information that I picked up here, then I personally would be facing a very bleak time of things now. As it is, what I learnt has given me choices and self empowerment to take control of my condition, and improve my outcome quite significantly. I also hope that by sharing this knowledge, that I in turn will help others make improvements to their lives.
The reason why we have such lengthy discussions is that there is a lot of information available to us. Some is good, much is bad, and it is important when someone posts info on here that we evaluate it and hold it up to the light. When it is laid bare, then it is up to others to make up their own mind. If they choose differently from my viewpoint, then that is their journey. All I can do is to try to make sure they have the best info I can give them to help them make an informed choice. If something posted is rubbish, then I hope to make it clear why it is possibly not a good choice, or why I follow a different path for myself. Simples, no?
 
No, totally respect your opinion - the thing that strikes me is that I suspect none of us are actually going to KNOW any final conclusions - it's so complex - and the stuff we read is so contradictory, I really feel that each of us only has the option to go with our gut feeling! I feel that I am at least DOING SOMETHING (sorry, not shouting, just emphasising a point). I think I've found the key to my improved health and well being - but I do respect the perspectives of others. And I am quite aware that my solutions may not be the right ones. My mother died at about my age - much too young - but I do bear in mind that every year of health is a bonus - a gift, and never take it for granted.
 
I am doing LCHF, and for me it seems to be working, so I try to understand it better each day. But it is not the only way of using diet to control bgl, and I realize it is not for everybody. I am also very, very aware that it is not perfection, and there are things about it that may be taking me down a path I may regret later. that is why I research it as best I can. Like the discussion we had here on cholesterol, I learnt things that my research picked up, and which I posted today as a sort of summing up of where I am now, and it is different from where I was yesterday. So I try not to make any Final Conclusions since we all reach our own final Conclusion in the end, and each one will be different and unique to us - regardless of what the NICE text book says.
 
Yep, I've nailed my colours to the LCHF mast too - for me it just makes perfect sense, but only time will tell. We are experimenting, with ourselves as the guinea pigs, but what went before wasn't particularly successful, was it?
 
For me I see the other angle too.. That we all have to die at some point.
I personally worry that any diet that reduces any vitamins / minerals or indeed heightens others may cause other illnesses such as cancer or critical illness such as arthritis etc..
I often wonder did my lowering carbs for all my adult life contribute towards my stomach giving up working or my cancer? I chose that option of eating from a young age - I didn't even realise til this forum that I was a lower carber way before it was known as lchf. It was just my way of life. Did it contribute towards other illnesses? Don't know...it may well be all bad genes. I just worry that people may be trying to avoid heart problems but giving themselves other illnesses...I agree that none of us are immortal.. Yes ut would be good to just go to sleep and not wake up but even that is effectively heart stopping working.. Having now fighting to keep my colon and stave off more cancer I am a little concerned that people just focus on diet and cholesterol...
 

Agree entirely.
I worry that some focus on a very small part of the entire picture.
For me the theories that don't impress me, (not in the sense they are rubbish, but the intelligent ones that challenge my viewpoint) are the ones I am interested in.
If it works for me, I don't need to read it works, I need to read it if will have other effects I need to be aware of.
 
Very good. As a new T2 diag (3 weeks yesterday) I've absorbed tons of information, but perhaps I also need to be sure I retain a good, broad viewed vantage point. Thanks for the reminder.

By the way, I supplement daily with LCHF, certainly need to if I want to keep up the salt, potassium and magnesium, with all the water I'm drinking.
 
We all have this great unknowing.

For me, cholesterol is the LEAST of my worries.
I found out 9 months ago that I have been vit D deficient most of my adult life. (The symptoms have been there 30 years).

So now I supplement. And worrit about balancing K2, Vit F (omegas), calcium, magnesium, and the implications for calcification and osteoporosis... 30 yrs of damage isn't something I feel I can rectify quickly!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boy that's tough Brunneria, I feel for you.
 
KevinPotts said:
Boy that's tough Brunneria, I feel for you.
Click to expand...

The really sad thing is that there are a LOT of us in the same postition re Vit D, and most have NO IDEA. And then if we do discover it, we are prescribed huge amounts of Vit D, with none of the other balancing vits and mins... which doesn't really help.

I am still learning, but I know that at least things won't get worse - for me.
 
And if we're in that position with Vitamin D, even more of us are likely to be deficient in K2 unless we're eating food that is normally not recommended like fatty French cheeses or unpalatable to our Western tastes (like fermented soy natto and/or offal).
 
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.…