I will eat as much fat as I want!!!

Osidge · Apr 21, 2017

zand said:
As I said in a previous thread Sid, I reckon your 'not adding fat', and my normal 'high fat' probably amount to the same thing as I was very low fat before.

Like the thread title says we are also both eating as much fat as we want.

I have to agree that we are talking about unknown quantities of fat but I find some people's ways of expressing themselves open to misinterpretation and, therefore, having a distinct possibility of misleading. A statement such as the title of this thread could be seen by some as meaning I will eat loads of fat. The whole acronym, LCHF is similarly a loose descriptor that is greatly open to misinterpretation. I remember the heady days of LCHF on this forum when some were certainly giving out the message that carbs were in a thimble whilst fat was in a tanker!!

Squire Fulwood · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
The whole acronym, LCHF is similarly a loose descriptor that is greatly open to misinterpretation.

We've all been round this particular loop many times and during one of the recursive loops I suggested altering it to what one of the professors called it. Low Carb Healthy Fat and it was not popular. It seems people like having ambiguous acronyms so I might as well give up on that point.

I think it was either Fettke or Noakes that called it healthy fat.

I checked and it is Fettke.

Totto · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
I have to agree that we are talking about unknown quantities of fat but I find some people's ways of expressing themselves open to misinterpretation and, therefore, having a distinct possibility of misleading. A statement such as the title of this thread could be seen by some as meaning I will eat loads of fat. The whole acronym, LCHF is similarly a loose descriptor that is greatly open to misinterpretation. I remember the heady days of LCHF on this forum when some were certainly giving out the message that carbs were in a thimble whilst fat was in a tanker!!

LCHF is often, but certainly not always, a way of eating where the macro nutrients are 80E% fat, 15E% protein and 5 E% carbs. If you need 2200 calories per day, for example, you would eat around 200 grams of fat per day. This is a way of eating I have followed for the past few years.

My HbA1c has been 32-35 since I started strict LCHF. My cholesterol breakdown numbers improved and are now excellent.

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

zand said:
As I said in a previous thread Sid, I reckon your 'not adding fat', and my normal 'high fat' probably amount to the same thing as I was very low fat before.

Like the thread title says we are also both eating as much fat as we want.

Yes, I seem to getting a bit of stick for admiring a business model, while also eating as much fat as I want.
Maybe it seems to be less than others think I should be wanting possibly.

serenity648 · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
I have to agree that we are talking about unknown quantities of fat but I find some people's ways of expressing themselves open to misinterpretation and, therefore, having a distinct possibility of misleading. A statement such as the title of this thread could be seen by some as meaning I will eat loads of fat. The whole acronym, LCHF is similarly a loose descriptor that is greatly open to misinterpretation. I remember the heady days of LCHF on this forum when some were certainly giving out the message that carbs were in a thimble whilst fat was in a tanker!!

The use of the word 'I' twice in the title seems to me to be a big clue that the OP is speaking personally.

Avocado Sevenfold · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
I have to agree that we are talking about unknown quantities of fat but I find some people's ways of expressing themselves open to misinterpretation and, therefore, having a distinct possibility of misleading. A statement such as the title of this thread could be seen by some as meaning I will eat loads of fat. The whole acronym, LCHF is similarly a loose descriptor that is greatly open to misinterpretation. I remember the heady days of LCHF on this forum when some were certainly giving out the message that carbs were in a thimble whilst fat was in a tanker!!

I remember those days too. How much butter can one shoehorn into a creamy coffee? lol Memories.

I would describe my woe as lower carb/healthy plant fat. Never felt better

cdpjpharmacist · Apr 21, 2017

seadragon said:
Everyone is free to make their own choices but its good to have both sides of the story and for me there was enough scientific evidence that cholesterol was not a major factor in heart disease for me to be sure I would never take a statin. As it happens the low carb high fat diet improved my lipid profile significantly so my doctor no longer offered me a statin anyway. And I hope that by avoiding the damage done by high carb diets ,the cholesterol I do have will not be having to repair any damage so wont be making any plaques. There does also seem to be evidence that higher cholesterol is better than low for older people and that taking a statin has not helped women in general. I'm also not prepared to risk the side effects and have heard too many stories of people effectively crippled by them and so no longer taking the exercise which would have been helpful in keeping them healthy. The fact statins are known to increase blood sugar levels is also a worry and their effects on coQ10 which is not mentioned by UK doctors (though it is prescribed along with statins in Germany). The artificial lowering of what is acceptable levels also seems to coincide with statin manufacturers wanting to push more drugs on to us.

Thank you for bringing up the point that statins block the production of CoQ10 and that a CoQ10 supplement can help rebuild your levels. As a consulting pharmacist for Qunol CoQ10, I’ve spent a lot of time educating people about this topic. When considering a CoQ10 supplement, you should choose one that is both water and fat-soluble which is better absorbed by the body than regular CoQ10.

Please note that my comment is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read.

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

cdpjpharmacist said:
Thank you for bringing up the point that statins block the production of CoQ10 and that a CoQ10 supplement can help rebuild your levels. As a consulting pharmacist for Qunol CoQ10, I’ve spent a lot of time educating people about this topic. When considering a CoQ10 supplement, you should choose one that is both water and fat-soluble which is better absorbed by the body than regular CoQ10.

Please note that my comment is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read.

is it not worth mentioning the cheaper oxidized form, ubiquinone, in nearly worthless?

The reduced form, ubiquinol, while being a lot more expensive, is probably the only one actually useful as a supplement.
(Although, to be fair, I've tried both for two months, and neither seemed to make a difference)

kumera · Apr 21, 2017

douglas99 said:
I don't really care either way what anyone chooses to eat to be honest.
Find the diet that suits you.
And I have no problem with answering you question as to where the figure for 30,000 members came from.
I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

I just like to dispel the smoke and mirrors, even if some facts some a bit bothersome occasionally.
Everyone deserves the right to choose wisely.

Yes, everyone has the right to chose. When diagnosed I looked all over the net for a way to reverse my prediabetes. I tried curcumin tablets, Apple Cider Vinegar, Probiotics, herbal teas, which all cost a fair amount of money. Then I came across some people claiming to have reversed diabetes by changing their diet to low carb. I thought like you? must be fake. I know for a fact that fat is bad and who can live without carbs? I saw more evidence, scientific research, personal experiences and decided to try it. My BG came down, I lost weight. Seemed to work fine. I decided to get a cookbook and could have chosen any LCHF book, there's heaps out there. I ended up with 'The low carb high fat food revolution by a fluke. I liked the cover It hardly had any recipes in it, but it had heaps of scientific facts, different research, historic facts aso It all made real good sense. If your body has to much sugar, cut out food that makes more sugar!! Yes, authors makes money of their books. Good on them. I'm glad someone is doing well from an excellent idea, but going low carb is absolutely free. There is no smoke and mirrors. No one is forcing anyone to eat low carb, whatever works for you, that's fine. But people have to know there is a choice, like you said So basically I agree with you. Freedom of choice means you have to know what there is to chose from

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

kumera said:
Yes, everyone has the right to chose. When diagnosed I looked all over the net for a way to reverse my prediabetes. I tried curcumin tablets, Apple Cider Vinegar, Probiotics, herbal teas, which all cost a fair amount of money. Then I came across some people claiming to have reversed diabetes by changing their diet to low carb. I thought like you? must be fake. I know for a fact that fat is bad and who can live without carbs? I saw more evidence, scientific research, personal experiences and decided to try it. My BG came down, I lost weight. Seemed to work fine. I decided to get a cookbook and could have chosen any LCHF book, there's heaps out there. I ended up with 'The low carb high fat food revolution by a fluke. I liked the cover It hardly had any recipes in it, but it had heaps of scientific facts, different research, historic facts aso It all made real good sense. If your body has to much sugar, cut out food that makes more sugar!! Yes, authors makes money of their books. Good on them. I'm glad someone is doing well from an excellent idea, but going low carb is absolutely free. There is no smoke and mirrors. No one is forcing anyone to eat low carb, whatever works for you, that's fine. But people have to know there is a choice, like you said So basically I agree with you. Freedom of choice means you have to know what there is to chose from

Yes, indeed you do.
Warts and all though, everyone has to pay the piper eventually.

kumera · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
True that you can find all sorts of information. My arteries are free from plaques (cardiac MRIs and ultrasounds during some cardiac research) and I want to keep it that way. If you had read the link you posted that even the researchers acknowledged the inadequacies of their research!

I know, that's the thing. Even Scientists can't agree.

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.
A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.
Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.
The authors have called for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for theprevention of cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, a hardening and narrowing of the arteries, because “the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated”.
The results have prompted immediate scepticism from other academics, however, who questioned the paper’s balance.
High cholesterol is commonly caused by an unhealthy diet, and eating high levels of saturated fat in particular, as well as smoking.
It is carried in the blood attached to proteins called lipoproteins and has been traditionally linked to cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease and aortic disease.
Co-author of the study Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an intermediate care GP, acknowledged the findings would cause controversy but defended them as “robust” and “thoroughly reviewed”.
“What we found in our detailed systematic review was that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease.”
Vascular and endovascular surgery expert Professor Sherif Sultan from the University of Ireland, who also worked on the study, said cholesterol is one of the “most vital” molecules in the body and prevents infection, cancer, muscle pain and other conditions in elderly people.
“Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life,” he said.
Lead author Dr Uffe Ravnskov, a former associate professor of renal medicine at Lund University in Sweden, said there was “no reason” to lower high-LDL-cholesterol.

Off course some scientists don't agree with this as well That's why it's so nice that people can make up their own mind who to believe.. Have a nice day

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

kumera said:
I know, that's the thing. Even Scientists can't agree.

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.
A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.
Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.
The authors have called for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for theprevention of cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, a hardening and narrowing of the arteries, because “the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated”.
The results have prompted immediate scepticism from other academics, however, who questioned the paper’s balance.
High cholesterol is commonly caused by an unhealthy diet, and eating high levels of saturated fat in particular, as well as smoking.
It is carried in the blood attached to proteins called lipoproteins and has been traditionally linked to cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease and aortic disease.
Co-author of the study Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an intermediate care GP, acknowledged the findings would cause controversy but defended them as “robust” and “thoroughly reviewed”.
“What we found in our detailed systematic review was that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease.”
Vascular and endovascular surgery expert Professor Sherif Sultan from the University of Ireland, who also worked on the study, said cholesterol is one of the “most vital” molecules in the body and prevents infection, cancer, muscle pain and other conditions in elderly people.
“Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life,” he said.
Lead author Dr Uffe Ravnskov, a former associate professor of renal medicine at Lund University in Sweden, said there was “no reason” to lower high-LDL-cholesterol.

Off course some scientists don't agree with this as well That's why it's so nice that people can make up their own mind who to believe.. Have a nice day

This is going to an open and shut case, with medical records now, it'll be simple to pull them for those who drop dead in the future.

Osidge · Apr 21, 2017

Avocado Sevenfold said:
I remember those days too. How much butter can one shoehorn into a creamy coffee? lol Memories.

I would describe my woe as lower carb/healthy plant fat. Never felt better

Sounds good to me. Long may you continue to feel good.

Osidge · Apr 21, 2017

kumera said:
I know, that's the thing. Even Scientists can't agree.

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.
A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.
Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.
The authors have called for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for theprevention of cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, a hardening and narrowing of the arteries, because “the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated”.
The results have prompted immediate scepticism from other academics, however, who questioned the paper’s balance.
High cholesterol is commonly caused by an unhealthy diet, and eating high levels of saturated fat in particular, as well as smoking.
It is carried in the blood attached to proteins called lipoproteins and has been traditionally linked to cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease and aortic disease.
Co-author of the study Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an intermediate care GP, acknowledged the findings would cause controversy but defended them as “robust” and “thoroughly reviewed”.
“What we found in our detailed systematic review was that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease.”
Vascular and endovascular surgery expert Professor Sherif Sultan from the University of Ireland, who also worked on the study, said cholesterol is one of the “most vital” molecules in the body and prevents infection, cancer, muscle pain and other conditions in elderly people.
“Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life,” he said.
Lead author Dr Uffe Ravnskov, a former associate professor of renal medicine at Lund University in Sweden, said there was “no reason” to lower high-LDL-cholesterol.

Off course some scientists don't agree with this as well That's why it's so nice that people can make up their own mind who to believe.. Have a nice day

Great if you are elderly. But if you are not?

Osidge · Apr 21, 2017

douglas99 said:
This is going to an open and shut case, with medical records now, it'll be simple to pull them for those who drop dead in the future.

You would think so and research would be well served. Sadly many Brits are not willing to help clinical research in that way. Many people want the cures and better quality of life but are not president armed to help.

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

Well, I'm going for the classic interpretation, and keeping cholesterol within the NHS targets.

But, with medical records now for most of our members, we'll see feedback either way from elevated cholesterol within a few years.
Possibly it's something this site could start collating data on?
High/ow cholesterol, who died first?
Probably something they could sell on?

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
You would think so and research would be well served. Sadly many Brits are not willing to help clinical research in that way. Many people want the cures and better quality of life but are not president armed to help.

Medical records aren't private, we signed all rights away for data collection, when we agreed to share online, even with ourselves. I read what I ticked the box for, and to be honest, I was happy to sign away my results. (anonymously, apparently)

Osidge · Apr 21, 2017

cdpjpharmacist said:
Thank you for bringing up the point that statins block the production of CoQ10 and that a CoQ10 supplement can help rebuild your levels. As a consulting pharmacist for Qunol CoQ10, I’ve spent a lot of time educating people about this topic. When considering a CoQ10 supplement, you should choose one that is both water and fat-soluble which is better absorbed by the body than regular CoQ10.

Please note that my comment is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read.

Not much evidence that is conclusive for CoQ10 supplementation for statin users even for those with myosotis/myopathy. If you know of any conclusively positive research and, particularly involving statin use without muscle problems, I would appreciate links.

Osidge · Apr 21, 2017

douglas99 said:
Medical records aren't private, we signed all rights away for data collection, when we agreed to share online, even with ourselves. I read what I ticked the box for, and to be honest, I was happy to sign away my results. (anonymously, apparently)

Not everyone has agreed to that sharing.

douglas99 · Apr 21, 2017

Osidge said:
Not everyone has agreed to that sharing.

True, but it's quite hard not to, and it's a repeated question, you only have to miss once on my local authority.

I will eat as much fat as I want!!!

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

serenity648

Guest

Avocado Sevenfold

Guest

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency