My 6 wk LCHF results are in. Good, nearly good and not so good!

On a scale of one to ten, I'd rather (10) drop dead nice and cleanly from a cardiac arrest than wither and die from diabetic complications, or Cancer, or endure Alzheimer's for decades, or step in front of a bus because I'm so confused.

Myangelsmom said:

But the results say normal. Why would you drug someone if their results are normal? That makes no sense. ALL drugs have side effect. Therefore you'd be risking abnormal side effects to prevent something that may never happen in the first place? I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

The cholesterol target levels are lower for type 2 diabetics than non-diabetics:

Cholesterol targets for people with diabetes
NICE does not specify target cholesterol levels for people with diabetes. Diabetes UK provides the following guideline cholesterol levels to aim for:

• Total cholesterol: under 4.0 mmol/l
• LDL levels: below 2.0 mmol/l
• HDL levels: at least 1.0 mmol/l (men) or 1.2 mmol/l (women)
• Triglyceride levels: less than (or equal to) 1.7 mmol/l

from: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/Diabetes-and-cholesterol.html

My latest cholesterol came back at 2.9, down from 6.4 on the lowest dose of atorvastatin. I rang two close friends, one a medic and one a physiologist, and both said stay on the statin. Apparently there is growing evidence that there are lots of positive things they do apart from lower cholesterol and if you can tolerate them (which I can) they are worth being on.

Myangelsmom said:

On the same topic (rather than start a new post):

My 3-month bloodwork appointment was yesterday, I got a printout of it and the one previous (Feb). My hba1c went from 6.8 to 5.3 - good news. BUT... my HDL went down from 1mmol to 0.9 mmol ( bottom of normal) and my LDL went UP from 4 mmol to 4.1 mmol - so ??? Though, the "serum cholesterol went from 5.9 mmol to 5.7 mmol. Now at the last appointment the DN nurse going over my results wanted me on statins because my cholesterol was bad (though the printout I have says results are normal, this time a different DN said my results were just fine, though she was concerned that my "bad" cholesterol was going up. But again, the printout says normal.

I'm so confused.

Click to expand...

1.0 to 0.9. 4.0 to 4.1 in the scheme of things I doubt that represents any change. stick with what you're doing... the 1c rocks.

berylc said:

HbA1c Metformin days 62
LCHF days 56

Cholestrol on statins 3.4
Off statins 5.8
HD no change but LD gone from 1.6 to 4.49

Seems the 2 really major spikes I had in my HbA1c were in 2012 when my baby grandson was very ill and in 2014 when I was assaulted in my house by a man fixing the boiler! Otherwise I have been able to get levels down before with diet and exercise. Nurse agreed that I can stay off diabetic medication, but we agreed to 1/2 dose simvastatin for 6 wks and see if it has any effect on my health and cholestrol

All in all the nurse was pleased with the results. I would have liked lower HbA1c but I have another 6 wks to improve things.

Your advice?

Click to expand...

carry on as you and the 1c will carry on... that's the major one for me anyway.

Personally I wouldn't touch statins with a barge pole. Why would we evolve to produce a substance that was inherently harmful? For most people statins raise HbA1c. For many, many people, statins produce joint and muscle pain, this reduces mobility. Reduced mobility = reduced movement = lowered general fitness levels. For fewer people, statins produce memory problems (the brain consists of 80% cholesterol) and confusion. Suicides and accidental deaths are increased with statin users. And for a very small number of people, statins result in Transient Global Amnesia (total memory loss) and Rhabdomyolisis (potentially fatal and usually irreversible). And there have been NO clinical studies that have shown any advantage for women in taking statins. In fact the women with highest cholesterol have the longest life expectancy. The only group of people who have been shown to demonstrate a benefit from statin therapy are men with pre-existing heart disease, but, since the benefits are reported in relative risk reduction, the 1% or 2% benefit is reported as a 50% reduction in risk playing with numbers to exaggerate benefits. It is believed (yes largely by the statin sceptics) that this benefit is due to the anti-inflammatory action of statins. A LCHF diet is anti-inflammatory anyway, but mainstream doctors don't realise that.

I am not sure how much you exercise, but it seemed to have worked with me. I exercised my butt off and my triglyc is 1.1, HDL is 1.0 and LDL is .7. Admittedly I am still on 10mg of statin (down from 40) although its due to be reviewed (I have also avoided saturated fats like the plague).
Which worked I cannot say, but I suspect that the statins did their job before I started doing mine and paid attention to the saturated stuff. Of course which route you take is your decision. In any case the very best for the future.

AloeSvea said:

Just a note - Cardio vascular disease/strokes IS the most dangerous 'complication' of T2D! (Amputation, blindness, deafness are hidious but not life threatening I guess is what I am saying.)
If we are going to die from T2D too early, it's from a stroke - right? Why we are so involved in discussing our heart health - and too right too. (We also have increased risk of cancer, due probably to the role of glucose in cancer cell growth.) (They need it to replicate, more glucose - more chances of replication of cancer cells, put simply.)

I am pleased we're all in here going over the ins and outs of heart health. It is indeed, hugely important.

Click to expand...

Yes, but CVD and stroke, like cancer, are not caused by cholesterol.

NoCrbs4Me said:

The cholesterol target levels are lower for type 2 diabetics than non-diabetics:

Cholesterol targets for people with diabetes
NICE does not specify target cholesterol levels for people with diabetes. Diabetes UK provides the following guideline cholesterol levels to aim for:

• Total cholesterol: under 4.0 mmol/l
• LDL levels: below 2.0 mmol/l
• HDL levels: at least 1.0 mmol/l (men) or 1.2 mmol/l (women)
• Triglyceride levels: less than (or equal to) 1.7 mmol/l

from: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/Diabetes-and-cholesterol.html

Click to expand...

My wife's enlightened doc said to her when discussing her lipid panel results just this week:

"Your trigs are great st .75

Your HDL Is great st 2.0

Your LDL is high at 3.6... But don't worry.... With those other numbers your LDL will be big and fluffy... Carry on eating as many eggs and as much cheese as you want"

What a liberating response from
our great GP


Diagnosed 13/4/16: T2, no meds, HbA1c 53, FBG 12.6, Trigs 3.6, HDL .75, LDL 4.0, BP 169/95, 13st 8lbs, waist 34" (2012 - 17st 7lbs, w 42").

6/6/16: FBG AV 4.6, Trigs 1.5, HDL 2.0, LDL 3.0, BP 112/68, BPM 66, 11st 11lbs, waist 30".

Regime: 20g LCHF, run 1 mile daily, weekly fasting.

NoCrbs4Me said:

Yes, but CVD and stroke, like cancer, are not caused by cholesterol.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if what you say is accurate. The American Society of Cardiologists, articles on WebMD, the Harvard School of Medicine and the European Society of Cardiologists are at odds with your opinion. You might want to look at the Score Chart on CVD at www.escardio.org/EACPR.

fene48 said:

I am not sure if what you say is accurate. The American Society of Cardiologists, articles on WebMD, the Harvard School of Medicine and the European Society of Cardiologists are at odds with your opinion. You might want to look at the Score Chart on CVD at www.escardio.org/EACPR.

Click to expand...

The Canadian Diabetes Association tells me to eat lots of carbs and little fat. Should I listen to them as well? Often these big medical organizations get things wrong. The mainstream medical theory is that eating saturated fat and cholesterol raises your blood cholesterol and that causes CVD. But non-statin cholesterol lowered my drugs have no affect on CVD rates, so there's something wrong with that hypothesis. There is strong evidence that low HDL and high triglycerides are associated with CVD, but the best way to raise HDL and lower triglycerides is a LCHF diet. Anyway, you can find all this info in Pubmed searches as well.

NoCrbs4Me said:

The Canadian Diabetes Association tells me to eat lots of carbs and little fat. Should I listen to them as well? Often these big medical organizations get things wrong. The mainstream medical theory is that eating saturated fat and cholesterol raises your blood cholesterol and that causes CVD. But non-statin cholesterol lowered my drugs have no affect on CVD rates, so there's something wrong with that hypothesis. There is strong evidence that low HDL and high triglycerides are associated with CVD, but the best way to raise HDL and lower triglycerides is a LCHF diet. Anyway, you can find all this info in Pubmed searches as well.

Click to expand...

Emmm... So the Canadians have also bought into Mr Keys Diet Heart Hypothesis...Ah...the more the merrier... roll out Mr Yudkin, he of the ignominious career actually had it spot on should anybody be interested


Diagnosed 13/4/16: T2, no meds, HbA1c 53, FBG 12.6, Trigs 3.6, HDL .75, LDL 4.0, BP 169/95, 13st 8lbs, waist 34" (2012 - 17st 7lbs, w 42").

6/6/16: FBG AV 4.6, Trigs 1.5, HDL 2.0, LDL 3.0, BP 112/68, BPM 66, 11st 11lbs, waist 30".

Regime: 20g LCHF, run 1 mile daily, weekly fasting.

Lizj said:

My latest cholesterol came back at 2.9, down from 6.4 on the lowest dose of atorvastatin. I rang two close friends, one a medic and one a physiologist, and both said stay on the statin. Apparently there is growing evidence that there are lots of positive things they do apart from lower cholesterol and if you can tolerate them (which I can) they are worth being on.

Click to expand...

I am also one who will stay on statins as I have not had any trouble tolerating them and I want to keep my cholesterol down There is growing evidence that they can prevent breast cancer from returning in those women who have already had it and I am sure they will want to take them if recommended to minimise the risk. Nice to hear something positive about them

I keep swinging between I will never take a statin again and maybe I should take them as my Cardio vascular surgeon advises me to. So I think for the moment as I tolerate them reasonably well I shall continue to take them.

My pharmacist also told me they are good for strengthening the heart. I will see what my next HbA1c and cholesterol figures are like, and might then decide to go back on them.

Myangelsmom said:

On the same topic (rather than start a new post):

My 3-month bloodwork appointment was yesterday, I got a printout of it and the one previous (Feb). My hba1c went from 6.8 to 5.3 - good news. BUT... my HDL went down from 1mmol to 0.9 mmol ( bottom of normal) and my LDL went UP from 4 mmol to 4.1 mmol - so ??? Though, the "serum cholesterol went from 5.9 mmol to 5.7 mmol. Now at the last appointment the DN nurse going over my results wanted me on statins because my cholesterol was bad (though the printout I have says results are normal, this time a different DN said my results were just fine, though she was concerned that my "bad" cholesterol was going up. But again, the printout says normal.

I'm so confused.

Click to expand...

Myangelsmom said:

On the same topic (rather than start a new post):

My 3-month bloodwork appointment was yesterday, I got a printout of it and the one previous (Feb). My hba1c went from 6.8 to 5.3 - good news. BUT... my HDL went down from 1mmol to 0.9 mmol ( bottom of normal) and my LDL went UP from 4 mmol to 4.1 mmol - so ??? Though, the "serum cholesterol went from 5.9 mmol to 5.7 mmol. Now at the last appointment the DN nurse going over my results wanted me on statins because my cholesterol was bad (though the printout I have says results are normal, this time a different DN said my results were just fine, though she was concerned that my "bad" cholesterol was going up. But again, the printout says normal.

I'm so confused.

Click to expand...

Hi Myangelsmom, don't worry about your LDL level! So-called "bad" cholesterol actually isn't the demon everyone tells you it is! Please look up Ivor Cummins on YouTube. This guy is a biochemical engineer and explains things brilliantly (and backs it up with solid evidence). He should allay you worries.

JohnEGreen said:

I keep swinging between I will never take a statin again and maybe I should take them as my Cardio vascular surgeon advises me to. So I think for the moment as I tolerate them reasonably well I shall continue to take them.

Click to expand...

Meta- analyses of hundreds of thousands of people have shown that statins only help those who have already had a heart attack or stroke. Even then they only extend life by a tiny fraction, with many users suffering severe side effects. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick explains all in The Great Cholesterol Con, as well as in several YouTube videos. Must -see info!

impgolf said:

Meta- analyses of hundreds of thousands of people have shown that statins only help those who have already had a heart attack or stroke. Even then they only extend life by a tiny fraction, with many users suffering severe side effects. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick explains all in The Great Cholesterol Con, as well as in several YouTube videos. Must -see info!

Click to expand...

Spot on...Kendrick has just been on BBC Breakfast. That book is great, I'd just forgotten the title


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum mobile app