Normal is no longer normal...?

I've seen that before. The issue is that "normals" reflect the population that you are sampling.

A better measure is whether statistical normal has changed over a period of time, so using the Cholesterol numbers, has the median cholesterol level amongst a large enough sample of untreated people remained the same or got worse? If the latter, then there is more likely to be an issue.

I saw an article a few years ago. How did a high percentage of Americans become obese overnight? The powers that be changed the guidelines as to what was 'normal' and those who the day before had been termed merely overweight were now in the obese section.

In 1997 the endocrinologist was happy if my total cholesterol was 7, over the years that number has dropped to below 4. Who knows what data was used to change that recommendation. Or was it just a way of getting more and more people taking a statin.

DavidGrahamJones said:

In 1997 the endocrinologist was happy if my total cholesterol was 7, over the years that number has dropped to below 4. Who knows what data was used to change that recommendation. Or was it just a way of getting more and more people taking a statin.

Click to expand...

Thats a tricky one, now let me see. I will have to think about this for..............oh at least two seconds.

I read Medical literature extensively. Unfortunately I don't take notes, and I can't always remember where I read it. A huge pharmaceutical company Chief Exec, just before statins, said at the Annual meeting that the secret to huge profitability was not to cure people, but to invent a pill that you could convince virtually everybody that they needed to take, and they needed to be on the drug for life. Then along came statins.

I really, really rate Zoe Harcombe. She is courageous, honest and intelligent, her arguments are convincing. I totally agree that the ever lowering targets for total cholesterol and LDL are based on extremely shaky science. My TC is in the upper sevens, before I adopted the LCHF diet, it was worse, if you believe what they say, it was eight point six. But I believe it's irrelevant so I won't take the statins. And I also think blood pressure is not nearly so critical as we are told. I was a paramedical professional. When I was training in the seventies a normal BP was one hundred plus your age over forty less, so a sixty year old was one hundred and sixty over one hundred and twenty. Now they aim for everybody to have the BP of a twenty year old

However, I do think diabetes is different, in this respect. Because they don't test Insulin in circulation, fasting BGs are the best way to detect early signs of insulin resistance. I was prediabetic. I am no longer prediabetic because I had the opportunity and the ability to completely remedy this by simple and sustained changes to my diet, by adopting a LCHF diet and sticking to it. In this way, I believe I have completely eliminated the likelihood of my ever becoming diabetic, only time will tell, despite my overwhelming family history of diabetes. And as another benefit, I have attained those twenty year old BP readings

AtkinsMo said:

When I was training in the seventies a normal BP was one hundred plus your age over forty less, so a sixty year old was one hundred and sixty over one hundred and twenty. Now they aim for everybody to have the BP of a twenty year old

Click to expand...

That's very interesting, like cholesterol levels, I wonder why it changed.

The sceptic in me says the principal reason both have changed is the influence of pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs.

Haemorrhagic stroke (bleed) tends to have a much worse outcome that ischaemic (clot).

I am just reading Tim Noakes Real Meal Revolution. It'/ basically a guide on how to LCHF, followed by some excellent and innovative recipes - it finally persuaded me to try some cooking with alternative flours, for instance the coconut flour crepes are absolutely gorgeous as are the carb free tortillas. However, the thing that I find superb is the final chapter, Scientific Justification for the Banting Diet'. This is absolutely superb, bang up to date, quoting all the latest science, all set out in easy to understand terms, with clear graphs, clear explanations etc.

One thing that I found very interesting was the hazard ratios for seven risk factors said to predict future risk for the development of Coronary Heart disease. The 'normal person's risk is 1. The diabetic, 2 (meaning that the risk is doubled) The risk for high total blood cholesterol level, 1.22. So a drug, say, that reduces your total cholesterol but raises HbA1c, it seems to me, would actually increase the risk of a coronary event. He goes on to say "A key finding is that the single best predictor of heart attack risk is the blood concentration of HbA1c

Tim Noakes is a real scientist, AAA rated, whose most recent passion, since being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes just after his father died from complications of the disease, his research, his wide reading, his complete understanding and his ability to describe incredibly complex things in relatively simple terms, makes him 'stand out from the crowd'. I recommend his book highly, to anybody interested in embarking on a LCHF diet, and all those who really want to understand the complexities of diabetes.

I recommend reading "Doctoring Data" by Malcolm Kendrick. He explains how a lot of this happened.

http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

Totally agree, love Malcolm Kendrick and his tongue in cheek writing! Ben Goldacre, Bad Pharma, is a good read but it made me feel like slitting my wrists! It is quite appalling how we have gotten to this place! But maybe the tide is just starting to turn.