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

PRAISE THE LARD ...

SweetHeart said:
Improve the quality (if not quality) of your "bad" LDL cholesterol
Click to expand...

There are other factors at play though (some of them genetic) that means that some people do poorly even on a low-carb diet.
Click to expand...

Which way round is that? :D

I was doing very well, not sure where I fell off the wagon. Despite the higher level, I do feel very well physically.

Ju[/quote]

It should make you LDL big and fluffy, rather than small and dense.

In the words of Dr Richard Feinman:
"Dietary carbohydrate restriction is the single most effective method (except for total starvation) of reducing triglycerides, and is as effective as any intervention, including most drugs, at increasing HDL and reducing the number of small-dense LDL particles. Beyond lipid markers, carbohydrate restriction improves all of the features of metabolic syndrome. "
https://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2012/03 ... 15-theses/
 
I'm of 100% Czech blood and eat natural fats too. I love pork scratchings and cooking with lard.These are natural foods that humans have eaten for millenia. No-one can tell me that margarine, invented in someone's lab can be as good for me.
Since I went low carb and returned to natural foods, I have been so much fitter. In addition, my chronically dry flaky skin has improved beyond measure and just today i was asked my skincare secrets by a woman a whole generation younger than myself. I have pretty much no wrinkles [at 65!]
I'm about 25 kilos lighter thaan Iwas when eating "healthy wholegrains"
I'm currently under a lot of pressure And COPING WELL. T1 husband has been ill for about 3 weeks and it has co-incided with upheavals in my daughter's life[ new job, child starting school!] and I've been needed a LOT. I've been juggling hospital appointments with childcare. I'm shattered, but still here and sane.
Hana
PS I eat animal fats in preference to plant oils, because, being an animal, they have the components I need. I AM NOT A GERANIUM!
 
SweetHeart wrote
After my last bloods, my cholesterol levels had gone up from 5.7 to 6.0
Click to expand...

Per Barry Groves (Natural Health And Weight Loss)

for women,research has demonstrated that a high cholesterol level is healthier than a low one. In 1992 a report of 19 major studies published over the previous twenty years suggested that public policy for reducing blood cholesterol should be reviewed
Click to expand...

women-chol-death2.jpg


See, you're better off at 6.0 than at 'healthy' range.

I agree with borofergie.
I expect that your HDL will have increased, your triglycerides gone down, and your LDL gone from harmful into friendly. Only a lipid profile will tell you. My total went from 5.0 to 5.4, but like you, I didn't have a profile.

Geoff
 
I'm going into see the GP on Monday so I shall ask for lipids figures then. The GP I saw when I got the results doesn't think a lay person would understand the results so she never gives them out. I feel a bit better about the above info though!

Ju
 
the lipids figures you'll get won't be proper lipid figures... the NHS just does the cheap test and then guesses the cholesterol figures from one factor they're checking on. A proper full lipid profile that actually checks your fluffy LDL against your small deadly LDL is too expensive for them to do... so as far as the NHS are concerned, all LDL is bad... cos they won't put up for the proper tests. This is why they have such a downer on low-carb high fat diets... it raises the LDL levels which they consider to be bad...
 
Paul_c said:
the lipids figures you'll get won't be proper lipid figures... the NHS just does the cheap test and then guesses the cholesterol figures from one factor they're checking on. A proper full lipid profile that actually checks your fluffy LDL against your small deadly LDL is too expensive for them to do... so as far as the NHS are concerned, all LDL is bad... cos they won't put up for the proper tests. ...
Click to expand...
perhaps they have good reason
researchers from the UK published an analysis of 5000 vascular events from the Heart Protection Study–a 20,000-patient, 5-year study of high-risk patients treated with either simvastatin or placebo/vitamins. The researchers studied how well regular cholesterol levels and said special analysis of cholesterol fractions (ApoB, Apo A1, and lipoprotein particles) predicted heart events. The results were clear: though each of the measures individually predicted events, the complicated analysis of particle sizes added no incremental value over just a simple cholesterol test.
Click to expand...
As this blogger, a doctor who works in the field, suggests, this fine analysis may not only be expensive s (though lucrative for those offering the test ) but in practical terms offer no extra value.
The big picture: With two eyes, a scale, a blood pressure cuff, a one-minute blood test for sugar and a three-minute conversation, a doctor can predict cardiac risk as well as a 100$ multi-page list of cholesterol particles
Click to expand...
http://www.drjohnm.org/2012/05/busting- ... it-simple/

Guidelines aren't plucked out of thin air. If you want to go into it in a lot more depth then You can read the guidelines from the European Society of Cardiologists for preventing CVD and for dyslipediamia (high cholesterol) The guidelines come complete with references to all the evidence used and the weight given to it. (and have a version of the score tables that include the protective element of higher HDL.)
You can assess your own risk, taking into account age/gender/ cholesterol/ smoking status/ cholesterol and blood pressure
here
http://www.heartscore.org/Pages/welcome.aspx
 
Apparently I have a 1% risk with my cholesterol level of 6.0. I recalculated with the recommended cholesterol level of 5.0 and guess what?





........................I still have a 1% risk!

Ju
 
phoenix wrote
researchers from the UK published an analysis of 5000 vascular events from the Heart Protection Study–a 20,000-patient, 5-year study of high-risk patients
Click to expand...

The devil is possibly in the detail.
They were already high-risk.
I don't equate my 5.4 total cholesterol as being high-risk.
Do we know how they chose their high-risk patients ? Simply on the basis of high cholesterol, or other heart-threatening aspects ?

The analysis may be right.It may also be wrong.

Trying to join up the dots ...

Geoff (happy to not have all the answers)
 
phoenix said:
researchers from the UK published an analysis of 5000 vascular events from the Heart Protection Study–a 20,000-patient, 5-year study of high-risk patients treated with either simvastatin or placebo/vitamins. The researchers studied how well regular cholesterol levels and said special analysis of cholesterol fractions (ApoB, Apo A1, and lipoprotein particles) predicted heart events. The results were clear: though each of the measures individually predicted events, the complicated analysis of particle sizes added no incremental value over just a simple cholesterol test.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well that depends whether your LDL-C and LDL-P are concordant or discordant.

In most of the population LDL-C and LDP-P are concordant, which means that LDL-C is a fairly good predictor of LDL-P. For these cases LDP-P offers no incremental value over a simple LDL-P test. I agree. :thumbup:

However, for a significant minority of the population LDL-C and LDL-P are discordant, which means LDL-C is a poor predictor of LDL-P. In these cases you might have a fantastic LDL-C score of, say. 2mmol/l, meaning that your individual lipoproteins are carrying small amounts of cholesterol, but you LDL-P number his high, meaning that there are lots and lots of particles.

In this case, LDL-C alone is a poor predictor of your heart-attack risk. :thumbdown:
The real world tragedy: 90-95% of physicians, including cardiologists, would bet their own lives that persons with an LDL-C < 70 mg/dL have no atherosclerotic risk.

Tim Russert, shortly before his death, had his LDL-C level checked. It was less than 70 mg/dL. Sadly, his doctors didn’t realize they should also have been checking his LDL-P or apoB. The figure below, which is from one of Tom Dayspring’s presentations, shows data from this study of nearly 137,000 patients hospitalized for coronary artery disease between 2000 and 2006. As you can see, LDL-C fails to even reasonably predict cardiovascular disease in a patient population sick enough to show up in the hospital with chest pain or outright myocardial infarction.
Click to expand...
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... ol-part-vi

Which sort of people have discordant LDL-C and LDL-P profiles? People with metabolic syndrome and diabetes....

data collected from nearly 2,000 patients with diabetes who presented with “perfect” standard cholesterol numbers: LDL-C < 70 mg/dL; HDL-C > 40 mg/dL; TG <150 mg/dL. However, only in 22% of cases were their LDL-P concordant with LDL-C. That is, in only 22% of cases did these patients have an LDL-P level below 700 nmol/L.
Click to expand...
http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002- ... X/abstract

So for 78% of T2 diabetics studied, LDL-C was a poor predictor of heart-attack risk. These people would have been much better served with a lipid profile that included LDL-P.

LDL-C is a poor predictor of heart attack risk in patients with T2D.
 
I think there is a problem with the test.

Or everyone has a 1% risk.

Cos no matter what I put in (I have tried 7 different combinations) it all says 1% risk :crazy:
 
lucylocket61 said:
I think there is a problem with the test.

Or everyone has a 1% risk.

Cos no matter what I put in (I have tried 7 different combinations) it all says 1% risk :crazy:
Click to expand...

Nope actually someone born in 1960 with a BP of 160, Tot Chol of 8, HDL of 0.7 and a smoker has a 16% chance so its doing something! Good job we're on healthy low carb lifestyles Lucy :)
 
Nope actually someone born in 1960 with a BP of 160, Tot Chol of 8, HDL of 0.7 and a smoker has a 16% chance so its doing something!
Click to expand...
and a man born 10 years earlier with the same levels now has a risk of 31%
 
I wonder how you go about discovering who wrote or sponsored a piece of software/programming? Also, it's quite fascinating the countries deemed Low Risk and High Risk. I would have thought Scandi countries would have been low risk and France would have been high risk but it's the other way about.

Ju
 
xyzzy said:
lucylocket61 said:
I think there is a problem with the test.

Or everyone has a 1% risk.

Cos no matter what I put in (I have tried 7 different combinations) it all says 1% risk :crazy:
Click to expand...

Nope actually someone born in 1960 with a BP of 160, Tot Chol of 8, HDL of 0.7 and a smoker has a 16% chance so its doing something! Good job we're on healthy low carb lifestyles Lucy :)
Click to expand...

Mine came out as 1% too - female 1953, BP 130, Total Chol of 6 - is this test what the doctors rely on? :think:
 
not happy with that online risk calculator link... it wants you to create an account in order to use it and the download version wants personal details in order to download it...
 
Says that I should aim for less than 6% and my actual score was 3% :thumbup:
 
Back
Top