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

Prof Tim Noakes

Thanks Indy, this is very interesting, but other experts have a different view of trigs and HDL?
I think one has to be a medic to weight it all properly or a mathematician?
regards
Derek
 
I think they are all agreed that low trigs and high HDL are good, but there are no drugs to achieve these results so no industry funded studies / hype! Go LCHF, your trigs will go down, your HDL up, it's a given!
 
AtkinsMo said:
I think they are all agreed that low trigs and high HDL are good, but there are no drugs to achieve these results so no industry funded studies / hype! Go LCHF, your trigs will go down, your HDL up, it's a given!
Click to expand...

Agreed! My trigs have plummeted from 3.6 to 1.4 which is fine, but even on a strict LCHF, they are struggling to drop into the 1.0 or below zone.


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum
 
As always, Kevin, excellent results you have achieved! As you say, 1.4 is fine. My results 2 years ago were 0.9 which pleased me enormously, and gave me ammunition in the 'anti-statin debate' with my high TC, but this year back to 1.2 - still fine (although my TC finally came down a little also).
 
My trigs are steady at 1.0 after 10 months lchf. Hdl 1.6, but total over 6.0. They would have to get me in a torture chamber to take statins again. Stats and warfarin have caused nafld which is my concern. Tim Noakes last piece concerned me somewhat. I am not obese bmi c.22. Statins and warfarin are vit k antagonists and cause arterial calcification. D.
 
Have you read Malcolm Kendrick, @lindisfel ? I love him, I do realise that some people can't get on with him at all, but I really like him.

I'm on an anticoagulant, Synthrone in my case, I didn't know that about arterial calcification. There are NO circumstances where I would take statins. I really feel that their use has been the biggest medical con-trick in history!
 
Hi Atkins mo. I think the drug you mention is a derivative of warfarin and as vit k antagonist causes arterial calcification. I had to take 12mgs of warfarin and my INR would not go above 1.6. so no good for me. Been on all the novel ones as well but settled, I think, now on Dabigatran. No testing needed. Have afib but don't notice due pacemaker. :) My GGT was 35 until I took warfarin and atorvastatin
and went up to 143. Now is 84. YesI have read Kendrick . Thanks atb Derek
 
It is the normal anticoagulant of first choice in Spain. I was first diagnosed in Spain, and to be honest, it's an old fashioned medicine (which helps for me, with my scepticism of the Pharmaceutical Industry) and since I spend about 5 months a year in Spain, and my Spanish is not perfect, I prefer to be on the 'Spanish norm' medication. I don't think it's a derivative of Warfarin, I believe it to be a different drug that works in a similar way (and reacts to Vit K in the same way). It has a shorter half life that warfarin (about 10 hours) which is seen as a bad thing but I see it as a good thing because you can achieve big changes in short times, when necessary.
 
Thanks Indy. I find it bewildering how these various gurus contradict each other.
This seems to be a different approach to Malcolm Kendrick's latest offering about diet.

Who does one believe?
regards
Derek​
 
lindisfel said:
Thanks Indy. I find it bewildering how these various gurus contradict each other.
This seems to be a different approach to Malcolm Kendrick's latest offering about diet.

Who does one believe?
regards
Derek​
Click to expand...

Tim Noakes is no guru....to my mind he is one of the most globally respected professors within this entire field and I have never seen somebody of his calibre so willing to publicly stand up to the litmus test of delivering detailed forensic evidence under cross examination.
 
I can't quite understand Malcolm Kendrick's latest blog post. I keep meaning to read the whole series a couple more times. He certainly still seems to be saying that Cholesterol is irrelevant. But he seems to be saying that diet is not a contributory factor in CVD.
 
KevinPotts said:
Tim Noakes is no guru....to my mind he is one of the most globally respected professors within this entire field and I have never seen somebody of his calibre so willing to publicly stand up to the litmus test of delivering detailed forensic evidence under cross examination.
Click to expand...
I agree, and he rightly has a lot of respect. His latest section directly contradicts Malcolm Kendrick but I don't agree with some of the things Kendrick says. The penultimate Prof Noakes section seemed to be at odds with Prof Ken Sakaris.
I didn't use the term guru in a literal sense but in the Low Carb luminary sense! :)
atb
Derek
 
AtkinsMo said:
I can't quite understand Malcolm Kendrick's latest blog post. I keep meaning to read the whole series a couple more times. He certainly still seems to be saying that Cholesterol is irrelevant. But he seems to be saying that diet is not a contributory factor in CVD.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, I found his blog bizarre and didn't agree with it. It is not the first time.
D.
 
AtkinsMo said:
Have you read Malcolm Kendrick, @lindisfel ? I love him, I do realise that some people can't get on with him at all, but I really like him.

I'm on an anticoagulant, Synthrone in my case, I didn't know that about arterial calcification. There are NO circumstances where I would take statins. I really feel that their use has been the biggest medical con-trick in history!
Click to expand...

Kendrick believes statins do work by acting as anticoagulants. Statins, warfarin, like your anticoagulant, are vit k antagonists.
Large doses of vit k would be given to you (on your medication) if you had a severe bleed. Vit k clots blood.
D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indy51 said:
Part 16 now posted:

Click to expand...

His reference to the Yudkin results comparing the Normal diet and the Low Carb diet are interesting.

I've read and watched a lot of material, but this is the first time I've heard anybody tie up the issue of High Fat being an expression of proportionality and NOT absolute amount from which we are all lead to believe we eat More fat.

Fascinating:)

The nub of this piece of research with dramatic curtailment of carbs, is Satiety and so a lowering of calories in absolute terms and corresponding weight loss.

I've never Ben entirely satisfied with the "not all calories are the same", because as a measure of energy they are. Noakes just did a first rate job of showing us that.
 
Back
Top