@Dax1973 I sometimes fast before the test, sometimes not. I find that fasting leads to slightly raised LDL and slightly lower trigs. I believe that according to much recent medical thinking, trigs and HDL matter, LDL much less. One research study even showed that older women (like me) do better on somewhat higher LDL.they no longer require fasting results as it has minimal difference they are the current guidelines
No, I'm not 100% sure, but this was before my low carbing days and the only thing I remember changing way back then was attempting to give up diet coke and other black fizzy drinks. It took me several years to fully kick the diet fizzy drinks habit.@zand are you sure you changed nothing else since you started taking fish oil? I used to take fish oil, but nowadays, having read lots of sceptical research articles on it, I prefer to eat 3 portions of wild salmon weekly.
Depending on how successful the "try" was, that sounds like quite a powerful strategy.No, I'm not 100% sure, but this was before my low carbing days and the only thing I remember changing way back then was attempting to give up diet coke and other black fizzy drinks. It took me several years to fully kick the diet fizzy drinks habit.
Strange- because LDL is certainly calculated in the UK and most other countries (unless you pay privately for a more specific lipid profile test). But Triglycerides are measured (in all the cases I know of)..............................................
I can do without the orlistat but my cholesterol is high 3.9 total but 3.2 LDL and only 0.7 HDL and triglycerides are high (too hig to calculate ratio apparently). HDL should ideally be 1.4 or at least 1.2
It is often claimed that lowering carbs dramatically lowers trigs. Not in my case (on 20 - 30g carbs daily). Trigs went up, alas.Think statins would be benefcial as my triglycerides were over 7
hmm. You gave the reasons which support my view. My research shows that when you did not die of say disease or death during birth, life span was full. I actually meant parents to grand parents, when I was a child 1 in 3 for example got cancer, now 1 in 2, this is off point, but demonstrates that drugs tend not to fix thing.Not sure that's a valid argument. Our ancestors mostly didn't reach old age (by our standards). They were too busy dying of broken bones, infections (no vaccines or antibiotics) and childbirth (if female). Whether or not you agree with statins modern medicine has drastically increased average lifespans from a couple of hundred years ago. And of course, the T1s on these forums would all be dead anyway.
Life expectancy - Wikipedia
Not necessarily very accurate, but interesting anyway.
There has to be a trigger. Some with agendas have said for example red meat (rubbish based again on historical context and the embarrassing relative risk levels). I believe it is mainly down to processed food, environmentals (pollution such as car fumes, sprays, food additives, heavy metals, chemicals such as those sprayed on veg, lack of essentials such as vitamin D, change from manual work to sedentary, etc).why would our own body try to kill us?
Cancer cells are in allof us and just need to be activated!
The original question was should I assume that statins caused swollen neck lymph nodes or orlistat?
Or the combination?
What was the substitute?Wow! Whoever told you THAT was high? Mine was 7.3 for years and, with diet, dropped to 6. Then I took a statin substitute from a health food shop and got it to 5.3 but it's never been lower than that!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?