So what's the truth about Cholesterol

[SouthernGeneral6512]

It's strange because it's the bringing together of protein and carbs that makes the meal ... meat on a roll, meat filling in a pie or meat and 2 veg and yet this cornerstone of our civilisation is apparently harmful

 

[borofergie]

It's strange because it's the bringing together of protein and carbs that makes the meal ... meat on a roll, meat filling in a pie or meat and 2 veg and yet this cornerstone of our civilisation is apparently harmful

It's not that carbohydrates are harmful in themselves, it's an excess of refined carbs that is the real problem.

 

[jopar]

But as yet you haven't answered my question to why the LDL's data is missing in the study?

And again, if total cholesterol goes up, then I can't see something can be said as a great success, again with the newer study, you say that there was a 1% drop in HbA1c, yes from 7.6% to 6.6% which is still out of worse than my results on a normal health y balanced diet! (my HbA1c is 5.8% which is just inside the non-diabetic numbers)

So far the studies you provided, when you read them in detail and look at the data, the so called out come, brilliant outcome in fact isn't great at all... And some of the anecdotal evidence I found within this one thread, also suggests what some think is correct and in somebody best interest it isn't..

Stephen reckoned I was hypocholesterolemia, Now I assume that because a healthy cholesterol is consider to be above 3 and below 5, I actually call this scraping the barrel, as I can't argue that my chosen diet is better with better results when it isn't so lets try to suggest something else! Nice try...

But I did notice something though... Looking at the Swedish study, I'm a lot thinner and lighter than something like 20kg lighter and BMI about 6 points lower!

 

[xyzzy]

Some more stuff to be aware of from within that 2012 FDA warning on Statins as reported by the Harvard Medical School

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fda-changes-safety-information-on-statin-drugs-201202294429

The warnings—taking a statin may increase the odds of developing type 2 diabetes or suffering reversible memory loss or problems thinking

Blood sugar

In some clinical trials, participants who took a statin were more likely to develop higher blood sugar than those taking a placebo. In two meta-analyses of data from these trials, the increases were 6% to 13%. Whether this translates into type 2 diabetes is as-yet unknown. Based on these findings, the FDA is warning that statin use increases blood sugar or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in some people. HbA1c is a measure of a person’s average blood sugar level over a three-month period.

Memory loss

Memory loss is another possible side effect the FDA is now warning about. Occasional reports in the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) tell the story of mostly older men and women who experience memory loss or changes in thinking skills after starting a statin, only to have it disappear after stopping the drug. In some, the problem began within days of starting the drug; in others it began years afterward. Results from observational studies and clinical trials, though, offer no evidence that statin use causes permanent long-term thinking or memory problems. And several studies looking at the relationship between dementia and statins suggest the opposite—that taking a statin lowers the risk of dementia.

 

[borofergie]

Stephen reckoned I was hypocholesterolemia, Now I assume that because a healthy cholesterol is consider to be above 3 and below 5, I actually call this scraping the barrel, as I can't argue that my chosen diet is better with better results when it isn't so lets try to suggest something else! Nice try...

I didn't define hypocholesterolemia these guys did:
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/con ... /92/9/2365

I suffer from it too.

 

[SouthernGeneral6512]

It's strange because it's the bringing together of protein and carbs that makes the meal ... meat on a roll, meat filling in a pie or meat and 2 veg and yet this cornerstone of our civilisation is apparently harmful

It's not that carbohydrates are harmful in themselves, it's an excess of refined carbs that is the real problem.

It really is a time bomb isn't it considering people are eating an increasing amount of refined carbohydrates every year :sick:.

Do you think that your 80% fat diet would suit everyone as well as it obviously suits you or do you think we are individuals when it comes to eating for health?

 

[borofergie]

It's strange because it's the bringing together of protein and carbs that makes the meal ... meat on a roll, meat filling in a pie or meat and 2 veg and yet this cornerstone of our civilisation is apparently harmful

It's not that carbohydrates are harmful in themselves, it's an excess of refined carbs that is the real problem.

It really is a time bomb isn't it considering people are eating an increasing amount of refined carbohydrates every year :sick:.

Do you think that your 80% fat diet would suit everyone as well as it obviously suits you or do you think we are individuals when it comes to eating for health?

No. It's entirely excessive, even for most diabetics. I agree with Paul Jaminet who reckons 60% fat, 15% protein, 25% carbs is good for non-diabetics (a maximum of about 160g carb a day). That's a good general prescription for a Paleo diet. None of the carbs should come from sugar or grains though.

Most diabetics need to eat less carbohydrate than that, probably less than 100g in most cases.

I eat less than 25g because I choose to be in deep ketosis. That's not an easy thing to do and I think it's unnecessary for most diabetics. There are som excellent health benefits if you can hack it though, along with some unknown risks.

 

[librarising]

borofergie wrote
There are som excellent health benefits if you can hack it though, along with some unknown risks.

Donald Rumsfeld said
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld

So, is it a known unknown or an unknown unknown :shock:

We need to know :lol:

Geoff

 

[RoyG]

Some more stuff to be aware of from within that 2012 FDA warning on Statins as reported by the Harvard Medical School

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fda-changes-safety-information-on-statin-drugs-201202294429

The warnings—taking a statin may increase the odds of developing type 2 diabetes or suffering reversible memory loss or problems thinking

Blood sugar

In some clinical trials, participants who took a statin were more likely to develop higher blood sugar than those taking a placebo. In two meta-analyses of data from these trials, the increases were 6% to 13%. Whether this translates into type 2 diabetes is as-yet unknown. Based on these findings, the FDA is warning that statin use increases blood sugar or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in some people. HbA1c is a measure of a person’s average blood sugar level over a three-month period.

Memory loss

Memory loss is another possible side effect the FDA is now warning about. Occasional reports in the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) tell the story of mostly older men and women who experience memory loss or changes in thinking skills after starting a statin, only to have it disappear after stopping the drug. In some, the problem began within days of starting the drug; in others it began years afterward. Results from observational studies and clinical trials, though, offer no evidence that statin use causes permanent long-term thinking or memory problems. And several studies looking at the relationship between dementia and statins suggest the opposite—that taking a statin lowers the risk of dementia.

There does seem to be a lot of unknowns surrounding these tablets, when I was initially put on them I was prescribed simvastatin but these gave me terrible leg cramps and headaches, so my GP changed to Provastatin these do not have any side effects and on the whole I have noticed no outward ill effects, but that does not ease my concerns for long term use, and my GP's readiness to prescribe. I think I will remain off them until I see what my next blood test results look like at present my Total cholesterol is at 5 and LDL @ 2.9 if I see the LDL coming down and HDL up I will stay off them.

 

[xyzzy]

There does seem to be a lot of unknowns surrounding these tablets, when I was initially put on them I was prescribed simvastatin but these gave me terrible leg cramps and headaches, so my GP changed to Provastatin these do not have any side effects and on the whole I have noticed no outward ill effects, but that does not ease my concerns for long term use, and my GP's readiness to prescribe. I think I will remain off them until I see what my next blood test results look like at present my Total cholesterol is at 5 and LDL @ 2.9 if I see the LDL coming down and HDL up I will stay off them.

Yes Roy I agree. I have a personal belief that there is some upper health limit on total cholesterol and that in that context taking a statin to get you quickly lowered is probably less of a risk than keeping a high level especially if you are not suffering any noticeable side effects. My plan, subject to next weeks latest lipid results, will be to keep on lchf at roughly a 65% fat, 15% carbs, 20% protein regime but reduce the statin from 40mg / day to 20mg / day and then re-evaluate in 3 months. Like I said earlier in the thread I don't personally see a need to be particularly reactive so long as my lipid levels remain ok and I don't develop side effects. I am a bit concerned about Stephens find that I might be running too low and will probably take that evidence along to the gp in the next few weeks to discuss.

 

[borofergie]

Yes Roy I agree. I have a personal belief that there is some upper health limit on total cholesterol and that in that context taking a statin to get you quickly lowered is probably less of a risk than keeping a high level especially if you are not suffering any noticeable side effects

But Total Cholesterol is a nonsense number. Take two different lipoproteins and add a fifth of triglycerides. Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble. What does that mean in a physical sense? Absolutely nothing, that's what...

It might well correlate with risk of CVD, but (as an engineer) I am very suspicious of a number that doesn't represent some physical quantity.

 

[Defren]

I eat less than 25g because I choose to be in deep ketosis. That's not an easy thing to do and I think it's unnecessary for most diabetics. There are som excellent health benefits if you can hack it though, along with some unknown risks.

My diet is around the same as yours, certainly carb wise, and like you I am in deep ketosis and prefer that. My entire body seems to function so much better with ultra low carbs, and I feel wonderful now. It isn't the easiest choice of diet, but for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and yes, there are possibly unknown risks, but as far as I am concerned no more risky than going outdoors and being hit by a bus.

One question I do have Stephen, while in deep ketosis due to ultra low carbing, do I need to be mindful of calories taken in, to continue weight loss, or will I still lose as my body will only take in what it really needs? I ask as yesterday, I was a bit of a wee piggy and had 2,155 calories. I have never taken in that many calories since I began to low carb in March.

 

[xyzzy]

Yes Roy I agree. I have a personal belief that there is some upper health limit on total cholesterol and that in that context taking a statin to get you quickly lowered is probably less of a risk than keeping a high level especially if you are not suffering any noticeable side effects

But Total Cholesterol is a nonsense number. Take two different lipoproteins and add a fifth of triglycerides. Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble. What does that mean in a physical sense? Absolutely nothing, that's what...

It might well correlate with risk of CVD, but (as an engineer) I am very suspicious of a number that doesn't represent some physical quantity.

Yes you are of course correct apologies to you and Roy, slapped wrist time and deserved. The ratio of total to HDL is a better indicator as the smaller that is the less bad LDL and triglyceride's you have so please assume I meant to write.

Yes Roy I agree. I have a personal belief that there is some upper health limit on LDL and triglyceride's and in that context taking a statin to get them quickly lowered is probably less of a risk than keeping a high level especially if you are not suffering any noticeable side effects

Perhaps they are effecting my memory :lol:

Realise even then some people will still disagree with me about the risks of taking one at all but that's what personal opinions are all about.

 

[borofergie]

I eat less than 25g because I choose to be in deep ketosis. That's not an easy thing to do and I think it's unnecessary for most diabetics. There are som excellent health benefits if you can hack it though, along with some unknown risks.

My diet is around the same as yours, certainly carb wise, and like you I am in deep ketosis and prefer that. My entire body seems to function so much better with ultra low carbs, and I feel wonderful now. It isn't the easiest choice of diet, but for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and yes, there are possibly unknown risks, but as far as I am concerned no more risky than going outdoors and being hit by a bus.

One question I do have Stephen, while in deep ketosis due to ultra low carbing, do I need to be mindful of calories taken in, to continue weight loss, or will I still lose as my body will only take in what it really needs? I ask as yesterday, I was a bit of a wee piggy and had 2,155 calories. I have never taken in that many calories since I began to low carb in March.

I'm sure that you could put on weight if you really tried, but I don't count anything and the weight keeps coming off. I eat criminal amounts of double cream.

I tend to eat big meals, and avoid snacking. Sometimes, if I'm busy at work, I don't bother eating anything until dinner time. I have a great appetite when I eat, but I'm not troubled by feeling hungry (we I now associate with carb induced sugar rushes).

I think ketosis works by allowing you to listen to your body's signals, and by slightly blunting your appetite.

 

[Defren]

I eat less than 25g because I choose to be in deep ketosis. That's not an easy thing to do and I think it's unnecessary for most diabetics. There are som excellent health benefits if you can hack it though, along with some unknown risks.

My diet is around the same as yours, certainly carb wise, and like you I am in deep ketosis and prefer that. My entire body seems to function so much better with ultra low carbs, and I feel wonderful now. It isn't the easiest choice of diet, but for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and yes, there are possibly unknown risks, but as far as I am concerned no more risky than going outdoors and being hit by a bus.

One question I do have Stephen, while in deep ketosis due to ultra low carbing, do I need to be mindful of calories taken in, to continue weight loss, or will I still lose as my body will only take in what it really needs? I ask as yesterday, I was a bit of a wee piggy and had 2,155 calories. I have never taken in that many calories since I began to low carb in March.

I'm sure that you could put on weight if you really tried, but I don't count anything and the weight keeps coming off. I eat criminal amounts of double cream.

I tend to eat big meals, and avoid snacking. Sometimes, if I'm busy at work, I don't bother eating anything until dinner time. I have a great appetite when I eat, but I'm not troubled by feeling hungry (we I now associate with carb induced sugar rushes).

I think ketosis works by allowing you to listen to your body's signals, and by slightly blunting your appetite.

Thanks Stephen. I am not going to count this and possibly next weeks weight +/- due to it only being the first couple of weeks post Newcastle diet, and I think all the test subjects did increase slightly post diet, but if I do stop or stall after then I will be concerned. I don't have a lot more to lose, but I don't want it stopping or stalling. I was reading a post by Libby where she was saying she cut out all fruit as that stalled her. My favourite lunch is Greek yogurt with a couple of kinds of berry's, so I am going to stop that, as well as my home made cream cakes and bread and see if that helps. Fingers crosses, Monday is weigh in day!

 

[Unbeliever]

Has anyone who didn't need to lose weight tried the Newcastle diet? Would it be dangerous or could it work nore effectively by being able to immediately reduce the fat around organs.?

 

[Defren]

Has anyone who didn't need to lose weight tried the Newcastle diet? Would it be dangerous or could it work nore effecive by being able to immediately reduce the fat around organs.?

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who didn't have weight to lose. You do lose a lot of weight on the diet, yes, visceral fat around the organs (that was my reason for doing it) then body fat. I would consider anyone who was slim foolhardy if they did this diet. I wouldn't risk doing it now, and had I been at this weight when I decided to start it, I would have finished it PDQ.

 

[SouthernGeneral6512]

Do you lose the visceral fat before the body fat Defren?

 

[Defren]

Do you lose the visceral fat before the body fat Defren?

That's my understanding - yes! It's hard to know what happened in my case as I had a bad reaction to Metformin and couldn't eat. My daily calories were about the same 500 - 600 the same as the ND. However, I do know that the benefits derived from the ND are worth the restrictiveness of the diet. I lost a lot of weight, and my BG control while on the ND was really tight, and although raised slightly post diet is equally as tight.

 

[jopar]

Can one of the moderators please split the thread, as this has now gone from a debate about cholesterol, to weight loss!