ickihun
Master
I don't have a cholesterol problem even when on lchf it raised 0.36 and that was crispy chicken skins, pork scratchings, cheese galore and double cream. Mackerel and mayonnaise foods too.
I don't have a cholesterol problem even when on lchf it raised 0.36 and that was crispy chicken skins, pork scratchings, cheese galore and double cream. Mackerel and mayonnaise foods too.I wouldn't bother to choose between two bad fats - polyunsaturated which is mostly highly oxidative or saturated which increases cholesterol. Why not eat only (or mainly) monounsaturated?
That's a highly debatable point, well the saturated fat being bad part anyway.I wouldn't bother to choose between two bad fats - polyunsaturated which is mostly highly oxidative or saturated which increases cholesterol. Why not eat only (or mainly) monounsaturated?
I think this is because one of the effects of high blood sugar, which diabetics often have, despite their best efforts to lower it, is to cause inflammation in the blood vessels. This inflammatory damage causes cholesterol to stick to the insides of the blood vessels at a higher rate than it would for non diabetics. So they think diabetics should be more careful to keep their cholesterol down than normals.If we are talking dietary cholesterol then that accounts for just 15% of the bodys total, the other 85% is made by the body itself. Cholesterol is vital to life. Inflammatory oils on the other hand are not beneficial and coupled with a high carb diet are most injurious.
If one is troubled by the levels of cholesterol then one may like to ask this question, how were the guidelines for cholesterol levels in UK set at <5 for the general population and <4 for those with Diabetes?
That's exactly what happens but my personal opinion is carbs and insulin have more to answer for in this equation too.I think this is because one of the effects of high blood sugar, which diabetics often have, despite their best efforts to lower it, is to cause inflammation in the blood vessels. This inflammatory damage causes cholesterol to stick to the insides of the blood vessels at a higher rate than it would for non diabetics. So they think diabetics should be more careful to keep their cholesterol down than normals.
I think this is because one of the effects of high blood sugar, which diabetics often have, despite their best efforts to lower it, is to cause inflammation in the blood vessels. This inflammatory damage causes cholesterol to stick to the insides of the blood vessels at a higher rate than it would for non diabetics. So they think diabetics should be more careful to keep their cholesterol down than normals.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, the question is how and why did they settle on these specific numbers? Why not <8 or > 2?
Good question. As far as I know there is no study which shows that a well controlled diabetic is more at risk from higher cholesterol than a non-diabetic.
There are studies which suggest that low cholesterol is positively harmful in those over 65 but as usual there is no consensus.
I suspect they may have come from the same source as the 5 a day for pieces of fruit.
And a calcium scan is pretty worthless too. Especially in older persons who are gonna normally have some calcium in their coronaries. You're probably better of just having an imaging stress test, which is what they'll tell you to have after they collect their money for the calcium test. US insurance companies won't reimburse for those.Calcium scan is just as effective in measuring effects from cholesterol, more that a cholesterol blood test result!
And a calcium scan is pretty worthless too. Especially in older persons who are gonna normally have some calcium in their coronaries.
That is getting over turned in some states, I believe.And a calcium scan is pretty worthless too. Especially in older persons who are gonna normally have some calcium in their coronaries. You're probably better of just having an imaging stress test, which is what they'll tell you to have after they collect their money for the calcium test. US insurance companies won't reimburse for those.
"The widowmaker". Wow, from the VHS tape days lol. Seriously though about the only thing they say you can to about a calcium score you don't like is take statins. Why not just do that and forego the hefty dose of radiation? You can't have those things once a year I bet. They used to set those things up in trailers in shopping malls. You paid $250 your wife's half price.Calcium scan has told me I'm at risk in the LAD which is more valuable to me too. A widowmaker if i dont keep heart disease at bay. I'm 46yr old and had diabetes symptoms for 40yrs+.
I'm sorry but i'm thankful for my scan.
I believe because it was shund by the insurance companies. I'm glad they survived the denial, like low carb now."The widowmaker". Wow, from the VHS tape days lol. Seriously though about the only thing they say you can to about a calcium score you don't like is take statins. Why not just do that and forego the hefty dose of radiation? You can't have those things once a year I bet. They used to set those things up in trailers in shopping malls. You paid $250 your wife's half price.
You may be right I some how doubt it though.eriously though about the only thing they say you can to about a calcium score you don't like is take statins.
Hi @JohnEGreen I found that very informative, although I would normally ignore a recommendation from the AHA.You may be right I some how doubt it though.
I found this quite informative . http://jeffreydachmd.com/how-to-reverse-heart-disease-with-the-coronary-calcium-score/
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?