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

Unpublished Data Review: The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)

Tannith said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 deep fry, just shallow or wok. I have room in my varied diet for lard as I have crispy bacon only, oh and still eat mackerel a lot. My fat in my diet doesn't even react with zenical tablets so I've stopped them. Not enough fat in my diet can give me a lack of leptin. Leptin is as important as insulin but only in the right amount.
Our bodies only produce some fat when its feeling starved. Internal fat not external. The blood needs fat to transport around the organs properly. In severe starvation the body can go lean first to supply internal organs before it all runs out.
Ask any bariatric specialist about when their patients can no longer eat if an op or patient's mind goes wrong.
The body retains its needs when under threat.
 
Tannith said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's a highly debatable point, well the saturated fat being bad part anyway.
 
Guzzler said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tannith said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what happens but my personal opinion is carbs and insulin have more to answer for in this equation too.
For me irratic bgs are more harmful to my vessels than cholesterol. Stroke or heart attacks come from burst brain vessels or plaque detaching from inside the vessels. Strokes are more common in diabetics than heart attacks. Furred up arteries from high cholesterol is mostly hereditary rather than diet. Heart patients I saw on wards were all smokers unless hereditary heart problems. Diabetes can cause heart attacks in patients late to diabetes and not insulin dependant but normally lifestyle and age related.
Only type1 I know with heart problems (not neuropathy) is a heavy smoker.
 
Tannith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear, the question is how and why did they settle on these specific numbers? Why not <8 or > 2?
 
Guzzler said:
Perhaps I wasn't clear, the question is how and why did they settle on these specific numbers? Why not <8 or > 2?
Click to expand...

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.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know the answer to my own question. According to Malcolm Kendrick, the numbers were pulled out of thin air. The minutes of the committee who decided this issue are in the public domain and state clearly (by omission) that their decision was not evidence based. Kendrick says that the national average for cholesterol is higher than 5 (either 5.5 or 6.5 I am unsure of the number due to my rubbish memory).
 
Just an FYI here, the science is as yet incomlete. Prof. Ken Sikaris says that measuring sdLDL *could* be a better marker but as there is a range of cholesterol not just the three sizes we are familiar with then obviously more needs to be done to understand all the roles that cholesterol has in the body. As it has important roles in the metabolism, in repair and the lipid system then, again, obviously, it plays a major part for those of us with Diabetes. It staggers me that whole population medication is the aim of some governments who have relied on Big Pharma for data who in turn have vastly overstated the benefits of a lowered cholesterol level on 'evidence' that at least in at least one case is unforthcoming (Collins?).
 
Calcium scan is just as effective in measuring effects from cholesterol, more that a cholesterol blood test result!
 
ickihun said:
Calcium scan is just as effective in measuring effects from cholesterol, more that a cholesterol blood test result!
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheBigNewt said:
And a calcium scan is pretty worthless too. Especially in older persons who are gonna normally have some calcium in their coronaries.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why it is worthless? If older persons normally have some, that is fair enough, but what if they (or younger persons) have a lot?
 
TheBigNewt said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is getting over turned in some states, I believe.
 
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.
 
ickihun said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
TheBigNewt said:
"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.
Click to expand...
I believe because it was shund by the insurance companies. I'm glad they survived the denial, like low carb now.
I bet insurance company dietitians don't sanction low carb for type2s.
 
Why should i take a statin with painful side effects on excellent cholesterol for a none diabetic? My gp agrees.
 
I'm blessed i have very very low inflammation showing in my blood tests. Calcium score of 19.
Mild. Mild ranges from 0 to 100.
I don't need statins yet.
 
JohnEGreen said:
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/
Click to expand...
Hi @JohnEGreen I found that very informative, although I would normally ignore a recommendation from the AHA.
As someone aged 74 with a very low calcium score, I am pleased I went to the trouble, expense and risk of having a scan. On the other hand, if the score had been high, what could I do about it?
 
Back
Top