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

Type 2 Will higher fat harm my good cholesterol readings?

Suggest the following is worth a looksee if you are concerned about statins
http://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/11

It lists the major studies that were used to formulate the NHS approach to statin therapy. It also shows later studies since 2006.

ETA: The following has been shared on another thread, but is relevant to this topic. It is the Prof Sikaris seminar on lipids.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is anyone on this thread taking statins?

I prefer to eat to keep mine where I want them.
 
Eating to keep cholesterol levels where you want them is fine, but 80% of our cholesterol is made by our own bodies.
The cholesterol we consume in food has the wrong chemical markers and our bodies do not use it, it gets rejected since our cells do not recognise it as valid cholesterol. it is so to speak a wrong delivery. -Not known at this address, return to sender.
 
The American Food advice people (sorry forget the technical name ADA maybe) have stated that 'dietary cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern'. From which I surmise they have realised that eating cholesterol or not eating cholesterol rich foods had little or no effect on Cholesterol levels. Cholesterol is essential for the body and the brain is basically made of it. (Could the 'low cholesterol' message be a factor in the increasing rates of dementia maybe?).

'Normal' cholesterol used to be considered to be around 5.5 but as others have said it's now known that total cholesterol is meaningless anyway.

The 4 number for diabetics seems to have come from the school of 'if 5 is good then 4 must be better' but I have seen absolutely no evidence in my research of the science to back that up. In fact there are studies that show too low is associated with much higher death rates and particular for the elderly and for women.

I can only guess that someone thought that diabetics tend to have more heart disease and cholesterol was (before science debunked this myth) thought to be a factor so cholesterol must be lowered for diabetics. I can see that it seems logical but it's scientifically bunkum.

Once again it seems we have come back to carbs as the problem (according to most recent studies) and the inflammation they can cause as being a bigger factor in heart disease, so if we cut the carbs then our cholesterol levels should be fairly irrelevant.

Is it just coincidence that the push for lower cholesterol comes as statin manufacturers are looking for new markets and so they are being pushed on a healthy population (this is the most terrible public health disaster in my opinion - that they are pushing statins on people with no history of heart disease and a minimal 10% risk over the next 10 years. Ridiculous over medicalisation and one day there will be lawsuits galore and that will likely bankrupt the NHS - not us diabetics and particularly not those of us ignoring present NHS guidelines)

Anyway I massively upped my consumption of saturated fats. Cream would have been an occasional treat before and now I eat double cream almost every day, put creme fraiche on my vegetables, eat full fat cheeses, use butter, cook with coconut oil, et fatty cuts of meat, streaky bacon etc etc.

Results after 8 months. Yes total cholesterol raised slightly (to 6.0 from 5.5) but only because the HDL (so called good cholesterol) rose considerably while both LDL and triglycerides went down a lot so lipid profile is (according to latest research) much improved.

Personally I think deciding on a cholesterol number you want does not make sense. Instead eat sensibly by cutting carbs, eating good fats (saturated or unsaturated whatever you want - but personally I avoid the processed vegetable oils as I think the less processed oils are much better and have better omega 3 to omega 6 ratios) and your lipid profile should improve. Trust your body that if you feed it right then it will do it's best for you. Total cholesterol numbers are useless.

It is always worth getting a lipid profile done (just ask at doctors) and insist on the breakdown of the numbers not just a total cholesterol as then you have the knowledge to see whether any dietary changes are helping or not.

Apologies I have written an essay again :)
 
I don't buy it either. I read a while ago that the TC level for lowest all cause mortality rate in women was 5.6. I know 'they' like diabetics to be below 4, but IMO that is far too low, particularly for women who need more cholesterol not less as they age. My own is 5.8 and I'm happy with that.

There's a couple of great books on the subject:- The great cholesterol con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick and The Cholesterol myths by Uffe Ravnskov

Edit: I've read posts from some men on here who say their cholesterol has gone up with higher fats.

2nd Edit! Sorry I didn't answer your question. I'm in UK and am 58
Thanks for your reply Zand, I just wondered where you were because I only realized a couple of days ago there are a lot not from the UK on here, and also thanks for the info - I agree with you.
 
The American Food advice people (sorry forget the technical name ADA maybe) have stated that 'dietary cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern'. From which I surmise they have realised that eating cholesterol or not eating cholesterol rich foods had little or no effect on Cholesterol levels. Cholesterol is essential for the body and the brain is basically made of it. (Could the 'low cholesterol' message be a factor in the increasing rates of dementia maybe?).

'Normal' cholesterol used to be considered to be around 5.5 but as others have said it's now known that total cholesterol is meaningless anyway.

The 4 number for diabetics seems to have come from the school of 'if 5 is good then 4 must be better' but I have seen absolutely no evidence in my research of the science to back that up. In fact there are studies that show too low is associated with much higher death rates and particular for the elderly and for women.

I can only guess that someone thought that diabetics tend to have more heart disease and cholesterol was (before science debunked this myth) thought to be a factor so cholesterol must be lowered for diabetics. I can see that it seems logical but it's scientifically bunkum.

Once again it seems we have come back to carbs as the problem (according to most recent studies) and the inflammation they can cause as being a bigger factor in heart disease, so if we cut the carbs then our cholesterol levels should be fairly irrelevant.

Is it just coincidence that the push for lower cholesterol comes as statin manufacturers are looking for new markets and so they are being pushed on a healthy population (this is the most terrible public health disaster in my opinion - that they are pushing statins on people with no history of heart disease and a minimal 10% risk over the next 10 years. Ridiculous over medicalisation and one day there will be lawsuits galore and that will likely bankrupt the NHS - not us diabetics and particularly not those of us ignoring present NHS guidelines)

Anyway I massively upped my consumption of saturated fats. Cream would have been an occasional treat before and now I eat double cream almost every day, put creme fraiche on my vegetables, eat full fat cheeses, use butter, cook with coconut oil, et fatty cuts of meat, streaky bacon etc etc.

Results after 8 months. Yes total cholesterol raised slightly (to 6.0 from 5.5) but only because the HDL (so called good cholesterol) rose considerably while both LDL and triglycerides went down a lot so lipid profile is (according to latest research) much improved.

Personally I think deciding on a cholesterol number you want does not make sense. Instead eat sensibly by cutting carbs, eating good fats (saturated or unsaturated whatever you want - but personally I avoid the processed vegetable oils as I think the less processed oils are much better and have better omega 3 to omega 6 ratios) and your lipid profile should improve. Trust your body that if you feed it right then it will do it's best for you. Total cholesterol numbers are useless.

It is always worth getting a lipid profile done (just ask at doctors) and insist on the breakdown of the numbers not just a total cholesterol as then you have the knowledge to see whether any dietary changes are helping or not.

Apologies I have written an essay again :)
I am quite happy with my reading being at 4, even if the practice nurse isn't LoL.
 
Eating to keep cholesterol levels where you want them is fine, but 80% of our cholesterol is made by our own bodies.

The cholesterol we consume in food has the wrong chemical markers and our bodies do not use it, it gets rejected since our cells do not recognise it as valid cholesterol. it is so to speak a wrong delivery. -Not known at this address, return to sender.

It's interesting how set in the ways some are in this thread.
There have been several posts, and references to respected dieticians that are completely opposite to this, but that appears to have been completely dismissed.
The old 'one size fits all', and everyone's body and cholesterol response is the same may need to have further thought?
Consider the possibly, that we may be making cholesterol, but that what is made, and the quantity, may be affected by a range of inputs, including what bacteria, what enzymes, what food is fuelling that body.
Consider it, because many of on here keep telling you it's different, and we''re not all mistaken.
 
The American Food advice people (sorry forget the technical name ADA maybe) have stated that 'dietary cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern'. From which I surmise they have realised that eating cholesterol or not eating cholesterol rich foods had little or no effect on Cholesterol levels. Cholesterol is essential for the body and the brain is basically made of it. (Could the 'low cholesterol' message be a factor in the increasing rates of dementia maybe?).

'Normal' cholesterol used to be considered to be around 5.5 but as others have said it's now known that total cholesterol is meaningless anyway.

The 4 number for diabetics seems to have come from the school of 'if 5 is good then 4 must be better' but I have seen absolutely no evidence in my research of the science to back that up. In fact there are studies that show too low is associated with much higher death rates and particular for the elderly and for women.

I can only guess that someone thought that diabetics tend to have more heart disease and cholesterol was (before science debunked this myth) thought to be a factor so cholesterol must be lowered for diabetics. I can see that it seems logical but it's scientifically bunkum.

Once again it seems we have come back to carbs as the problem (according to most recent studies) and the inflammation they can cause as being a bigger factor in heart disease, so if we cut the carbs then our cholesterol levels should be fairly irrelevant.

Is it just coincidence that the push for lower cholesterol comes as statin manufacturers are looking for new markets and so they are being pushed on a healthy population (this is the most terrible public health disaster in my opinion - that they are pushing statins on people with no history of heart disease and a minimal 10% risk over the next 10 years. Ridiculous over medicalisation and one day there will be lawsuits galore and that will likely bankrupt the NHS - not us diabetics and particularly not those of us ignoring present NHS guidelines)

Anyway I massively upped my consumption of saturated fats. Cream would have been an occasional treat before and now I eat double cream almost every day, put creme fraiche on my vegetables, eat full fat cheeses, use butter, cook with coconut oil, et fatty cuts of meat, streaky bacon etc etc.

Results after 8 months. Yes total cholesterol raised slightly (to 6.0 from 5.5) but only because the HDL (so called good cholesterol) rose considerably while both LDL and triglycerides went down a lot so lipid profile is (according to latest research) much improved.

Personally I think deciding on a cholesterol number you want does not make sense. Instead eat sensibly by cutting carbs, eating good fats (saturated or unsaturated whatever you want - but personally I avoid the processed vegetable oils as I think the less processed oils are much better and have better omega 3 to omega 6 ratios) and your lipid profile should improve. Trust your body that if you feed it right then it will do it's best for you. Total cholesterol numbers are useless.

It is always worth getting a lipid profile done (just ask at doctors) and insist on the breakdown of the numbers not just a total cholesterol as then you have the knowledge to see whether any dietary changes are helping or not.

Apologies I have written an essay again :)


Why bother getting any profile done?
If you don't know what it is you actually want, why worry yourself, or why spend time trawling the internet to justify the figures after the event?
And why decide it's much improved, if you have no idea what 'improved' was going to be before you started?
 
It's interesting how set in the ways some are in this thread.
There have been several posts, and references to respected dieticians that are completely opposite to this, but that appears to have been completely dismissed.
The old 'one size fits all', and everyone's body and cholesterol response is the same may need to have further thought?
Consider the possibly, that we may be making cholesterol, but that what is made, and the quantity, may be affected by a range of inputs, including what bacteria, what enzymes, what food is fuelling that body.
Consider it, because many of on here keep telling you it's different, and we''re not all mistaken.
What??? I'm not sure why you quoted me here. I was the one who said yes we are all different so why do the NHS try to get all our cholesterol levels below 4 or 5?

I'm out of this thread now.
 
Is anyone on this thread taking statins?

I prefer to eat to keep mine where I want them.
I take statins and seriously thinking of stopping them. They cause me more trouble than they are worth. Aching leg/calf muscles is the worst of it.
 
I at the moment am taking statins basically as I think I said else where because recent studies have shown that those taking statins have a slightly improved survival rate for surgery for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and as I have two AAA's I will take any chance over no chance if my larger one decides to pop before the planned surgery to fix them which is hopefully happening with in the next couple of weeks. After that it will be nix on the satins for good.
 
It's interesting how set in the ways some are in this thread.
There have been several posts, and references to respected dieticians that are completely opposite to this, but that appears to have been completely dismissed.
The old 'one size fits all', and everyone's body and cholesterol response is the same may need to have further thought?
Consider the possibly, that we may be making cholesterol, but that what is made, and the quantity, may be affected by a range of inputs, including what bacteria, what enzymes, what food is fuelling that body.
Consider it, because many of on here keep telling you it's different, and we''re not all mistaken.
There are a lot of very respected dieticians who are advocating Eatwell#2 no quarter given, Obey or else. this OP thread is about high fat in the diet, so a discussion on lipids is relevant. A vegan will have different inputs to me, but we both need to manufacture cholesterol, and use whatever is to hand. The choleterol we make is different from dietary cholesterol ingested such as eggs or shellfish.
 
I take statins and seriously thinking of stopping them. They cause me more trouble than they are worth. Aching leg/calf muscles is the worst of it.

I don't have any issue taking statins as such.
I don't take them if my cholesterol figures are where I like them, but for a while until I worked out what was causing higher numbers, I took them with no side effects at all.
But I was on a minimal dose.
I tuned my diet to suit me, stopped the statins, and my blood tests came back ok.

I certainly find what I eat influences my cholesterol, but so long as I admit that to myself, I can positively influence the outcome.
 
There are a lot of very respected dieticians who are advocating Eatwell#2 no quarter given, Obey or else. this OP thread is about high fat in the diet, so a discussion on lipids is relevant. A vegan will have different inputs to me, but we both need to manufacture cholesterol, and use whatever is to hand. The choleterol we make is different from dietary cholesterol ingested such as eggs or shellfish.

It seems pointless to tar all dieticians with the same brush.

I read what they say, and decide for myself as to how I treat their recommendations.
Just because some recommendations, like the eatwell plate, aren't ones I agree with, doesn't mean everything they all say must automatically be dismissed out of hand.
 
I at the moment am taking statins basically as I think I said else where because recent studies have shown that those taking statins have a slightly improved survival rate for surgery for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and as I have two AAA's I will take any chance over no chance if my larger one decides to pop before the planned surgery to fix them which is hopefully happening with in the next couple of weeks. After that it will be nix on the satins for good.

An excellent attitude.
Make use of all the options to the best they can be.

Good luck with the op.
 
I at the moment am taking statins basically as I think I said else where because recent studies have shown that those taking statins have a slightly improved survival rate for surgery for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and as I have two AAA's I will take any chance over no chance if my larger one decides to pop before the planned surgery to fix them which is hopefully happening with in the next couple of weeks. After that it will be nix on the satins for good.
Good luck on this adventure. Hope it all works out for you.
 
my cholesterol is 5.2

I am 54 years old and in the UK. My nurse said anything under 5 is fine, but we agree for me not to take statins while i try diet only blood sugar control for 3 months.

I have read The Cholesterol Con and agree with it.
 
It seems pointless to tar all dieticians with the same brush.

I read what they say, and decide for myself as to how I treat their recommendations.
Just because some recommendations, like the eatwell plate, aren't ones I agree with, doesn't mean everything they all say must automatically be dismissed out of hand.
Sadly based on many posts on this site over the years far too many dieticians just push out the same old mantra about high carb/low fat. Have a look at the BDA (Association of UK Dieticians) web site and buried in the diabetes T2 datasheet is the famous Eatwell Guide - need I say more. They do, however, have an excellent new 136 page book on foods on the site which is rather good and the Eatwell Guide is absent; things are changing!
 
It seems pointless to tar all dieticians with the same brush.

I read what they say, and decide for myself as to how I treat their recommendations.
Just because some recommendations, like the eatwell plate, aren't ones I agree with, doesn't mean everything they all say must automatically be dismissed out of hand.
No, but we should be able to discuss things like eatwell and make recommendations where we think it is wrong. There are many here following a Low Fat diet, but not eatwell, so they would probably disagree with a thread discussing high fat. But I for one refuse to follow blindly what someone in a white coat commands that i do if I feel it is wrong for me, and I am happy to share my progress here in the forum for others to opine on. Although I am a follower of LCHF, I do question its principles and do not accept it as the only ride in town. It is working for me, and I believe for others too. But it could be Pandora's box, and it could all go base over apex one day. it is by discussing our experiences and sharing knowledge between forum members and our HCP's that we will find out if there are any drawbacks to it.
 
Back
Top