• 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?


I agree entirely.
This is exactly my point.

If I find my cholesterol rises when I eat saturated fat, and falls when I eat non-saturated, it makes no odds when men in white coats state I produce my own cholesterol, regardless of what I eat.
I will not blindly follow, regardless of how many people repeat what the men in white coats command, and tell me it is fact, when it clearly is not.

To me, and others in this thread, saturated fat has a severe drawback, and many may find that truth unpalatable to them, but it does not stop it being a truth.

As to base over apex, I'll be watching for the future studies on the cancerous stem cells that seem to occur on a high fat diet
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trudy Deakin is a dietician, and I would not dismiss her because of that.
 
serenity648 said:
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.
Click to expand...


What are you trying to raise your cholesterol to?
Do you have a preferred target?
 
Istarted a thread in discussions (What is the HF in LCHF), and in my opening posts i made it clear i was looking for a discussion into what constitutes HF, and what drawbacks there may be. At that time I was not convinced, but there was a good exchange of viewsm and I now can see the mechanisms regarding lipids, and these now make sense to me,

If you find HF to be bad for you, then please bring it to the conversation. There are many medical cconditions that would preclude HF, and these need to be identified.
 
Why do you believe HF, without saturated fats, is perceived to be bad?

There is a great belief HF can only be saturated fats, clearly many do find they can eat well without it.
 
SunnyExpat said:
What are you trying to raise your cholesterol to?
Do you have a preferred target?
Click to expand...
She didn't say she is trying to raise it. She just said she is happy with it how it is. I too am happy with my cholesterol whatever the figure because that's the figure my body needs at the time. I believe my cholesterol has gone down with LCHF because with less carbs I have less inflammation (less aches and pains) and therefore don't need my body to create as much cholesterol for repair.
 

As I said, some see cholesterol decrease, and that is proven as a good direction.
Others see it increase, and that is also proven as a good direction.

I prefer to google beforehand, and choose my direction before it commences its travels and refer to google for justification.
 

I'm slightly intrigued as to how you know that your cholesterol rises when you eat saturated fat? How often do you have it measured? I ask because I have only had 2 tests in the past 6 months so would have no real idea what my level are depending on what I eat.
 

Don't chop and change your diet, and keep good relations with your HCP.
They are on our side, if you let them be.

I do find some on here seem to look for conflicts where they don't exist, and rational conversation would work well instead.
 

I appear to have a natural, self regulating cholesterol level. Funny that, isnt it : ) The only time my cholesterol level raised was when i was eating transfats in the mistaken belief that low fat margarines/spread etc were better for me than butter.

Some of my family have a genetic cholesterol problem. And for them, the type of food they eat affects their levels. But even strict control only seems to reduce their levels by about 10% and they have to take medication for it. However, i would have thought that anyone with that sort of problem would have been alerted by their doctors, through blood testing, of the condition.

Personally I am leaning towards the idea that if it is naturally found in a food or drink, and not messed about with through processing, it wont do me any harm
 

I agree, mostly.
I like kidney beans, and cassava, but there's something in there I prefer to process out by soaking and boiling.

Pleased to see you like to keep your cholesterol in the 'good' range as well though.
 
SunnyExpat said:
Why do you believe HF, without saturated fats, is perceived to be bad?

There is a great belief HF can only be saturated fats, clearly many do find they can eat well without it.
Click to expand...
I have read one report that says saturated fats are ok, but since this turns years of bogeyman on its head, i am prepared for the possibility that there wll be another report that takes us back to the bad ole days. I personally am happy with saturated fats, and threw margerines out many years ago. I am not against HF, merely proceding in a westerly direction with caution. i have successfully used HF to stop unwanted weight loss and keep it static, so i know how it works, I just have a worry that a sedantary lifestyle, combined with a diet that may not be fully ketogenic, may mess up my lipid panel in an adverse way, There is another report that shows saturated fats are better than polyols, but again I could only find one report on this so far.
 

I don't really mind what any men in white coats, and their reports say.
We're talking about fats, and the effects on lipids.
Saturated fats, for me, specifically, don't keep it where many on here seem to prefer theirs.
Non saturated fats do, so it's a no brainer.
 

Really are you just determined to try and do everyone's opinion down but your own. Shall I explain it more simply.

The first profile was done to get a starting point - you can't know anything without a start point can you.? The second one was done to see what the effect of the diet was. How can one tell what is happening if one doesn't test - isn't that exactly what we use our BG meters for - why yes of course it is - to see the trends and how high our BGs are sent by what foods. Exactly the same for our lipid profile, just over a longer timescale.

I did and do know exactly what I want. Based on the latest research : lower Trigs and LDL is good, higher HDL is good, total cholesterol number is a waste of time as it tells you noting useful. So I could have arbitrarily decided I wanted my total cholesterol to be 4 or 3 or 6 but that would be pointless if I didn't knw what those numbers were made up of. 4 sounds better, but if it was made up of LDL 2 , Trigs 1 and HDL 1 then it's actually nowhere near as good as a level of 6 if that 6 is made up of trigs 0.5 HDL 3.5 and LDL 2.0.

No need to trawl the internet as that info is widely disseminated and already out there. So of course I knew what improved was before I started. Improved is lower trigs and LDL and higher HDL and that's exactly what my low carb high fat lifestyle has delivered, even with eating mountains of saturated fats. Point being, as before - you don't HAVE to eat lots of saturated fat on a low carb high fat diet but if you do, then in my experience, (as well of that of many others) there is no reason not to eat it if you want to as it doesn't have a bad effect on lipid profile.
 

So simply,
you test
you eat
you test
you know exactly want you want.

So even more simply for you you know exactly what you want, and you test to ensure you get there.

I'm glad you agree the op should decide, as you do, what the target is, then set out to achieve it.
Works perfectly for me as well.

And some of us also know what doesn't work well, but I'll leave that to you, as oddly enough, I accept you react differently to others.
 

Not really and you are being disingenuous now. Your idea was to set a target as in 4 or or 3 and then set out to eat to get there. I tested to see what happened with no targets in mind at all - but what happened was an improved lipid profile, proving that for me, saturated fats are a good thing not bad.

I didn't set out with a target so please stop twisting things, I have no idea why you want to do this all the time. I don't agree they should set a target (as in a number they want their cholesterol to be which seems to have been what you have been implying is what you do but please feel free to correct me if I have that wrong as I am sure you will) at all - I have stated I don't believe in targets and for your benefit will state it again - I don't believe in targets and think the 'diabetics should be 4 or below' which seems to be what many people are being told by HCPs, makes no sense.

I don't have a problem with testing to see if diet has had any effect good or bad. We already know what good and bad is in terms of HDL , LDL and Trigs and we know total cholesterol doesn't tell us which types we have.

I have always agreed people may react differently especially as many people have other. problems to cope with besides diabetes therefore i state what my experience is and don't generalise it or put words in other people s mouths.
 
I am ducking down behind the parapet, putting my head between my knees and kissing my harris bye bye. Seconds out.
 
Ladies and Gentlemen

Please stop making posts that are designed to provoke an emotional response. This is not a sparring arena. The OP has asked a serious question so can we please make objective posts and keep it civil
 
Some research done a few years ago, (think I read it on a Dr Kendrick blog) showed that those with lower cholesterol died earlier than those with higher cho. The theory being that we produce more cholesterol the older we get because it protects the essential stuff. Makes sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…