• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

Good LDL

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
B

Barb

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Just to confuse the whole statin/saturated fat debate more, there's an interesting report on the link below.

According to this, there's only ever been a correlation between fat consumption and heart disease rather than a causal link. And apparently not all LDL cholesterol is bad - large, fluffy bits are supposed to be good, whereas the small, dense particles are bad.

Wonder how the doctor will react at my next review when I ask him for a breakdown of my LDL to find out if I'm mainly small and dense or fluffy?

Here's the link:

http://www.menshealth.com/print/21896
 
Thanks for the link Barb. I stopped taking my statins after reading stuff like this - to read the media or listen to most GPs you'd think the whole thing was absolutely proven beyond a doubt, but you don't have to delve far to see that it is a tenuous argument. I was reading the other day that they are thinking of changing the way that doctors consider risk for CVD. Instead of using the '10 year risk' they are considering looking at 'lifetime risk' which means that much younger people will be examined for risk according to their diet, lifestyle etc. It's thought that the extra burden of bringing a whole new generation (previously just the middle-aged and elderly would have been actively considered) will be too much for the health service to deal with so (yes, you've guessed it!) even more people will be 'statinated' at an ever decreasing age.

Human beings are very complex, for some reason some very clever people choose to forget this and try to apply generalisations to whole populations.
 
Dear Barb and Alan,

It's good to see that the popular press is catching up with the science. I have been banging on about saturated fat / cholesterol for years but nobody cares.

Warmest Regards Dodger
 
C*5_Dodger said:
Dear Barb and Alan,

It's good to see that the popular press is catching up with the science. I have been banging on about saturated fat / cholesterol for years but nobody cares.

Warmest Regards Dodger
Click to expand...

You were one of the people that first put me onto the alternative research Dodger, so it means a lot to me 🙂
 
Northerner said:
You were one of the people that first put me onto the alternative research Dodger, so it means a lot to me 🙂
Click to expand...

Decided a long time ago not to be bullied into taking statins.

Everyone should make a decision they're happy with though and I might think differently if additional health problems had to be considered.
 
QUOTE=Barb;211718]Decided a long time ago not to be bullied into taking statins.

Everyone should make a decision they're happy with though and I might think differently if additional health problems had to be considered.[/QUOTE]

Dear Barb,

I completely understand your sentiments, but if you look at the science with no preconceptions the evidence shows clearly that high cholesterol is not a cause of heart disease - see the links on my recent posts. We cannot ofcourse offer advice to others on this forum so I content myself with pointing out the science. Here's a U tube video I've not posted before, its in 5 parts and is humourous but with a serious message.

How Bad Science Made us Obese/Diabetic

Warmest Regards Dodger
 
Last edited:
it's true, the small dense LDL particles are the ones that do a lot of damage. Unfortunately diabetes (in particular poorly controlled diabetes) causes high numbers of small dense LDL particles ('diabetic dyslipidaemia'). In diabetics the LDL cholesterol concentration underestimates risk of heart disease as it does not take this into account (one of the reasons why the cholesterol targets are lower for diabetic patients and all diabetics fall into the 'at risk' category). A better marker of risk is to measure Apoprotein concentration and ratios as these corresponds to the number of particles rather than the cholesterol content. If you attend a hospital lipid clinic then apoproteins maybe requested but don't expect your GP to request them.
 
C*5_Dodger said:
Dear Toby,

This site just puts forward the establishment view which good science has now shown to be wrong!

Warmest Regards Dodger
Click to expand...


Well I'll stick with establishments advice thank-you Dodger, far better to take the advice of the experts than to be swayed by someone trying to make a fast buck by selling a book or promoting a video. Regards Toby.
 
toby said:
Well I'll stick with establishments advice thank-you Dodger, far better to take the advice of the experts than to be swayed by someone trying to make a fast buck by selling a book or promoting a video. Regards Toby.
Click to expand...

Dear Toby,

I guess we can just agree to differ.😉 I just hope that you did review the 5 videos and found them wanting. I would only add that all the info' that was presented is out there on the internet and independantly verifiable. I truely wish you well.

Warmest Regards Dodger
 
C*5_Dodger said:
Dear Toby,

I guess we can just agree to differ.😉 I just hope that you did review the 5 videos and found them wanting. I would only add that all the info' that was presented is out there on the internet and independantly verifiable. I truely wish you well.

Warmest Regards Dodger
Click to expand...



Differ we will Dodger on this one!🙂 I didn't watch those videos and have no intentions of doing so, my sister is married to a gp who regularly deals with the consequences of people ignoring the advice of the nhs and going their own way, do I want to be one of those?.......no thank-you sir! I wish you well on your journey of life. Toby.
 
Is anyone (medics included) in possession of the ultimate truth?

Surely the truth of the matter is dependent on the validity of ongoing research and the merits of the argument as it develops in the light of the assessment of that research?

Isn't it as naive to believe that the medical establishment is always right (echoes here of how the church in the Middle Ages - the establishment of its day - insisted that the sun went round the earth) as it is to seize on any (relatively) new proposition and to say, 'Yes! that's it - now we've got to the bottom of it!' ????

I'm very fortunate. When I insisted to my GP that I was going in for a carb-controlled diet, his reaction was, 'I've had a few people say that...but whether it's really a sound response, I can't say...The problem is that I'm only what I say I am, a GENERAL practitioner....However, I really must find out more, bring myself up to date with specialist research...I'm going to set aside time to look into it.'

That's the GP for me! One who doesn't claim to have all the answers but who is prepared to make his assessment of the value of developing stances that arise from an interpretation of current research.
 
Last edited:
I agree Jean, with so much information out there it's good that patients want to investigate research and ask more questions, not just believe what the first doctor tells them. I think that the advice that is given by diabetes and lipid clinics now is moving more towards a slightly carbohydrate restricted diet ie not the 'lots and lots of carbs and less protein/fat' diet that used to be common place 5 or 10 years ago. I think that the classic pie chart picture of carbs/protein/veg percentages that should make up a healthy diet is changing a bit. However 'very low carb' diets are still seen as rather extreme and far too restrictive. The whole point of a balanced diet is that it is just that 'balanced'. It's widely excepted that the biggest flaw in popular 'diet plans' is that they are too restrictive and people don't or can't stick to them in the long term. The research linking high blood cholesterol to risk of coronary heart disease and premature heart attack is pretty strong.
 
My old colleague and friend used to say that management often screw things up by listening to a good idea, taking it to extremes, then trying to apply it to every situation. :D

It's very much the samewith health. A precautionary approach is good, but don't go along with everything unless there's at least some credible research behind it. At least with various approaches, we may become aware of which method is best. I hope no-one becomes ill, but some may show better signs of good health. 🙂

I'm with the "stick with the established medical view unless strong evidence shows they're wrong" brigade too. In my case, I don't think my cholestorol is too high so I could stop takign them if I wanted. But for now, I'm going with the flow.

Interesting debate once again and good to read some sensible arguments.

Rob
 
fruitloaf said:
it's true, the small dense LDL particles are the ones that do a lot of damage. Unfortunately diabetes (in particular poorly controlled diabetes) causes high numbers of small dense LDL particles ('diabetic dyslipidaemia'). In diabetics the LDL cholesterol concentration underestimates risk of heart disease as it does not take this into account (one of the reasons why the cholesterol targets are lower for diabetic patients and all diabetics fall into the 'at risk' category). A better marker of risk is to measure Apoprotein concentration and ratios as these corresponds to the number of particles rather than the cholesterol content. If you attend a hospital lipid clinic then apoproteins maybe requested but don't expect your GP to request them.
Click to expand...

Dear fruitloaf,

I agree that small dense LDL (sdLDL) is probably the villain, but what is the physiological mechanism that produces it. The video shows that it is not poorly contolled diabetes per say, but carbohydrates. It is true that carbohydrates can give you poorly controlled diabetes and so sdLDL and poorly controlled diabetes are linked but by a common confounding variable - carbs. You stated in another post "The research linking high blood cholesterol to risk of coronary heart disease and premature heart attack is pretty strong." I have been trying to find some good science that is not sponsored by Big Pharma that demonstrates this. Can you point me in the right direction? I put the link to the U Tiube videos in so anyone who was so inclined could test their viewpoint against the science that the presenter was presenting. Have you looked at them. I have no evidence that anyone has!

Warmest Regards Dodger
 
Last edited:
Hi Dodger.

I tried to watch the videos, but couldn't get them play (more my laptop than anything else!), but have had a quick look at the website.

The claims made in the "No Bologna facts" page don't seem to be backed up by any cross-referencing. Do you happen to know if what they say is fact or merely interpreted to suit their claims ?

I only ask because there are obviously many websites and authors who claim many things that are backed up by facts but not all can be verified. I would like to have seen details of peer-reviewed papers and studies.

Rob
 
Robster65 said:
Hi Dodger.

I tried to watch the videos, but couldn't get them play (more my laptop than anything else!), but have had a quick look at the website.

The claims made in the "No Bologna facts" page don't seem to be backed up by any cross-referencing. Do you happen to know if what they say is fact or merely interpreted to suit their claims ?

I only ask because there are obviously many websites and authors who claim many things that are backed up by facts but not all can be verified. I would like to have seen details of peer-reviewed papers and studies.

Rob
Click to expand...

Dear Rob,

There is one thing that you can try. Start the video and then pause it. Leave it for 20 min before starting it again. The data is downloaded into a temporary buffer, so you need to fill the buffer so it doesn't keep stopping. The presenter is not presenting his own ideas, just what he has gained from reading other people studies. Two examples:

1. The choesterol/lipid hypothesis was started by Ancel Keys. Keys drew a graph using only 6 data points (ie 6 countries) and showed that the higher the cholesterol the greater the risk of heart disease. But there was data available for 22 countries. If all 22 countries are included, the correlation disappears.

2. A diet trial (A TO Z) was conducted by researchers at Stanford University. They showed, much to the dismay of the lead researcher, that the main heart disease markers improved most on a high fat diet (Atkins sort of!). But because he was a good scientist he published anyway.

Here's a link to their U Tube video don't forget to pause it after starting!

The A TO Z Trial

I will dig out some papers on this trial and others

Warmest Regards Dodger
 
Last edited:
Hi Dodger.

Youtube on pause and buffering as I type. Before I watch it, I'm always concerned when research, or interpretation, is so clear-cut but no-one else seems to agree or even take notice. Whilst I realise that a lot of studies are sponsored and certain findings are expected or hoped for, often with results being unpublished if they don't prove the correct hypothesis, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and would be very cautious about buying into anything on the say so of one or a minority of experts.
By the same token, I am interested in alternative views and would like to see any more evidence that challenges the paradigm.

Rob
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top