High Cholesterol

[Kreator]

Wrong again.... and of course that doesn't take into account how well controlled T2 is.. with my results I can of course happily tick the no to T2 box which pushed it down to 8.6%

Your Dr won't be ticking the no to T2 box, but that's up to you what you do...

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Wrong again.... and of course that doesn't take into account how well controlled T2 is.. with my results I can of course happily tick the no to T2 box which pushed it down to 8.6%

I can put my age as 18..........

 

[bulkbiker]

No matter what happens, diabetes, like high LDL, is never going to improve my risk.

"Successfully reversed type 2 in 2014 with weight loss and the Newcastle Diet"

You no longer have T2 though...you reversed it...

 

[bulkbiker]

I can put my age as 18..........

There would be little point in either of us doing that...

And as the lowest permitted age is 25...
However with that entry and T2 the risk comes out at 0.5%

 

[AndBreathe]

Not concerned, purely up to individual how they go about their life & health, just wouldn't want high levels like that myself & if did would be do something about it.

Sometimes wonder about what would happen in a case of life insurance if someone passed away from cardiovascular disease because they failed to accept their risks when alive, example where they ignored their Drs advice on how to treat something like high cholesterol, could that be possible get out clause for insurance companies to avoid paying out to those left behind, wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did.

As a variation on a theme, many people ignore medical advice all the time. To keep it simple, I'll cite smoking, levels of alcohol intake and weight.

Life assurance is underwritten at the point of application and then reviewed at death (or whatever the triggering event is. At the point of underwriting, information is gathered in order for the company to assess the risk they will be accepting, then they name their terms. From that point they are hoping their customer doesn't do anything silly, and lives a long time (for them to collect premiums).

Provided the applicant did not lie on their application, and if they ignored medical advice - whatever it was - in the intervening period, their claim would be valid - provided they had met the claim trigger points - likely death.

 

[Drummer]

I don't usually cite vague reports - vague meaning that they do not give the origins and the details are missing, but - in the British Medical Journal (allegedly) there was a re-evaluation of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968 to 1973)
9570 individuals were involved in a trial to investigate replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil.
The original finding of a reduction in cholesterol levels was confirmed.
However, for each 30mg/dl reduction in total cholesterol, there was (allegedly) a 22% increase in deaths.
You can see why there is doubt in the minds of some people.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

As a variation on a theme, many people ignore medical advice all the time. To keep it simple, I'll cite smoking, levels of alcohol intake and weight.

Life assurance is underwritten at the point of application and then reviewed at death (or whatever the triggering event is. At the point of underwriting, information is gathered in order for the company to assess the risk they will be accepting, then they name their terms. From that point they are hoping their customer doesn't do anything silly, and lives a long time (for them to collect premiums).

Provided the applicant did not lie on their application, and if they ignored medical advice - whatever it was - in the intervening period, their claim would be valid - provided they had met the claim trigger points - likely death.

Yes, and for the avoidance of any doubt, on any insurance I always declare I'm type 2.
I still have the annual check ups, it's still on my records, it's pointless to not declare it.

 

[Tdm]

I don't usually cite vague reports - vague meaning that they do not give the origins and the details are missing, but - in the British Medical Journal (allegedly) there was a re-evaluation of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968 to 1973)
9570 individuals were involved in a trial to investigate replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil.
The original finding of a reduction in cholesterol levels was confirmed.
However, for each 30mg/dl reduction in total cholesterol, there was (allegedly) a 22% increase in deaths.
You can see why there is doubt in the minds of some people.

Over 5 years, how many of the participants died?
If you are comparing deaths, we may actually be comparing a small number of deaths and the differences may not be statistically significant.

 

[harbottle]

I don't usually cite vague reports - vague meaning that they do not give the origins and the details are missing, but - in the British Medical Journal (allegedly) there was a re-evaluation of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968 to 1973)
9570 individuals were involved in a trial to investigate replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil.
The original finding of a reduction in cholesterol levels was confirmed.
However, for each 30mg/dl reduction in total cholesterol, there was (allegedly) a 22% increase in deaths.
You can see why there is doubt in the minds of some people.

This is true, I think the research was aimed at a particular acid that is a relatively new addition to the human diet (Refined oils?). The paper mused that oxidation may have taken place and led to the creation of some bad stuff.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I don't usually cite vague reports - vague meaning that they do not give the origins and the details are missing, but - in the British Medical Journal (allegedly) there was a re-evaluation of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968 to 1973)
9570 individuals were involved in a trial to investigate replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil.
The original finding of a reduction in cholesterol levels was confirmed.
However, for each 30mg/dl reduction in total cholesterol, there was (allegedly) a 22% increase in deaths.
You can see why there is doubt in the minds of some people.

You're quoting a study done over 50 years ago?

It irrelevant to any modern dietary advice.

Research Review: Old data on dietary fats in context with current recommendations

(Comments on Ramsden et al. in the British Medical Journal) Our expert examines a recent paper (1) based on 1960’s data that challenges current guidelines on the benefits of replacing saturated fat…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

 

[Tdm]

Over 5 years, how many of the participants died?
If you are comparing deaths, we may actually be comparing a small number of deaths and the differences may not be statistically significant.

The 10,000 participants looks fine, but in a 10,000 sample size i reckon you'd expect 500 deaths over 5 years according to standard us mortality figures (possibly higher depending on participant age).

So you actually have quite a small data set of actual deaths, smaller still when broken down into cholesterol levels. You'd have to see the statistical analysis to see if their results had any statistical significance.

 

[nonethewiser]

As a variation on a theme, many people ignore medical advice all the time. To keep it simple, I'll cite smoking, levels of alcohol intake and weight.

Life assurance is underwritten at the point of application and then reviewed at death (or whatever the triggering event is. At the point of underwriting, information is gathered in order for the company to assess the risk they will be accepting, then they name their terms. From that point they are hoping their customer doesn't do anything silly, and lives a long time (for them to collect premiums).

Provided the applicant did not lie on their application, and if they ignored medical advice - whatever it was - in the intervening period, their claim would be valid - provided they had met the claim trigger points - likely death.

Anything silly would be ignoring medical advice in something very serious as cvd risk, believe what you want but would be very surprised if no insurance company wouldn't use it as a get out clause, or very least reduce payout on death.

 

[42istheanswer]

@Tdm If the article posted by @travellor is correct, the number of participants was down to 2500 within a year and only 1000 or so lasted the full 3 (not 5) years of the study. So probably very small numbers of actual deaths

 

[Deleted member 21371]

The 10,000 participants looks fine, but in a 10,000 sample size i reckon you'd expect 500 deaths over 5 years according to standard us mortality figures (possibly higher depending on participant age).

So you actually have quite a small data set of actual deaths, smaller still when broken down into cholesterol levels. You'd have to see the statistical analysis to see if their results had any statistical significance.

There is a review in the link I posted, it seems it wasn't actually carried out to any real form of recognised testing, so is not accepted as a valid test.
It seems the only real measurable thing was the true reduction in cholesterol, but again, while it was real, even the methodology to do that is questionable by today's standards.

 

[harbottle]

There is a review in the link I posted, it seems it wasn't actually carried out to any real form of recognised testing, so is not accepted as a valid test.
It seems the only real measurable thing was the true reduction in cholesterol, but again, while it was real, even the methodology to do that is questionable by today's standards.

It seems in the original research they used trans fats to replace saturated fats..!

The diet used in the MCE was never consumed by any appreciable number of Americans and the level of linoleic acid was well above the range recommended by the American Heart Association or any other group. To reach these levels, investigators created fake meat, cheese, and milk by removing as much of other types of fat as possible, replacing these with corn oil. Whatever small amounts of n-3 fatty acids were present would have been largely removed. It’s also important to note that investigators created a special corn oil margarine that was lower in trans fat than the standard margarine, but we now know that the most dangerous types of trans fat (18:2 trans isomers) are likely to be higher in these lightly hydrogenated products than in the more heavily hydrogenated forms (4).

 

[harbottle]

All this talk of saturated fats is putting me off my porky scratchings.

 

[rebrascora]

All this talk of saturated fats is putting me off my porky scratchings.

Happy to take any you can't manage off your hands..... My system seems to run well on saturated fats.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

All this talk of saturated fats is putting me off my porky scratchings.

Happy to take any you can't manage off your hands..... My system seems to run well on saturated fats.

All about the balance.
Just done a very nice cheeseburger.
Lean steak mince, a rasher of smoked bacon, onion, tomato, vintage cheese, on a very nice seeded wholemeal role.

 

[Tdm]

It seems in the original research they used trans fats to replace saturated fats..!

Ha ha! Small sample size, not actually comparing saturated and unsaturated fats - a poorly designed study not fit for purpose. An excellent illustration of the importance of critical thinking and 'peer review'.

 

[Tdm]

All about the balance.
Just done a very nice cheeseburger.
Lean steak mince, a rasher of smoked bacon, onion, tomato, vintage cheese, on a very nice seeded wholemeal role.

Mmmmmm!