Low carb high fat in all but name!

I came across the following on the big forum, where it has been, variably, fully understood by some and totally misunderstood by others.  

Basically a vascular surgeon, on statins, did a bit of reading and decided to give them up, and also give up sugars and starches and eat more animal fat.  (sound familiar?)  Surprise, surprise, all his health markers improved to better than "with-statin" levels.  He will not take them again.

My apologies if you have read it before, it was first published last March, but I thought it was worth passing on, if only because it was a vascular surgeon who was saying it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10717431/Why-Ive-ditched-statins-for-good.html


If you want to read the comments by our good friends and colleagues elsewhere, you can find the thread here,
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/interesting-article-on-cholesterol-by-a-vascular-sugeon.70173/

Sally.

Saw this in the Telegraph too Sally, we also put in on the low carb blog ...... but thanks, the more who read it the better and merrier.

From what I read there is still a huge question mark over their benefits, in fact more harm than good can be caused. I wouldn't take statins, and as for some Authorities who want children on them the mind simply boggles - but of course they are seen as money spinners, yet more people on statins to keep the money coming in. In my opinion it's so wrong

All the best Jan

yes, he has a decent diet now, but the guy doesn't know his trig levels and it's trig/hdl ratio that is very important and it also gives a size to his LDL

with 60% of us dying from CVD, you don't want to be wrong

cholesterol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BFRi-nH1v8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2zoDsVimyw

"j", I wonder if you are worrying unnecessarily.  ("60% of us dying from CVD, you don't want to be wrong").   I'm rather a fan of Zoe Harcombe, a very sensible woman, who analyses statistics in the cold light of day.  Her blog entry,
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/05/heart-disease-the-facts/
entitled "Heart disease - the facts" is a reassuring read.  A few quotes:

"There were 270,804 male deaths and 288,813 female deaths from all causes, for people under the age of 65, in the UK in 2009.   …….17% of the deaths in men were from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 32% from cardiovascular disease (CVD). The data for women shows that 12% of the deaths were from CHD and 32% from CVD. (CHD includes angina and heart attacks. CVD includes all diseases of the circulation including CHD, cardiomyopathy and stroke.)"  (my bold)

"The number of deaths, without knowing ‘out of how many’, is pretty meaningless.   …... death rates for CHD for people under the age of 65  …….   are usually presented in terms of “deaths per 100,000″ i.e. for every 100,000 UK people – how many died from coronary heart disease?
The figures are 33 for men in 2009 and 8 for women. Yes – 33 in every 100,000 men died from coronary heart disease in 2009 and 8 in every 100,000 women died from CHD in 2009. How small is that?!"

And, in case you, or any other readers are over 65, ……
"The US death rate from all causes of 0.78% means that 777 people, per 100,000 residents of the population, died in 2006. Death certificates recorded 200 of these deaths as being from heart disease.[iii] So 0.2% of the USA population died from heart disease in 2006. That means, if you had 500 friends of any age, you were likely to lose 1 of them to heart disease during 2006."

So, you don't want to be frightened by misleadingly presented statistics into taking statins.

"j", you also say, "the guy doesn't know his trig levels".  The article says, "My triglycerides — a type of blood fat with a causal link to heart disease — were lower than at any time in the preceding eight years.".  He also says, with reference to cholesterol levels, "Not that I cared about any of this.".  This statement is a key point in the whole piece.  What this surgeon, and many others are saying, is that cholesterol levels are an irrelevance.  

The message is, DON'T PANIC.
Sally

"The message is, DON'T PANIC." My message is what's wrong with a big heart attack? If you look at the three leading causes of death in old age it's heart disease, cancer and dementia. Personally I am hoping for a heart attack. We all have to die of something.

For diabetics the heart disease rate is extremely high, but as we know most diabetics are very poorly controlled, so we should not be surprised so many diabetics are dead men walking. The NHS stats.

Results for England. The National Diabetes Audit 2010-2011

Percentage of registered Type 1 patients in England

HbA1c > 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) = 92.6%
HbA1c > 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) = 71.3%
HbA1c > 10.0% (86 mmol/mol) = 18.1%

Percentage of registered Type 2 patients in England

HbA1c > 6.5% (48 mmol/mol = 72.5%
HbA1c > 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) = 32.6%
HbA1c >10.0% (86 mmol/mol) = 6.8%

These results are very similar to those obtained in previous NHS audits over the past 5 - 6 years.

So, let's talk about cholesterol and heart disease. Just as many people have heart attacks with so called good cholesterol numbers as those with bad, except some people with sky high numbers such as people suffering from hypercholesterolemia.

Maybe some will remember the Irishman in the cereal killers movie who went high fat low carb, his LDL went through the roof but when tested again it was found to be the large particle safe LDL. Our LDL particle size cannot be measured in the UK which is one of the many reasons cholesterol numbers here are pretty meaningless, unless you want to frighten people shitless and put them on statins.

Check out Dr. Kendrick talking about the largest cholesterol and heart disease study ever done.


One last point, some bad news, none of us are going to live forever.

I think they mean all cardiovascular disease, as neutral as I can get it is, T2
http://www.healthline.com/health/type-2-diabetes/statistics#3
"WHO states that 50 percent of people with diabetes die of cardiovascular disease, primarily heart disease and stroke."


http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/20/3/830.full.pdf
Macrovascular complications are the leading causes of
morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients; >60% of
diabetic patients die of cardiovascular diseases.1

j wrote:I think they mean all cardiovascular disease, as neutral as I can get it is, T2
http://www.healthline.com/health/type-2-diabetes/statistics#3
"WHO states that 50 percent of people with diabetes die of cardiovascular disease, primarily heart disease and stroke."


http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/20/3/830.full.pdf
Macrovascular complications are the leading causes of
morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients; >60% of
diabetic patients die of cardiovascular diseases.1

Another factor to consider is most type two diabetics are type two's. Most apart from being poorly controlled are on a cocktail of type two meds (many have been proven to kill like Avandia and Actos) and insulin. Depending on dosage, which due to ludicrous dietary information is high I suspect, have up to 3 times the death rate, mostly cardio than a non insulin using type two diabetic.

It really does amaze me, how so many do not see what is going on, or if they do know what is going on do nothing. For the sake of clarity this is how it works. A type two is diagnosed, they are given criminal dietary advice. They are told not to test, they are quoted at best the lamentable NICE guidelines re blood glucose number recommendations. Their diabetes gets worse, they are given more meds that do not work and their condition deteriorates. Many suffer the grim complications, they die.

No one gives a monkeys because we all know "diabetes is a progressive disease", only a nutter would think otherwise. You know the sort of nutter that posts on forums, the sort of nutter than starts blogs, the sort of nutter that joins face book and twitter and goes after the NHS, DUK, DCUK, the sort of nutter than builds a website and funds it for over six years. The sort of nutter that communicates regularly with the worlds leading low carb medical professionals for the latest advice and information.

Who on earth would be that stupid?

I think I know the answer to this one Eddie

Have you ever read "The relativity of wrong" by Isaac Asimov ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong

So in answer to that question of yours....Who on earth would be that stupid? I would say someone who isn't stupid at all. I already tell Andy that's he's not a m*r*n (can't spell it all out properly or he will know what I'm saying and get mad at me ). Am I gonna have to keep telling you that you are not a nutter too? Geez you men can be hard work sometimes

Edit: I've just noticed the example shown talks about sugar! Am I going to be put in the naughty corner for putting a reference to sugar on a low carb forum?

Have you ever read "The relativity of wrong" by Isaac Asimov ?

No, I believe in the 100% certainty I am right, at least as far as type two diabetes and weight control is concerned. As for Andy's state of mind or limitations, should he have any, is none of my business.

"Geez you men can be hard work sometimes"

Agreed, we have to learn to make things much easier to understand, we presume far too much.

I fully understand what you are saying Eddie.

zand wrote:I fully understand what you are saying Eddie.

Good

Zand said, "I fully understand what you are saying Eddie."

I think Zand must be cleverer than what I am.  I've not got a clue.
Sally

Sally wrote:Zand said, "I fully understand what you are saying Eddie."

I think Zand must be cleverer than what I am.  I've not got a clue.
Sally

No I am definitely not more clever than you Sally - but I am much more badly behaved than you.  

zand wrote:I fully understand what you are saying Eddie.

Please explain to me then lol !

mo1905 wrote:

zand wrote:I fully understand what you are saying Eddie.

Please explain to me then lol !

Give me a ring Mo and I will explain. Even I tip toe about in this place, believe it or not. Forums, who needs 'em.