discouraged.... cholesterol help....

13»

Replies

  • myyovett
    myyovett Posts: 51 Member
    I have high cholesterol, too. My recent test came back at 304. For me, there is a genetic component. My doctor said that my diet is probably good because my triglycerides and HDL are "excellent" and it's only my LDL that is bad. High triglycerides are usually a sign that you are eating unhealthy in some way. My doctor insisted that I start taking statins last month.

    You might consider the TLC diet. This link takes you to a very detailed plan for the TLC diet, plus it includes a lot of information on Cholesterol : http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/chol/chol_tlc.pdf

    For myself, I've decided to try a low-fat Paleo diet. I've eliminated all flour and grains and most dairy. So, I eat lean meat and fish, fruit, and vegetables, and healthy nuts like almonds and walnuts. The only dairy I eat is lowfat Greek yogurt and occasional cheese (maybe once per week).

    Let me know if you have any questions.


    Very thoughtful.!!! thank you....
  • shalomabeth
    shalomabeth Posts: 63 Member
    i was told that meat is not the cause of cholesterol. i do green smoothies which helped lower mine yet i do eat meat once a week and never had an issue. i do dairy free cheese,cage free eggs lean meat or free range chicken but never had a problem as
    most of what i eat is raw food anyway
  • JaceyMarieS
    JaceyMarieS Posts: 692 Member
    As a diabetic, I would be more concerned with controlling carbs than trying to eat low fat. My macros are set to 20% carbs/50%fat/30%protein. My A1c as of last week is 5.2 (down from 7.3 12/27/11) and my cholesterol is now 161 (down from 207)

    I'm also going to throw out that my endo completely disagrees with an A1c of less that 7 being acceptable due to risk of hypos. He does not believe in different standards for diabetics than for "normal" people and also doesn't advocate a diagnosis of pre-diabetes as he feels that like saying someone is just a little pregnant. The 7.0 A1c recommendation is generally for young children and the elderly who depend on others for food and medications. For this subset, the danger of a hypo is more immediate as they are unable to regulate themselves. If hypos are a problem in a competent adult, he would suggest lowering medication in order to decrease hypo risk and wants an A1c to always be in a "normal" range - that is less than 5.7.

    An A1c is the normal range prevents diabetic complications - a much more dangerous reality for adult diabetics.
  • Darlekins
    Darlekins Posts: 44
    Interesting notes about A1c:

    The International Diabetes Federation and American College of Endocrinology recommend HbA1c values below 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), while American Diabetes Association recommends that the HbA1c be below 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) for most patients.[16] Recent results from large trials suggest that a target below 53 mmol/mol (7%) may be excessive: Below 53 mmol/mol (7%) the health benefits of reduced A1C become smaller, and the intensive glycemic control required to reach this level leads to an increased rate of dangerous hypoglycemic episodes.[17]
    A retrospective study of 47,970 diabetes patients found that patients with an A1C less than 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) had an increased mortality rate,[18] but a later international study contradicted these findings

    So your A1c doesn't sound like anything to worry about, but I still think you need to exert serious effort controlling that sugar intake.

    Two recent studies (well, within the last 10 years) are inconsistent in their results. The ACCORD trial was stopped early because higher mortality (death) was found in the group who had maintained the HAIC less than 6%. However, many of the deaths were subsequently attributes to the use of Avandia, The ADVANCE trial showed no increase in mortality.

    http://www.healthday.com/newsletters/diabetes.htm


    http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2010/05/accord-redux-its-high-blood-sugars.html

    ACCORD was a very large study in which one group of people with diabetes were given a strong cocktail of diabetes drugs with the aim of lowering their A1c below 6.0. Those drugs included sulfonylureas, Avandia and Actos, all drugs known to increase heart problems. The other group of study participants kept their A1cs in 7% or higher range recommended by the ADA. The result was that the group of people shooting for the lower A1cs had slightly more heart attacks than those maintaining mediocre control.
    For perspective, it is worth noting that another larger study, ADVANCE, pursued the same strategy with different drugs and found NO excess deaths in the tight control group.
    And in both studies, the group with tight control had less classic diabetes complications most notably neuropathy and kidney disease. But because of that small number of excess deaths in the tight control arm of ACCORD, many family doctors are now telling patients that lowering blood sugar is dangerous.


    Fortunately, a new study of the ACCORD data puts this into perspective. The study design of ACCORD is so sloppy, it is not likely we will ever know exactly what the problem with its protocol was.Before and after adjustment for covariates, a higher average on-treatment A1C was a stronger predictor of mortality than the A1C for the last interval of follow-up or the decrease of A1C in the first year. Higher average A1C was associated with greater risk of death as well as greater risk of diabetic complications
    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/5/983.abstract


    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1103669
    Given unbalanced exposure, we think that the ACCORD trial is inconclusive and that the recommendation to abandon lower glucose targets is not supported and has unknown consequences for the long-term management of diabetes.


    http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7001
    ADA - Low Glucose Levels Do Not Explain Excess Deaths in ACCORD Trial:A1c of less than 7% is not a predictor of mortality risk in Type 2 diabetes and the converse is true in that higher A1cs do increase the risk of mortality. For every 1% higher A1c level above 6%, the risk of death increases by 20%.


    If your doctor is basing his advice on ACCORD, I strongly suggest you find a new doctor.



    And for the OP, I second the advice you've received to test more often and modify your diet based on the results of your increased testing. For MANY diabetics, oatmeal (even Irish) is not a wise idea. Adding fruit to it is an even worse idea. The only way you'll know if this applies to you is to test, test, test and adjust.
  • LauraDotts
    LauraDotts Posts: 732 Member
    I second the recommendation to read the resources at bloodsugar101.com.

    An A1c of over 6 is not acceptable for the long term. An A1c of 6.0 is an average glucose reading of 135 mg/dl. An A1c of 6.5 is an average glucose reading of 153 mg/dl. Blood glucose readings over 140 is known to do damage to internal organs and continue the diabetic on the road to diabetic complications.

    It is perfectly reasonable to work towards and expect to reach an A1c of under 5.7 (the line between diabetic and non diabetic levels). Don't accept a goal of anything else and don't allow your doctor to be satisfied with a higher A1c. It can be achieved. Medication can help but ultimately the "heavy lifting" of diabetic control is done through diet.

    I am completely disgusted with the ADA for continuing to promote an acceptance of A1c levels and dietary recommendations the are known to contribute to diabetic complications. Apparently, they are satisfied with just slowing down dismemberment and death for diabetics rather than halting the progression of the disease.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    MFP says 56 gr fat so I keep it below that .... usually

    For lipid management, the type of fat is much more important than the amount. The type of carbohydrates may be even more important. Eat more vegetable and fish fats and less fats from red meat and dairy. More carbs from vegetables, fruits and whole grains and less from refined grains and added sugar. Fat is high calorie so you do want to go crazy with it, but low fat is not required for health or weight loss.

    This site has a lot of good information and relationship between diet and blood cholesterol:
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/#cholesterol

    And EXERCISE. Regular exercise is the best and quickest way to improve your lipid profile.
  • LauraDotts
    LauraDotts Posts: 732 Member
    By the way, higher cholesterol levels are one of the diabetic complications you can expect with elevated blood glucose levels.
  • mona_patty
    mona_patty Posts: 170
    I used to have high cholesterol. When I went to see my dr at the time I was 180 lbs (now 161lbs), my results came out good. You need to be careful with animal products, also eat lots of veggies. Eat plain oatmeal for breakfast, add cinnamon, real maple syrup, or add fruits to it.
    I don't know what your eating habits is. Hope it helps. I never took fish oil supplements, etc. .

Categories