"Normal" control is nothing to write home about
 

Perhaps the link below is old or obvious news but it was a very interesting 5 year Danish study to me...

Essentially, it says that we (diabetics) are as likely to die of a cardiac event (including stroke) as are non-diabetics that have already had one heart attack. I assume they are talking about the "normal" diabetic, perhaps ones that follow similar recommendations of the ADA or other worldwide standards... or even lower standards.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/healt...142355520080331

If my assumption is correct (re: standards used), this would seem to be another compelling reason for not being among the "normal" populaion of diabetics... i.e., it is much better to be a diabetic with normalized bg's rather than being a "normal" diabetic... of course, I also assume that normalized bg's dictate fewer complications as per Bernstein's thesis. I trust and believe he is correct. Too bad that so few of us buy into it.

/smile

I really think that most diabetics just arent ever exposed to our line of thinking.

I learnt more about diabetes and BG control from reading DANDR before I became a diabetic than I have since I became one. I have had diabetes in one form or another since 2005 but I know absolutely nothing about it. I have learntthe finer points here and am still awaiting my Dr Bernstein copy from Amazon!

The best thing we can do is form our own study group!

But that isn't about to happen, is it.

So we proceed to work what we learn about LCing.

There are hints now and then that the established community is beginning to recognize that LCing might be a good thing for everyone.

We will see.

It also says in that article that:

"We've talked about 'the lower, the better' for cholesterol and blood pressure to reduce the risk of heart attack," Schramm said in a statement.

"Now I think we should be saying 'the sooner, the better' for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in diabetics."

This statement implies, within the context of the article, that diabetics should automatically be placed on cholesterol lowering drugs.

Oh here we go again - let's not forget to take our statins, which as we all know from the media blitz lately, are pretty suspicious drugs that appear to have absolutely no benefits in the prevention of heart disease.

By the way, the link isn't old according to the date on it - yesterday March 31.

I know the link was from the day I posted it, I just meant in a generic sense - old news...:)

Sorry Korban, I misread or misinterpreted your comment. I have these senior moments y'know ... :-)

LOL - no problem Rose. I wasn't very clear... /sigh

/smile

Yes, my Doctor said as soon as my diagnosis happened, oh by the way you have to go on statins.

Your cholesterol is now deemed to be too high.

My total cholesterol ranges from 170-200. My HDl is around 55-60. My ratio is good. But my LDL is above 100. They now worry about LDL that is over 100.

However, as you research LDL further, you will find out that LDL is made up of different particles. The small sticky particles are the dangerous one. The HDL is the scrubber, so I don't know why all of a suddent everyone worries about LDL.

Anyway, getting back to LDL. Most LCing diets positively effect the composition of LDL. Most of our particles are the large "benign" particles, which from all research to date do not harm us.

So, my next cholesterol test will also include the LDL composition test.

I know about Zetia. My wife was taking it along with her Lipitor. Her family's genetics cause high cholesterol readings; diet I believe can influence the numbers by about 10% and exercise can help improve HDL. The Zetia had lowered her numbers down to 170 being taken with Lipitor. But now, she stopped them as a result of this recent knowledge from this ONE study. Her cholesterol went back up to 260. So now the Doctor is recommending that she doubles her dose of Lipitor up to 80mg. I remember reading that you have minimal improvement with Lipitor once you are above 20mg for sure. We will see. Maybe that is wrong.

What I am trying right now as of this writing are two products: Cholesterol block and niacin.

I want to see if this changes my "good" but now "bad" numbers.

Ralph

Niaacin increases HDL dramatically but it has to be real
"red face" niacin.Niacin has minimal effect on TG and HDL.
Eddie

Berstein (2007) does have a comment re: niacin. I have no idea at what levels or anything else - just reporting it for your info.

"...reports of liver toxicity [from rosiglitazone and pioglitazone] are far fewer than with some commonly used medications such as niacin and the so called statins..." (p.244)

He goes on to suggest for these meds at least [the ros- and pio-] that it is a good idea to have your blood tested annually for liver enzymes.

This may be old news to you but thought I should post it anyway.

/smile

Got to go back to the book pg 244.

Are you implying there is an issue taking Niacin?

Ralph

Heh, no, I am not but I think he is...

/smile

Dr. Davis recommends periodic liver checking if you're taking a high dose of niacin.

"Niaacin increases HDL dramatically but it has to be real
"red face" niacin.Niacin has minimal effect on TG and HDL.
Eddie"
I was having a bad day when I made that post.I meant to say
that Niacin has minimal effect on TG and LDL.
It is well known that liver must be monitored via regular blood
test when taking large amounts of Niacin.My HDL has increased
from 40's to 60's by using 1000 mg per day of Niacin.
My liver function has not been affected.
Eddie

Thanks Eddie,

I will let my Doc know that I will be taking Niacin to improve my already good HDL, which is in the mid 50s.

I think he checks this already, but I will make sure.

Ralph