The FastDay Forum

Hi 140lbs,

WOW! What an inspiring story and I really admire your determination to be your own person in the face of medical pedantry. If you get the chance, PLEASE read Dr Malcolm McKendrick's book "The Great Cholesterol Con'. My husband has been left permanently damaged by statins and he will never take them again, no matter what any doctor says to him.

Good luck and I look forward to your next change of name i.e. 130lbs

Ballerina x

Re the cholestorol, there is info about this in Caroline's post here. Were the cholestorol readings taken during fasting or the day after fasting, as this might explain the raised levels?

Dominic, it was two days after a fast, if I remember correctly. It was a Thursday and back then I fasted on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Impressive. What is the total cholesterol ? It will have gone up if the HDL has risen.

Hello folks.
This morning I posted a long response to questions posed by some of you, and it has gone astray. If this post reaches the forum now, I will resend the gist of this morning's lost post shortly.

edit: rewritten post added here:

In answer to questions posed after my posting:-

My blood profile was done on the day following fasting.

My total cholesterol raised from 3.8 on 40mg Simvastatin, to 8.3 on no medication. LDL raised from 1.87 to 6 --- Alarm bells at the surgery, I expect.

I started low carbing for management of type 2 diabetes, never realising its importance and it proved effective for good weight loss too,---my primary reason for starting 5:2 Fast Diet.

So, I had been eating 55% calories as CHO until February, along with low fat foods. I turned it round to be approx 60% fat from animal and vegetable sources. CHO was reduced drastically to less than 60g per day, protein has increased a little.

My appetite reduced considerably, and I have re-introduced a small amount of chocolate containing 5g CHO; this does not stimulate any cravings.

I now drink freshly ground coffee daily, served with fresh cream and a couple of brazils, rather than a biscuit, or 2, or 3, or 4....(!). I expect the raised LDL will be blamed on the coffee and cream.

I have completely removed all pulses, rices, other grains, potatoes, starchy fruit and veg.
I eat green salads every day, and/or cooked cauliflower or broccoli, served with traditional hard cheese sauce made with cream.

I make coleslaw with traditional creamy mayonnaise.

I have animal protein from muscle meat, poultry and fish.

I have plenty of eggs and shellfish, as I have never considered dietary cholesterol to be detrimental. At this point I expect the dieticians are having a fit.

For desserts I use full fat authentic Greek yogurt, flavoured with berry fruits, or one chopped dried apricot or fig, and topped with linseeds and pumpkin seeds. I sprinkle cinnamon on this. Other days I steep the seeds and berries in sugar free jelly.

I have cocoa every day, made with water and cream, but need a little sweetener, so use a stevia tablet.

I use a lot of coconut products, and love avocados in the salads.

I hope this answers some questions. I have every intention of sticking to this regime, as it has made the fasting days so manageable, and I really do think that 5:2 is an excellent tool in weight maintenance, and helpful in weight reduction, albeit slower than low-carbing.

BUT--I have researched all I could; this regime has worked for me; my story is for interest purposes only, and people have to find their own solution that makes them comfortable.

As a food rebel in my old age,and after years of following conventional methods, I can tell you it has been a trying time mentally for me, flying in the face of the NHS guidelines. I have to trust my judgement that I would not intentionally do anything to harm my health. Others have to do their research as well.

That is brilliant news 140lbs I prefer to call my woe low sugar rather than low carb because everyone thinks of Atkins etc. and that kind of extreme diet is not sustainable for long term. Whilst I have weight to lose I stay away from fruit and low fat processed foods where possible. I eat a few low GI berries but that all in fruit, so I am going against NHS guidelines and getting fitter inside and out. Keep up the good work.

Chris x

Lovely posting from chriso57, as she puts my long-winded answer in a nutshell.

Thanks 140lbs for your response. I'm not an expert but I calculate your cholesterol ratio as having moved from 2.0 to 3.6, a deterioration but from a very good level (artificially produced by drugs?) to a still pretty good one? 3.5 is meant to be the 'target' and up to 5 is acceptable I read? Have I done those calculations right? [3.8/(3.8-1.87), 8.3/(8.3-6))]. Do the absolute figures for LDL and total cholesterol matter if the ratio is okay? (I don't know, I'm asking...)

Your diet seems to be about 60/25/15 Fat/Protein/Carbohydrate, interesting that you have found it has reduced your appetite (and not just that food is less tasty I presume?!) Quite paleo I think?

Thanks Dominic, I am still getting my head round the figures. I got rid of my books on cholesterol when GP talked me into resuming the statins when I, without permission, stopped taking them about 4 years ago. I had had concerns for years, reading the book from cover to cover, but GP was having none of it, and said I must resume, so I did, and chucked the book out. I feel more empowered now, but have to get my info from the internet today, and American sites seem to use %ages, whereas we in UK use ratios.
I can't get my head around the values classed as healthy for:-
'total chol:HDL'
What does 'cholesterol ratio' constitute?
What is healthy value for Tri glycerides:HDL work out at?
The NHS do a 'calculated' LDL-- is this something different to actual LDL?
Maybe I should post on the nerdy site with this thread.
This is heavy stuff for a Saturday night.

Hi 140lbs, I am just reading up on this now. Apologies if I tell you what you already know, or don't want to know ...

So the cholesterol ratio is Total cholesterol (HDL + LDL) divided by (or compared to) HDL cholesterol. HDL cholesterol is the 'good' stuff because it is thought to have a cleansing effect on atheroma on blood vessel walls, whereas LDL cholesterol is what can get deposited on those walls and cause atheroma (leading to atherosclerosis). A ratio of 3.5 is considered ideal and anything under 5 is acceptable.

Other cholesterol numbers that are traditionally looked at include the level of total, LDL and HDL cholesterol after an overnight fast. The suggested ranges you should be in are 5.0mmol/L or less for total (but 2/3 of UK adults are higher than this!), 3.0mmol/L or less for LDL, and 1.2mmol/L or more for HDL. On the first two of these you would be above 'safe' levels, though your HDL is good (as is your ratio).

I found good info on patient.co.uk here and on Wikipedia here.

Better yet I found our own topic 'Cholesterol dangers when fasting?' where we get the benefits of Caroline's knowledge. Definitely worth a read. Caroline points up a link here to a study in rats which suggests particular danger in following a high fat diet for those already with a high risk of heart attack. The researchers postulate that the lack of availability of easily-convertible energy from carbs might be critical in the immediate aftermath of a heart attack (making fatality more likely). But hopefully you don't fall into this high risk category, 140lbs?

Great, thanks Dominic. I did a bit of investigating last night, re:- ratios. I have no negative cardiac history, so don't fall into high risk category. Even better is that my diabetic risk is being managed as good as a pre-diabetic individual i.e. not perfect, but much improved.
My LDL looks bad at 6.0, but, LDL is split into good and bad elements. The good LDL ( try telling the establishment that there really is such a thing) rises with an increase in saturated fats........my high consumption of double cream...... the bad LDL only increases with carb consumption, which I no longer do, so I feel confident with my numbers.
Unfortunately, I feel unable to convince the professionals of my research. Until the NHS do a test to differentiate between the various types of LDL, I will make an assuption that my LDL is of the safer sort. I will not be taking statins again, based on the GPs assumtion that my high LDL is made up of the dangerous sort.
I will look at the articles you have kindly sourced for me. I have ceased taking on board much advice and stats on NHS sites, as I have not done well following their guidelines.

The calculated LDL uses an equation - the Friedwald equation - to estimate LDL because they don't measure it. If triglycerides are high it isn't valid.

www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID= ... 1535665170

Dominic and PhilT, you are both great!
This Sunday feels like my Sundays 50 years ago, when I was getting homework sorted for Monday morning. There better be nothing on Telly tonight, as I will be reading all this interesting stuff. Many thanks.

Thanks PhilT and 140lbs. Re the 'bad' LDL pattern B, LDL pattern A, and triglycerides this is from Wikipedia:

LDL particles vary in size and density, and studies have shown that a pattern that has more small dense LDL particles, called Pattern B, equates to a higher risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) than does a pattern with more of the larger and less-dense LDL particles (Pattern A)...

Some in the medical community have suggested the correspondence between Pattern B and coronary heart disease is stronger than the correspondence between the LDL number measured in the standard lipid profile test. Tests to measure these LDL subtype patterns have been more expensive and not widely available, so the common lipid profile test is used more often.

There has also been noted a correspondence between higher triglyceride levels and higher levels of smaller, denser LDL particles [LDL-B] and alternately lower triglyceride levels and higher levels of the larger, less dense LDL [LDL-A].

And here is a study supporting your point 140lbs that a VLCD (very low carbohydrate diet) improves the ratio between LDL patterns A and B.

Saturated fat is clearly an ongoing debating point within the (growing?) body of VLCD proponents. This abstract (2005) (by the same people as the previous link) is pro-saturated fat, responding to this study (2005) which is about the benefits of VLCDs for diabetes management but advocates emphasis on monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat intake.

Sorry if this is getting a bit nerdy, I am learning something anyway ...

Just watched an hour of you tube regarding cholesterol, diabetes and the myths associated with obesity, based on bad science. Strongly recommend:-
Tom Naughton.
Big Fat Fiasco. Parts 1-5.
By Fathead Movie.
I knew all this stuff years ago, but ignored it under peer group pressure in the NHS of the 1980's.I do wish I had been a stronger personality, and folllowed my own understanding of physiology which I earned as a student in the 1960s, before all the garbage about low fat foodstuffs became a way of life.

Dominic. Done my homework, and your recommended reading is superb! Just the sort of stuff I need to back up my limited knowledge of why I have changed my macro-nutrients to the levels opposite to NHS guidelines. I am now drug-free, and a couple of stones lighter, so this research must be correct, and I just don't understand why it is being ignored by the medics, especially as it has been around for a few years now.