A question about a blood sugar reading

[Humberto]

Good advice for Type-2 Diabetics and anyone wanting to avoid this largely preventable condition: http://pcrm.org/health/diabetes-resources/the-vegan-diet-how-to-guide-for-diabetes



Check out the video: http://pcrm.org/health/diabetes-resources/ and FAQs http://pcrm.org/health/diabetes-resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-diabetes

Also see: http://www.washingtonccr.org/pubs/worksite.cfm

Is it all fat that promotes insulin desensitivity, or only saturated fat?

I'm beginning to think that fructose is toxic.

 

[Maverick Jester]

Here's a picture of a baby woolly Páramo donkey:

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Why? :wtf:

 

[RiaX]

They are. There's been no demonstrable link between them and cardiac health.

Again statins increasing life span ... wow its quite simple

They are. There's been no demonstrable link between them and cardiac health.

HDL and LDL ARE NOT THEORETICAL FFS are you retarded

HDL looks like this:

http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/abc/v87n5/e18f1.gif

LDL looks like this:

http://healthyprotocols.com/image_LDL.jpg

They have a very important role in the body

So? insulin has an important role but if you dont take things in the right context then its as good as understanding absolutely nothing ... you an example of this.

"insulin shock a hypoglycemic reaction to overdosage of insulin, a skipped meal, or strenuous exercise in an insulin-dependent diabetic, with tremor, dizziness, cool moist skin, hunger, and tachycardia, sometimes progressing to coma and convulsions." - shall we say insulin is dangerous now ? rofl what a clown

You can't just lower them and expect no effect

Its abnormally high, it must be lowered. This is amazing that something as simple as this escapes you, maybe not. Its like saying "oh your blood pressure is 220/180 there must be a reason for this, the body is doing it we dont need to lower it now there is not hard evidence relating to death from it" .... and no there is an effect, its cardioprotective and prevent plague formation on the arteries.

like this:

http://www.umm.edu/graphics/images/en/18031.jpg

Just like technically no one as actually died directly from HIV infections no one dies directly to high blood pressure or high cholesterol. They get heart attacks or cerebral vascular accidents. BRING THE EVIDENCE ROFL

justify a flawed hypothesis

The survival rate and increase of human life span speaks for itself. Doesnt matter what you think.

It could rise in accordance with disease

There we go slowly you understanding. It does (refer to plague formation above), this is what statins do they block the formation of these LDLs by blocking HMG-coA

Diseases often progress slowly as well

Hence chronic treatment with statins

It's a bad indicator of risk then.

nope. Over 70s doesnt prove a thing because most of your CVD mortality will occur between 50 - 60 ... they already dead.

What about "...were not associated with a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina..."?
I seems to look at more than just 2 parameters.

Because you have no idea what that actually means Dr Swa LOL

"Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for..." and even the title "Lack of Association Between Cholesterol and..."

again published 1994. Utter rubbish

Statins reduce inflammation

This is NOT the MOA of a statin drug

If their effect was due to lowering cholesterol then why didn't the older classes of cholesterol lowering medication have the same effect

They did. Simvastatin ? where do you get this nonsense from ?

Statins also have other side effects so high cholesterol doesn't justify their use.

Are you insane ? name one side-effect of a statin without googling it. Tell me the frequency of these side-effects. There are enough people on statins and they doing just fine. They would be dead without them. The rationale of statin use in dislipidemia is justified that is not for debate.

Next you going to say the use of beta-lactam antibiotics is not justified because of the anaphaltic shock side effect rofl

It also has a protective effect even if cholesterol is already low or normal. Explain THAT.

HMG-coA reductase. quite simple actually. It doesnt remove cholesterol like antibiotics kill bacteria. It blocks the biosynthesis.

The cancer issue is from a review by Thomas Newman and Stephen Hulley on the effect of statins and fibrates in rodents. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8531288

Yup. Published 1996. Sorry my statin information is 2012 from oncology journals (more than one). I will stick to them. They know more than Dr Swa

So you have to treat about 28 in order to prevent 1 death in the presence of existing heart disease.

Go and learn how clinical trials and studies work and whats the objective of these studies. The randomize clinical trial is done to show activity. Again you looking at the wrong figures Dr Swa:

" Over the 5.4 years median follow-up period, simvastatin produced mean changes in total cholesterol, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol of -25%, -35%, and +8%, respectively, with few adverse effects."

now this is ancient study publish in 1994 fair enough its valid, but go an look at atorvastatin. Its potency is 2 fold. Though what its telling you is that simvastatin was successful in decreasing morbidity and mortality.

More than 40 trials before the inception of statins showing no correlation between low cholesterol and heart health

so? if your cholesterol is normal then there is no need to prescribe a statin. If your cholesterol is high then brought down with use of a statin thats a different story.

It also found cholesterol decreasing with age, an astonishing fact as heart disease goes up with age

Maybe to you. Its called arteriosclerosis. The vasculature loses its elasticity. At the rate you going Dr Swa we should rewrite all the medical guidelines IN THE WORLD next you will tell me that use of asprin is not necessary in diabetics

Ignoring

yup thats all you can do. Same with evolution. Debating with you is a waste of time. You cant even appreciate time as a factor for scientific research, nor context of material or even the study types.

There is no extreme toxicity to Vitamin D

Funny. I guess I should take down our Vitamin D toxicity guidelines in the hospital. Thanks for telling me this information Dr Swa, we've been doing it wrong all long. To think all those babies we saved, and the elderly who take it for arthritis, guess that was just a fluke. Do me a favour Dr Swa please email all the medical school in SA about this we need to remove it from literature ROFL. Please email UCT school of pharmacy and pharmacology they need to edit the toxicity out of the SAMF. While you at it CC it to the FDA.

Vitamin D is safe, when achieved via natural means, synthetic supplementation of its analogues and itself in solution - thats a different story. Just like ethanol huh, perfectly safe when your body produces it, not so safe when you drink 2 bottles.

effects are far more beneficial with less side

Ok Dr Swa, the entire medical profession is wrong. Why have we been wasting our time with statins. Are you going to tell me vitC is the fountain of youth next ? OR vitB12 cures HIV ? they vitamins.... go an learn what they do first.

Cholesterol has nothing to do with it

Loss of elasticity and plague formation, keep up with these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arteriosclerosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

but no proper long term study has been done

Hmmm and I wonder why that is. Just because you have a question that does not mean its a valid avenue. Thats because the theory is utter rubbish.

Save the money spent on dangerous drugs and special diets and buy some supplemental D instead.

LOL anyone reading this dont take this nonsense advice. When Dr Swa ages he will be on a statin or he wont live very long.

To artificially decrease cholesterol through statins and other drugs is dangerous if the body needs to make Vitamin D

Hmmm, a possible vitamin D deficiency or no blood to my heart .... which is more important I wonder


Thanks Dr Swa this has been so educational. Now im tired of you arguing for the sake of it. You carry on in your world of Vitamins curing CVD and evolution being imaginary and not believing in drug resistance and a man in a table cloth running on water ....

As for me I will still dose patients with lipitor and crestor and keep them alive for 20 years more. Anyways natural selection will remove you one day.

 

[F1 Fan]

Think you should go to a doctor to make sure you taking the right tablets. A forum is not going to help much.

 

[Swa]

Again statins increasing life span ... wow its quite simple



HDL and LDL ARE NOT THEORETICAL FFS are you retarded

HDL looks like this:

http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/abc/v87n5/e18f1.gif

LDL looks like this:

http://healthyprotocols.com/image_LDL.jpg

I'm still waiting for how it plays a role in heart disease. You have nothing to show because for every study there's a counter study showing the opposite. Meta analysis shows this and even staunch former supporters of the hypothesis admit that. Stop beating that dead statin horse already. Lowering cholesterol has nothing to do with their main action but it could have everything to do with their side effects and overall their effect isn't even that great either.

The cholesterol hypothesis has failed. So they invent this good and bad difference between HDL and LDL then that fails. Now it's good "bad" cholesterol and bad "bad" cholesterol. These hypothesised difference in effects are theoretical as there's nothing to back them up

So? insulin has an important role but if you dont take things in the right context then its as good as understanding absolutely nothing ... you an example of this.

"insulin shock a hypoglycemic reaction to overdosage of insulin, a skipped meal, or strenuous exercise in an insulin-dependent diabetic, with tremor, dizziness, cool moist skin, hunger, and tachycardia, sometimes progressing to coma and convulsions." - shall we say insulin is dangerous now ? rofl what a clown

Exactly if you don't have an insulinoma and your insulin rises there's a good physiological reason for it - you've gotten a large dose of carbs. Having an elevated insulin level isn't then reason to start ringing alarm bells and call it this dangerous thing. Bypassing the body's natural checks and balances by injecting it directly by no means shows it to be dangerous.

Its abnormally high, it must be lowered. This is amazing that something as simple as this escapes you, maybe not. Its like saying "oh your blood pressure is 220/180 there must be a reason for this, the body is doing it we dont need to lower it now there is not hard evidence relating to death from it" .... and no there is an effect, its cardioprotective and prevent plague formation on the arteries.

Who says it's abnormally high? There's been no demonstrable link of cholesterol as the cause of heart disease and no demonstration of just lowering cholesterol as being cardioprotective and actually the opposite. Unlike high blood pressure where a link with cardiac failure and haemorrhagic stroke has actually been demonstrated.

The survival rate and increase of human life span speaks for itself. Doesnt matter what you think.

There is no increase in human life span and survival rate. Yeah it doesn't matter what you or I think as the facts speak for themselves.

There we go slowly you understanding. It does (refer to plague formation above), this is what statins do they block the formation of these LDLs by blocking HMG-coA

And there's no evidence that blocking the formation of LDLs has any effect on plaque formation. Again if their effect is due to cholesterol then explain why lowering it with other drugs has not yielded results and even shown lowering cholesterol to be dangerous.

Hence chronic treatment with statins

There's no justification to treat non-diseased people. Even in people with disease it might not outweigh the negative effects.

nope. Over 70s doesnt prove a thing because most of your CVD mortality will occur between 50 - 60 ... they already dead.

Logic fail. That's like saying smoking should stop being a risk factor for cancer after a certain age. The over 70's don't have low cholesterol. There's no link between their high cholesterol and heart disease remember? A more logical explanation is that the cholesterol is actually doing its job in those people. Maybe it just wasn't high enough to protect those that died before 70.

Because you have no idea what that actually means Dr Swa LOL

Yeah right I don't understand english. Continue with your ad hominems.

again published 1994. Utter rubbish

Yeah something published that long ago can't possibly be correct despite also being confirmed time and again. We all know it's the newer research that's the most accurate.

This is NOT the MOA of a statin drug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#Other_effects

They did. Simvastatin ? where do you get this nonsense from ?

Simvastatin IS a statin. Again there's no evidence of cholesterol lowering alone having any positive effect and digging deep it's even the opposite.

Are you insane ? name one side-effect of a statin without googling it. Tell me the frequency of these side-effects. There are enough people on statins and they doing just fine. They would be dead without them. The rationale of statin use in dislipidemia is justified that is not for debate.

Now you're just getting ridiculous. You have to treat 28 people to prevent one death. That's for people with existing heart disease independent of cholesterol levels. For every one that's saved at least two still die. In the absence of heart disease this treatment number rises to over 100. Doctors themselves are seeing the side effects in their practices. The MHRA has noted the increase of side effects when taken with other drugs like blood pressure lowering medications. Great exactly the people who are likely to be on them.

HMG-coA reductase. quite simple actually. It doesnt remove cholesterol like antibiotics kill bacteria. It blocks the biosynthesis.

Now you're getting closer. HMGCR suppression leading to reduction of isoprenoids believed to be involved in the inflammatory response. Exactly what I said, their effect is independent of cholesterol lowering. It's just another one of their many side effects.

Go and learn how clinical trials and studies work and whats the objective of these studies. The randomize clinical trial is done to show activity. Again you looking at the wrong figures Dr Swa:

" Over the 5.4 years median follow-up period, simvastatin produced mean changes in total cholesterol, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol of -25%, -35%, and +8%, respectively, with few adverse effects."

And again cholesterol lowering has no bearing on it. YOU are looking at the wrong figures. As for the "few adverse effects" go and learn how Big Pharma does trials and you'll know why it only appears to be so.

so? if your cholesterol is normal then there is no need to prescribe a statin. If your cholesterol is high then brought down with use of a statin thats a different story.

You're still missing the boat. Lowering cholesterol does not contribute to better heart health. No reason to prescribe a medication to treat heart disease in those most at risk just because their cholesterol is normal? :wtf: Seriously? I don't anybody can be that dense.

Maybe to you. Its called arteriosclerosis. The vasculature loses its elasticity.



Loss of elasticity and plague formation, keep up with these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arteriosclerosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

Exactly, it's got nothing to do with cholesterol.

yup thats all you can do. Same with evolution. Debating with you is a waste of time. You cant even appreciate time as a factor for scientific research, nor context of material or even the study types.

There you go again quoting a single word out of context. Well done in illustrating contextomy for us. Yeah it's indeed a waste of time when you keep using fallacies, resort to continued insults instead of facts, ignore the points raised, restate the same nonsense that's irrelevant to the point and grasping at straw helms.

I see no further need to "debate" with you on this. Address the points or stfu.

 

[RiaX]

OMG.

You cant even understand "other effects" on statins rofl.

Or

that PLAGUE IS A CHOLESTEROL BODY JUST GO AWAY YOU MORON

 

[Swa]

Funny. I guess I should take down our Vitamin D toxicity guidelines in the hospital. Thanks for telling me this information Dr Swa, we've been doing it wrong all long. To think all those babies we saved, and the elderly who take it for arthritis, guess that was just a fluke. Do me a favour Dr Swa please email all the medical school in SA about this we need to remove it from literature ROFL. Please email UCT school of pharmacy and pharmacology they need to edit the toxicity out of the SAMF. While you at it CC it to the FDA.

Vitamin D is safe, when achieved via natural means, synthetic supplementation of its analogues and itself in solution - thats a different story. Just like ethanol huh, perfectly safe when your body produces it, not so safe when you drink 2 bottles.

If they were put up by YOU then definitely. Again you're grasping at straw here. If you've saved so many babies and elderly people you should submit your results. The entire body of researchers that have been unable to find this massive link to the "bad effects" (LMAO) of vitamin D was just waiting for your input I guess.

Ok Dr Swa, the entire medical profession is wrong. Why have we been wasting our time with statins. Are you going to tell me vitC is the fountain of youth next ? OR vitB12 cures HIV ? they vitamins.... go an learn what they do first.



Hmmm and I wonder why that is. Just because you have a question that does not mean its a valid avenue. Thats because the theory is utter rubbish.

It's not a fruitful avenue because there's no big money to be made. Big Pharma is far more interested in patentable drugs that are proven harmful. Not surprising considering Pfizer sold $11bn of Lipitor in 2005 which rose to $13bn in 2006 after they got the FDA to approve it for reducing stroke and heart attack risks among diabetics. Yeah no bias in conducting trials there.

he will be on a statin or he wont live very long.

I may or may not live very long due to what one of these drugs that you claim are always so safe did to me but I won't be on a statin. I am however in better health and feel far better after doing exactly what you say should not be done.

Hmmm, a possible vitamin D deficiency or no blood to my heart .... which is more important I wonder

If you have a Vitamin D deficiency you are much more likely to have no blood to your heart. Yeah tough choice to make... for YOU but not for me. Luckily you won't be dealing with any patients then so please do us all a favour and stay out of the sun.

As for me I will still dose patients with lipitor and crestor and keep them alive for 20 years more. Anyways natural selection will remove you one day.

I pity your patients being treated by a quack Keep dreaming of your miraculous natural selection though.

 

[Swa]

Yeah right a moron that takes everything out of context calling someone else a moron. I guess you'll meet every possible type on internet forums.

 

[RiaX]

ok swa thats nice now go away

 

[Humberto]

So:

• Do all fats promote insulin desensitivity, or only saturated fat?
• Do you think fructose is toxic? I want to all but eliminate fruit from my diet, and rather get my nutrition from vegetables.

 

[RiaX]

No and No.

Desensitizing of insulin basically occurs from over use like most ligands.

Fructose is not toxic if you obtain it from natural sources. In other words eat the apple dont drink the apple juice

 

[Humberto]

No and No.

Desensitizing of insulin basically occurs from over use like most ligands.

Fructose is not toxic if you obtain it from natural sources. In other words eat the apple dont drink the apple juice

Thank you RiaX.

 

[RiaX]

Thank you RiaX.

you welcome

 

[Swa]

From a trusted source http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/

 

[RiaX]

.org is never a trusted source

it must come from a journal or a university

 

[Swa]

ROFLOL

 

[tRoN]

Quote these studies SHOWING how a diagnostic test has failed. The purpose of a diagnostic test is to provide a laboratory reading on the body not treat any pathology.

PUT A LINK instead of saying "studies", dude you know f all stop trying to give advice cause you giving utter BS advice.

The pseudo/wannabe doctor is at it again.
U are a pharmacist man...YOU stop giving bullshyt medical advice!

 

[Swa]

http://blog.trackyourplaque.com/2011/08/more-lipoproteins-zero.html