Dangers of Statin Drugs

[Donny]

Statins could be behind the increase in dementia
Cholesterol helps with the brains formation of memories.

Too low cholesterol is worse than high

Could is not fact & no study has ever confirmed this.

[joswift]

Could is not fact & no study has ever confirmed this.

low cholesterol inhibits the brains ability to form memories FACT

And of course there are no studies linking statins to dementia, they simply wouldnt get funding

[Donny]

low cholesterol inhibits the brains ability to form memories FACT

And of course there are no studies linking statins to dementia, they simply wouldnt get funding

well as i wrote in a previous post everyone has to decide for themselves.
I am not sure where you get your facts from but maybe instead of Google you should inform yourself by visiting a Cardiologist or even two as i did for a different opinion, indeed more than two as the Hospital even said the same.
I was in Hamburg recently & spoke to a Professor so why should i listen to you.
But again i do not want to get into any arguements on here as i do not have the time or patience because i have my opinions & you have yours..
I know from your posts you like to question a lot of things which is OK but do not think you always know the truth.

[Humble Narcissist]

Statins could be behind the increase in dementia
Cholesterol helps with the brains formation of memories.

Too low cholesterol is worse than high

Cancer increases with low cholesterol as well.

[Van_Bilderass]

I also always forget about niacin, red brewer's yeast, etc....going to try those.

Niacin doesn't have that much supporting literature but it is recognised as an effective drug for reducing lab markers. It can theoretically tox out you liver.

My favorite "natural" cholesterol drug, Red Yeast Rice, which  contains the statin lovastatin, also sold under the name Mevacor as a synthetic drug.

I always say if a "supplement" works it's in fact a DRUG. There is no difference between a supplement and drug per se. And there is no automatic guarantee a natural supp is in any way healthier than a "drug." In a lot of cases there is an attempt to make the natural drug more effective while having less side effects.

I'm saying obvious things to you but a lot of common folks still make a distinction.
If these arguments still don't make people understand, I say cocaine and morphine are natural, are they inherently harmless because of that fact?

Or even plain sugar? Of course some sugary fruits are still healthy because of how they are packaged, but the sugar is still the same thing - sugar. Add the fiber and whatever else they are packaged with and they become healthy, overall. Of course there are lots of people who are still against fruits. Fruit juice is one worst things you can put in your mouth. Some say kids should never have more than half a cup a day.

[Grape Ape]

Niacin doesn't have that much supporting literature but it is recognised as an effective drug for reducing lab markers. It can theoretically tox out you liver.

My favorite "natural" cholesterol drug, Red Yeast Rice, which  contains the statin lovastatin, also sold under the name Mevacor as a synthetic drug.

I always say if a "supplement" works it's in fact a DRUG. There is no difference between a supplement and drug per se. And there is no automatic guarantee a natural supp is in any way healthier than a "drug." In a lot of cases there is an attempt to make the natural drug more effective while having less side effects.

I'm saying obvious things to you but a lot of common folks still make a distinction.
If these arguments still don't make people understand, I say cocaine and morphine are natural, are they inherently harmless because of that fact?

Or even plain sugar? Of course some sugary fruits are still healthy because of how they are packaged, but the sugar is still the same thing - sugar. Add the fiber and whatever else they are packaged with and they become healthy, overall. Of course there are lots of people who are still against fruits. Fruit juice is one worst things you can put in your mouth. Some say kids should never have more than half a cup a day.

Yeah, I read more since my post and am not going the niacin route.  I will see what my lipid profile is in a month and go from there.

But I do think the body reacts differently to real fruit v fruit juice.  If you drink fruit juice, it's a massive dose of sugar, easily digestible.  I don't think the body was meant to consume sugar in that manner.

[Van_Bilderass]

Yeah, I read more since my post and am not going the niacin route.  I will see what my lipid profile is in a month and go from there.

But I do think the body reacts differently to real fruit v fruit juice.  If you drink fruit juice, it's a massive dose of sugar, easily digestible.  I don't think the body was meant to consume sugar in that manner.

Yes the vehicle does matter. I know I wrote about potentially harmful substances in nature like narcotics, but reportedly there's little negative to chewing coca leaves in the Andes or whatever, because you're necessarily limiting the amount of cocaine ingested.

[IroNat]

Yeah, I read more since my post and am not going the niacin route.  I will see what my lipid profile is in a month and go from there.

But I do think the body reacts differently to real fruit v fruit juice.  If you drink fruit juice, it's a massive dose of sugar, easily digestible.  I don't think the body was meant to consume sugar in that manner.

The fiber in real fruit slows down the absorption of the sugar in the gut but still too much sugar to eat fruit often.

Drinking fruit juice is like drinking sugar water or a can of soda pop.

[Van_Bilderass]

The fiber in real fruit slows down the absorption of the sugar in the gut but still too much sugar to eat fruit often.

Drinking fruit juice is like drinking sugar water or a can of soda pop.

Say you are eating a low to moderate amount of carbs in your "fitness" diet. Some have argued that the most beneficial and healthy carb sources in such a case would be fruits. Lots of micronutrients and vitamins and polyphenols and antioxidants. Apples, pear, banana, citrus fruits, even some exotic fruit juices with supposedly high antioxidants, and so on, as opposed to for example rice (I'm too lazy to look up the micronutrition of rice). I saw someone argue fruit heavy diets are often a cause of something called SIBO (again too lazy to look it up). Some bodybuilders were fans of fruits as almost the sole carb source, like Phil Hernon, others like coach John Parillo warned against fruit.

What do you think? I think at least on a deficit diet the fructose wouldn't hinder fat loss, instead would maybe be good for the metabolism. When it comes to sugar, fructose is thought to be the source of many modern ills, from sucrose (table sugar) and HFCS. I've looked up the type of sugar in different fruits at some point, where the types were shown as percentages. For example grapes are pure glucose (aka dextrose aka blood sugar). Fructose though is also advantageous for liver glycogen and anabolism but in too high a quantity it becomes detrimental.

I remember Tom Platz talking about his prep diets where a meal could be a can of tuna and an apple.

Regarding milk, a certain member talks about his brekkies of milk Does it have it's place in bb diet? Traditionally bodybuilders always cut milk in prep. I think it can have it's place. and Layne Norton has talked about the benefits of daily for metabolism (tied to calcium IIRC). Milk is soo anabolic 


"Milk consumption activates five major pathways stimulating mTORC1 via (1) growth factors, including growth hormone (GH), insulin, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), (2) amino acids, especially branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), (3) milk fat-derived palmitic acid, (4) the milk sugar lactose (β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-glucose, and (5) epigenetic modifiers, especially milk exosome (MEX)-derived micro-ribonucleic acids (miRs)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8000710/

Milk is so anabolic it can become dangerous according to these scientists.

[dj181]

Say you are eating a low to moderate amount of carbs in your "fitness" diet. Some have argued that the most beneficial and healthy carb sources in such a case would be fruits. Lots of micronutrients and vitamins and polyphenols and antioxidants. Apples, pear, banana, citrus fruits, even some exotic fruit juices with supposedly high antioxidants, and so on, as opposed to for example rice (I'm too lazy to look up the micronutrition of rice). I saw someone argue fruit heavy diets are often a cause of something called SIBO (again too lazy to look it up). Some bodybuilders were fans of fruits as almost the sole carb source, like Phil Hernon, others like coach John Parillo warned against fruit.

What do you think? I think at least on a deficit diet the fructose wouldn't hinder fat loss, instead would maybe be good for the metabolism. When it comes to sugar, fructose is thought to be the source of many modern ills, from sucrose (table sugar) and HFCS. I've looked up the type of sugar in different fruits at some point, where the types were shown as percentages. For example grapes are pure glucose (aka dextrose aka blood sugar). Fructose though is also advantageous for liver glycogen and anabolism but in too high a quantity it becomes detrimental.

I remember Tom Platz talking about his prep diets where a meal could be a can of tuna and an apple.

Regarding milk, a certain member talks about his brekkies of milk Does it have it's place in bb diet? Traditionally bodybuilders always cut milk in prep. I think it can have it's place. and Layne Norton has talked about the benefits of daily for metabolism (tied to calcium IIRC). Milk is soo anabolic 


"Milk consumption activates five major pathways stimulating mTORC1 via (1) growth factors, including growth hormone (GH), insulin, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), (2) amino acids, especially branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), (3) milk fat-derived palmitic acid, (4) the milk sugar lactose (β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-glucose, and (5) epigenetic modifiers, especially milk exosome (MEX)-derived micro-ribonucleic acids (miRs)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8000710/

Milk is so anabolic it can become dangerous according to these scientists.

splatz said mentzer turned him on to a high carbs prep diet and he blew da fck up on it in 81

when menzter was in prep up to 80% of his cals came from carbs

[Grape Ape]

The fiber in real fruit slows down the absorption of the sugar in the gut but still too much sugar to eat fruit often.

Drinking fruit juice is like drinking sugar water or a can of soda pop.

I don't see harm in eating some fruit every day.

[IroNat]

Say you are eating a low to moderate amount of carbs in your "fitness" diet. Some have argued that the most beneficial and healthy carb sources in such a case would be fruits. Lots of micronutrients and vitamins and polyphenols and antioxidants. Apples, pear, banana, citrus fruits, even some exotic fruit juices with supposedly high antioxidants, and so on, as opposed to for example rice (I'm too lazy to look up the micronutrition of rice). I saw someone argue fruit heavy diets are often a cause of something called SIBO (again too lazy to look it up). Some bodybuilders were fans of fruits as almost the sole carb source, like Phil Hernon, others like coach John Parillo warned against fruit.

What do you think? I think at least on a deficit diet the fructose wouldn't hinder fat loss, instead would maybe be good for the metabolism. When it comes to sugar, fructose is thought to be the source of many modern ills, from sucrose (table sugar) and HFCS. I've looked up the type of sugar in different fruits at some point, where the types were shown as percentages. For example grapes are pure glucose (aka dextrose aka blood sugar). Fructose though is also advantageous for liver glycogen and anabolism but in too high a quantity it becomes detrimental.

I remember Tom Platz talking about his prep diets where a meal could be a can of tuna and an apple.

Regarding milk, a certain member talks about his brekkies of milk Does it have it's place in bb diet? Traditionally bodybuilders always cut milk in prep. I think it can have it's place. and Layne Norton has talked about the benefits of daily for metabolism (tied to calcium IIRC). Milk is soo anabolic 


"Milk consumption activates five major pathways stimulating mTORC1 via (1) growth factors, including growth hormone (GH), insulin, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), (2) amino acids, especially branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), (3) milk fat-derived palmitic acid, (4) the milk sugar lactose (β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-glucose, and (5) epigenetic modifiers, especially milk exosome (MEX)-derived micro-ribonucleic acids (miRs)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8000710/

Milk is so anabolic it can become dangerous according to these scientists.

(Table sugar is 50% sucrose and 50% fructose by the way.  Fructose is inflammatory.)

This type of diet is for health and has nothing to do with bodybuilding or anything else.
If you are a competitive athlete or a bodybuilder then it may not be optimal.
The purpose of this style of eating is to lower insulin production and increase insulin sensitivity and thus improve metabolic health.

Best foods to eat:

Meat, eggs, fish
Non-starch vegetables (green like broccoli)
Berries (but sparingly)
Cheese, cream
Nuts, seeds
Butter, healthy oils (no seed oils)

Foods not to eat or too eat only occasionally:

Juices
Fruit (not often)
Flour products
Grains (rice, wheat, cereals, etc.)
Sugars
Low fat foods
Trans fats (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated foods)
Processed foods

Pick up your local supermarket flyer.  Note the number of processed foods advertised for sale.
When in the store note how much of the food for sale is processed foods.
It's amazing.
Note on the labels how many of these processed/prepared foods contain inflammatory seed oils (canola, soybean, rapeseed, corn, vegetable).

[IroNat]

I don't see harm in eating some fruit every day.

Eating fruit is like eating sugar.
If you don't see anything wrong with eating sugar then keep eating fruit everyday and wash it down with soda pop.
While your at it put several tsp. of sugar in your coffee and on your morning bowl of Wheat Chex.
Occasionally eating fruit is ok but everyday is too often.
The negative effects of eating sugars take decades to appear (diabetes, metabolic dysfunction, etc.)
You can be thin and have diabetes too.
Sugar causes inflammation in your blood vessels which results in the formation of arterial plaque.
High glycemic processed carbs affect your metabolism just like eating sugar.
The standard western diet (Food Pyramid) is 300-400 grams of carbs a day, and most of those carbs are highly processed.
The Bhanky Diet.

[Grape Ape]

Eating fruit is like eating sugar.
If you don't see anything wrong with eating sugar then keep eating fruit everyday and wash it down with soda pop.
While your at it put several tsp. of sugar in your coffee and on your morning bowl of Wheat Chex.
Occasionally eating fruit is ok but everyday is too often.
The negative effects of eating sugars take decades to appear (diabetes, metabolic dysfunction, etc.)
You can be thin and have diabetes too.
Sugar causes inflammation in your blood vessels which results in the formation of arterial plaque.
High glycemic processed carbs affect your metabolism just like eating sugar.
The standard western diet (Food Pyramid) is 300-400 grams of carbs a day, and most of those carbs are highly processed.
The Bhanky Diet.

You can eat fruit daily no problem if your diet is in check.  It will not give you diabetes.

[Van_Bilderass]

You can eat fruit daily no problem if your diet is in check.  It will not give you diabetes.

I don't think so either. People went a bit nuts with the anti-carb/anti-sugar craze.

It wouldn't surprise me if many high carb eaters have better insulin sensitivity than many anti- carb zealots... haven't looked at it so this is just a hunch.

Some bodybuilders amazingly have high insulin sensitivity despite high carb diets, inject enough insulin enough for 5 diabetics and take growth hormone. Anabolics are great for sensitivity, those who have used tren when dieting know about the crashed glucose on occasion.

[GymnJuice]

(Table sugar is 50% sucrose and 50% fructose by the way.  Fructose is inflammatory.)

This type of diet is for health and has nothing to do with bodybuilding or anything else.
If you are a competitive athlete or a bodybuilder then it may not be optimal.
The purpose of this style of eating is to lower insulin production and increase insulin sensitivity and thus improve metabolic health.

Best foods to eat:

Meat, eggs, fish
Non-starch vegetables (green like broccoli)
Berries (but sparingly)
Cheese, cream
Nuts, seeds
Butter, healthy oils (no seed oils)

Foods not to eat or too eat only occasionally:

Juices
Fruit (not often)
Flour products
Grains (rice, wheat, cereals, etc.)
Sugars
Low fat foods
Trans fats (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated foods)
Processed foods

Pick up your local supermarket flyer.  Note the number of processed foods advertised for sale.
When in the store note how much of the food for sale is processed foods.
It's amazing.
Note on the labels how many of these processed/prepared foods contain inflammatory seed oils (canola, soybean, rapeseed, corn, vegetable).

What oils do you cook in? Olive oil? Or do you use butter or tallow or something?

[IroNat]

What oils do you cook in? Olive oil? Or do you use butter or tallow or something?

I use lard from animal fat most of the time.  Otherwise olive oil.

You could use butter.

I save the bacon or other meat drippings to cook with later.

[joswift]

I use lard from animal fat most of the time.  Otherwise olive oil.

You could use butter.

I save the bacon or other meat drippings to cook with later.

Beef Dripping pal..

[IroNat]

Beef Dripping pal..

Swifty has updated me on definitions.

Lard is from pork. 

Tallow is from beef or sheep.

I use drippings from the fat of beef and pork.

Be aware if you call someone a "fat tub of lard" you are saying a "fat tub of pork fat".

 

[Humble Narcissist]

You can eat fruit daily no problem if your diet is in check.  It will not give you diabetes.

Good for vitamins and fiber.

[loco]

More support for what Wiggs, IroNat, and others have already pointed out:



The study below showed that what increases your risk of coronary heart disease the most by far are diabetes and insulin resistance, not high LDL cholesterol.

After diabetes and insulin resistance, the things that increase your risk of coronary heart disease the most are metabolic syndrome, obesity, smoking, hypertension, parental history of myocardial infarction, physical inactivity, very low HDL, high Triglycerides, high lipoprotein (B, A-I, (a)), high LDL in that order.

High LDL cholesterol had one of the lowest relative risks.

Association of Lipid, Inflammatory, and Metabolic Biomarkers With Age at Onset for Incident Coronary Heart Disease
Published online 2021
"Of more than 50 clinical and biomarker risk factors examined, diabetes and lipoprotein insulin resistance had the highest relative risk, particularly for premature coronary heart disease"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818181/

NOTE: "Oxidized" LDL Cholesterol does increase the risk of coronary heart disease and many other chronic conditions.  Statins do nothing to minimize this.  More on that below.

Statins increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, thereby increasing the risk of coronary heart disease:

Statins and risk of type 2 diabetes: mechanism and clinical implications
"Statin therapy increased the risk of incident T2D by a 9%. Preiss et al. (25) reported in another meta-analysis including 32 752 participants from five statin trials that there was a significant increase in fasting glucose levels and that the risk of T2D increased by 12%."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10546337/

Statin Treatment-Induced Development of Type 2 Diabetes: From Clinical Evidence to Mechanistic Insights
"Despite the safety and relative tolerability of statins, observational studies, clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate an increased risk of developing new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after long-term statin treatment. It has been shown that statins can impair insulin sensitivity and secretion by pancreatic β-cells and increase insulin resistance in peripheral tissues."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369709/

Statins and Diabetes: What You Should Know
"Some research has found that using statins increases blood sugar because statin use can stop your body’s insulin from doing its job properly. This can put people who use statins at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes."
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/features/Statins_Diabetes.html

What else increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease?  It's NOT saturated fat consumption.  It's overconsuming sugar, other carbs, and industrially processed seed ("vegetable") oils (safflower, grape seed, sunflower, corn, cottonseed, soybean, rice bran, peanut, canola, etc.) :

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat
"In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
"Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255

Effects of Dietary Fructose Restriction on Liver Fat, De Novo Lipogenesis, and Insulin Kinetics
"Consumption of sugar is associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28579536/

Omega-6 vegetable oils as a driver of coronary heart disease: the oxidized linoleic acid hypothesis
"The consumption of the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid has dramatically increased in the western world primarily in the form of vegetable oils. OxLDL is thought to play an important role in atherosclerosis formation; however, it is the oxidised linoleic acid contained in LDL that leads to harmful OXLAMs, which induces atherosclerosis and CHD. Thus, reducing the amount of dietary linoleic acid, mainly from industrial vegetable/seed oils, will reduce the amount of linoleic acid in LDL and likely reduce oxLDL as well as the risk for CHDcoronary heart disease.

In summary, numerous lines of evidence show that the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid promotes oxidative stress, oxidised LDL, chronic low-grade inflammation and atherosclerosis, and is likely a major dietary culprit for causing CHD, especially when consumed in the form of industrial seed oils commonly referred to as ‘vegetable oils’."
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000898

Linoleic Acid: A Narrative Review of the Effects of Increased Intake in the Standard American Diet and Associations with Chronic Disease
"The dramatic increase in LA intake in the standard American diet appears to contribute to the simultaneous rise in a wide variety of chronic diseases. While modest amounts of LA support human health, deleterious mechanisms of excessive LA intake include the formation of oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs) and a suboptimal cardiolipin composition. These disruptions to optimal physiology cause impairments in mitochondrial function, compromised metabolic function, and excessive inflammation, all of which contribute to obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and many other chronic conditions that plague our healthcare system."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386285/

Some studies show that there might be some benefits to statins for those who have already had a heart attack or are already suffering from coronary heart disease. How significant are these "benefits"?

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment
"The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2790055

The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement
"The median postponement of death for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively.

Statin treatment results in a surprisingly small average gain in overall survival within the trials’ running time. For patients whose life expectancy is limited or who have adverse effects of treatment, withholding statin therapy should be considered."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26408281/

That's right.  For people who already had a heart attack or are already suffering from coronary heart disease, a statin may extend their life by 4.1 days on average.   

One more thing.  The so called low-fat "heart-healthy" diet that has been recommended since the 70s to prevent or treat coronary heart disease has been proven to actually increase the risk type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease:

Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial
IR = Insulin Resistance
T2DM = Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
"The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial (WHIRCDMT) was designed to test whether the US Department of Agriculture’s 1977 Dietary Guidelines for Americans protects against coronary heart disease (CHD) and other chronic diseases. The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.

This set of findings from four different studies effectively ends the debate about which diet should be eaten to lower the risk of CHD, especially in those with IR.

The answer is that the prescribed diet must prevent the development of the clinical features of IR leading to T2DM. The two diets shown to achieve this are the restricted low-calorie diet developed by Lim et al102 and the ad libitum low-carbohydrate higher-healthy-fat ketogenic diet as reported by a number of research teams.79–83 86–88 90

According to the principle of first do no harm, it now becomes the ethical responsibility of all those managing persons with established CHD or at risk of its development because they have IR, especially if they have T2DM, not to prescribe the never-proven17 18 103 and now-disproven low-fat heart-healthy DGA diet."
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001680

Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Non-randomized Clinical Trial
"Three non-pharmaceutical approaches have demonstrated high rates of at least temporary T2D diabetes reversal or remission: bariatric surgery, very low calorie diets (VLCD), and nutritional ketosis achieved through carbohydrate restriction (8–10). In controlled clinical trials, each approach has demonstrated improved glycemic control and CVD risk factors, reduced pharmaceutical dependence, and weight loss. The three approaches show a similar time-course with glycemic control preceding weight loss by weeks or months, suggesting potential overlap of mechanisms (11, 12)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6561315/

^^^^ "Overlap of mechanisms": All 3 approaches reduce daily total carb consumption.

[Wiggs]

More support for what Wiggs, IroNat, and others have already pointed out:



The study below showed that what increases your risk of coronary heart disease the most by far are diabetes and insulin resistance, not high LDL cholesterol.

After diabetes and insulin resistance, the things that increase your risk of coronary heart disease the most are metabolic syndrome, obesity, smoking, hypertension, parental history of myocardial infarction, physical inactivity, very low HDL, high Triglycerides, high lipoprotein (B, A-I, (a)), high LDL in that order.

High LDL cholesterol had one of the lowest relative risks.

Association of Lipid, Inflammatory, and Metabolic Biomarkers With Age at Onset for Incident Coronary Heart Disease
Published online 2021
"Of more than 50 clinical and biomarker risk factors examined, diabetes and lipoprotein insulin resistance had the highest relative risk, particularly for premature coronary heart disease"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818181/

NOTE: "Oxidized" LDL Cholesterol does increase the risk of coronary heart disease and many other chronic conditions.  Statins do nothing to minimize this.  More on that below.

Statins increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, thereby increasing the risk of coronary heart disease:

Statins and risk of type 2 diabetes: mechanism and clinical implications
"Statin therapy increased the risk of incident T2D by a 9%. Preiss et al. (25) reported in another meta-analysis including 32 752 participants from five statin trials that there was a significant increase in fasting glucose levels and that the risk of T2D increased by 12%."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10546337/

Statin Treatment-Induced Development of Type 2 Diabetes: From Clinical Evidence to Mechanistic Insights
"Despite the safety and relative tolerability of statins, observational studies, clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate an increased risk of developing new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after long-term statin treatment. It has been shown that statins can impair insulin sensitivity and secretion by pancreatic β-cells and increase insulin resistance in peripheral tissues."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369709/

Statins and Diabetes: What You Should Know
"Some research has found that using statins increases blood sugar because statin use can stop your body’s insulin from doing its job properly. This can put people who use statins at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes."
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/features/Statins_Diabetes.html

What else increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease?  It's NOT saturated fat consumption.  It's overconsuming sugar, other carbs, and industrially processed seed ("vegetable") oils (safflower, grape seed, sunflower, corn, cottonseed, soybean, rice bran, peanut, canola, etc.) :

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat
"In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
"Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255

Effects of Dietary Fructose Restriction on Liver Fat, De Novo Lipogenesis, and Insulin Kinetics
"Consumption of sugar is associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28579536/

Omega-6 vegetable oils as a driver of coronary heart disease: the oxidized linoleic acid hypothesis
"The consumption of the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid has dramatically increased in the western world primarily in the form of vegetable oils. OxLDL is thought to play an important role in atherosclerosis formation; however, it is the oxidised linoleic acid contained in LDL that leads to harmful OXLAMs, which induces atherosclerosis and CHD. Thus, reducing the amount of dietary linoleic acid, mainly from industrial vegetable/seed oils, will reduce the amount of linoleic acid in LDL and likely reduce oxLDL as well as the risk for CHDcoronary heart disease.

In summary, numerous lines of evidence show that the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid promotes oxidative stress, oxidised LDL, chronic low-grade inflammation and atherosclerosis, and is likely a major dietary culprit for causing CHD, especially when consumed in the form of industrial seed oils commonly referred to as ‘vegetable oils’."
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000898

Linoleic Acid: A Narrative Review of the Effects of Increased Intake in the Standard American Diet and Associations with Chronic Disease
"The dramatic increase in LA intake in the standard American diet appears to contribute to the simultaneous rise in a wide variety of chronic diseases. While modest amounts of LA support human health, deleterious mechanisms of excessive LA intake include the formation of oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs) and a suboptimal cardiolipin composition. These disruptions to optimal physiology cause impairments in mitochondrial function, compromised metabolic function, and excessive inflammation, all of which contribute to obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and many other chronic conditions that plague our healthcare system."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386285/

Some studies show that there might be some benefits to statins for those who have already had a heart attack or are already suffering from coronary heart disease. How significant are these "benefits"?

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment
"The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2790055

The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement
"The median postponement of death for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively.

Statin treatment results in a surprisingly small average gain in overall survival within the trials’ running time. For patients whose life expectancy is limited or who have adverse effects of treatment, withholding statin therapy should be considered."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26408281/

That's right.  For people who already had a heart attack or are already suffering from coronary heart disease, a statin may extend their life by 4.1 days on average.   

One more thing.  The so called low-fat "heart-healthy" diet that has been recommended since the 70s to prevent or treat coronary heart disease has been proven to actually increase the risk type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease:

Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial
IR = Insulin Resistance
T2DM = Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
"The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial (WHIRCDMT) was designed to test whether the US Department of Agriculture’s 1977 Dietary Guidelines for Americans protects against coronary heart disease (CHD) and other chronic diseases. The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.

This set of findings from four different studies effectively ends the debate about which diet should be eaten to lower the risk of CHD, especially in those with IR.

The answer is that the prescribed diet must prevent the development of the clinical features of IR leading to T2DM. The two diets shown to achieve this are the restricted low-calorie diet developed by Lim et al102 and the ad libitum low-carbohydrate higher-healthy-fat ketogenic diet as reported by a number of research teams.79–83 86–88 90

According to the principle of first do no harm, it now becomes the ethical responsibility of all those managing persons with established CHD or at risk of its development because they have IR, especially if they have T2DM, not to prescribe the never-proven17 18 103 and now-disproven low-fat heart-healthy DGA diet."
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001680

Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Non-randomized Clinical Trial
"Three non-pharmaceutical approaches have demonstrated high rates of at least temporary T2D diabetes reversal or remission: bariatric surgery, very low calorie diets (VLCD), and nutritional ketosis achieved through carbohydrate restriction (8–10). In controlled clinical trials, each approach has demonstrated improved glycemic control and CVD risk factors, reduced pharmaceutical dependence, and weight loss. The three approaches show a similar time-course with glycemic control preceding weight loss by weeks or months, suggesting potential overlap of mechanisms (11, 12)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6561315/

^^^^ "Overlap of mechanisms": All 3 approaches reduce daily total carb consumption.

Think of the countless lives that could have been prolonged. They did this on purpose for money and population control.

[loco]

Think of the countless lives that could have been prolonged. They did this on purpose for money and population control.

Eggxactly!



Not only prolonged lives, but improved quality of life too.  Today most people live in pain and misery because of their poor health.  I was one of them for a while, until I finally saw the light and now I am enjoying the best quality of life I've had in many years.

This is why we can't trust the medical establishment, public health officials, big pharma, the food industry, and politicians to look out for our best interest.  We must take our personal health into our own hands.

[Wiggs]

Eggxactly!



Not only prolonged lives, but improved quality of life too.  Today most people live in pain and misery because of their poor health.  I was one of them for a while, until I finally saw the light and now I am enjoying the best quality of life I've had in many years.

This is why we can't trust the medical establishment, public health officials, big pharma, the food industry, and politicians to look out for our best interest.  We must take our personal health into our own hands.

100% I did the same. 

[BEEFCAKE]

Eating fruit is like eating sugar.
If you don't see anything wrong with eating sugar then keep eating fruit everyday and wash it down with soda pop.
While your at it put several tsp. of sugar in your coffee and on your morning bowl of Wheat Chex.
Occasionally eating fruit is ok but everyday is too often.
The negative effects of eating sugars take decades to appear (diabetes, metabolic dysfunction, etc.)
You can be thin and have diabetes too.
Sugar causes inflammation in your blood vessels which results in the formation of arterial plaque.
High glycemic processed carbs affect your metabolism just like eating sugar.
The standard western diet (Food Pyramid) is 300-400 grams of carbs a day, and most of those carbs are highly processed.
The Bhanky Diet.

this is bullshit , not all sugar is the same , sugar in a apple is completely different than sugar in a can of pop, if i wake up in the morning and eat a apple it makes me feel incredible before i work out , if i wake up and drink a can a coke i will have a hard crash right off the bat