To think the PoW’s diagnosis makes healthy living seem pointless?

[Notsuretoputit]

I try my best to live heathily (although definitely not fanatical). I try and stay away from ultra processed foods, try and avoid saturated fat, too much meat etc., try and exercise every week. I’ll have the odd takeaway and definitely overindulge on wine, but always try and be mindful of living heathily because so much information is constantly battering me through the radio, media etc. about getting ill from various foods and not exercising.

I’ve recently lost my mother far too young too, so I suppose it’s particularly on my mind at the moment. But then you hear Kate’s diagnosis, who obviously exercises regularly, has the best instructors, best food, best ingredients, best preparation, and she still falls ill, and it all seems a bit pointless.

AIBU to feel this way? I just wonder whether I really should make an effort to watch what I eat and run when I don’t feel like it if really, what will be will be regardless.

Yes, exactly@mindutopia ... Of course the PoW doesn't have to worry about putting food on her table or keeping a roof over her head, but I can't imagine the stress of living in that kind of goldfish bowl. Every smile or wave dissected for public consumption. I wouldn't be able to cope with it. I've often heard people with cancer, when they've discovered it probably started at a particular time in their life, have then realised it correlated with something awful happening to them - the loss of a business, a job, bullying or whatever. The stressor might be different but it affects us all.

I hope that something that comes from this sad experience is that with the PoW's knowledge and interest in mental health, the mind body connection will be appreciated more - for all our sakes ...

And yes, thin doesn't necessarily mean healthy. Dr Goldner, who I talked about in my previous post, often says she has people who look like they have the perfect bodies come and see her - a six pack or whatever, but their dreadful diet that they thought was healthy, to enable them to look like that was actually killing them. Typically kidney issues with body builders as they usually eat so much meat ... I get really frustrated when people just assume thin equals a healthy diet ...

Agree - and some dickheads on this site have contributed / and carry on contributing to that stress with all the awful questions and conjecture as they pay their tenner a year in tax or whatever and think they have a right to her medical details . I bet her cortisol was off the scale when she was recording that tv message which i can't imagine is conducive to recovery.

Yes, that’s the myth, still being perpetuated, still lingering in the mainstream, still causing harm, but based on faulty, interest-driven bad science. Saturated fat is perfectly healthy, ‘high cholesterol’ is not life-threatening. They want you to take statins. They want you to eat ultra processed petrochemical by-products instead of butter . Course they do. Be sceptical. Read more widely. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l6sEEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=cholesterol+misinformation&ots=FQxwcozOsY&sig=7ML_em7Y0QbFVO6UlyxnsJXE_0o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cholesterol%20misinformation&f=false

Jordan Peterson carnivore diet

Meat fat water and salt

Yep. I wouldn’t be looking to the NHS for diet advice and guidelines.

Butter is better than ultra processed margarine. Fat is fine, we need fat. It’s sugar we should be more concerned about. They focus on the wrong things.

In low fat foods they replace fat with sugar. They don’t fill you up and leave you hungry again (plus a sugar crash).

I’m highly suspicious of the amount of people supposedly who need statins (especially young, otherwise healthy people). Big side effects. Especially on gut health. Meanwhile lots of profits for those pharma companies.

If you’re trying to be healthy, I wouldn’t eat too much butter. High sat fat is linked to CAD. You don’t have to eat margarine all the time-you can have nut butters and olive/fruit oils. So it doesn’t have to be butter or margarine. Bit of butter plus oil is the way to go.

There's a lot of stress involved in trying to figure out what's good for me today, because tomorrow it's usually the opposite!

It's definitely precautionary, not minor but not many I mean. Widely reported.

I don’t think you understand what precautionary means with chemo. It means a tumour was found and surgery removed the tumour and further tests will have shown no spread. So the chemo is mopping up any cells that you might not see circulating.

Rather than using chemo to shrink the tumour.

I agree that butter is better than ultra processed spreads. But that doesn’t mean butter is good for you.

Fat is fine. We do need fat. But we can get it from fatty fish, avocados, olive oil, nuts etc. as opposed to butter, cream, pork belly etc.

Whole foods are fine in moderation, but too much saturated fat isn’t good for you.

But why does it have to be ultra processed spreads or butter? Butter is better than ultra processed spreads, yes, but it is not a health food and too much of it, too much of any saturated fat, isn’t good for your health.

Go on then - what are the risk of statins and what does the data show?

(Are you going to reference absolute risk, relative risk and also the risk of CHD etc from people who don't take statins)

I don’t buy into Kate looking ‘the picture of health’ to me she always looks thin, frail and anxious. Also, wasn’t she a smoker?
We don’t know what cancer she has or her family history so there’s no point speculating about healthy living being pointless. Personally I’d rather eat well and move my body.. even if I do get an illness I’d like to use my body to its full potential and not feel exhausted and shitty

Well all medications have side effects. So if you’re claiming statins have no side effects then go ahead? I said they have side effects. I said if I was youngish and in good health then I’d weight up those side effects like I would with any medication I had to take each day. You don’t need a study to tell you that. They are on the back of the packet….

I literally said ‘butter is better than margarine’ I did not say ‘butter is good for you’. ‘Eat a shed load of butter’

That's not what I said.

You used the words Big Side Effects

"I’m highly suspicious of the amount of people supposedly who need statins (especially young, otherwise healthy people). Big side effects. Especially on gut health. Meanwhile lots of profits for those pharma companies."

If you can't discuss the big side effects or discuss the benefits versus side effects, then maybe you should do some research before using words like Big side effects

Yes there is a long risk of common side effects which I think are big. Headaches, digestive issues, fatigue, nausea. If I was youngish and otherwise well, no I wouldn’t want to risk those ‘common’ side effects.

If I was a prediabetic male with a history of heart disease and did zero exercise then I’d take the bloody statins. It’s about risk versus benefit.

It does concern me that statins are handed out at the rate they are to younger, otherwise healthy people.

If that doesn’t concern you then fine.

Wouldn't you want to know the benefits to you of taking the statins on reducing the risk of CHD versus the side effects?

Some data on statins

CG181 Patient decision aid on should I take a statin? (nice.org.uk)

You’re working on the assumption that if someone has high cholesterol then that automatically means they are at risk of heart disease and this needs to be treated. Which may be the case for some people. I have no doubt many people need statins. I don’t need to see research on that.

I’m not claiming nobody should take statins. I’m suggesting that they are overprescribed- especially if one is young and otherwise healthy. I’d also argue that high cholesterol is a symptom of something else going on in the body and lifestyle changes should always be the first resort.

im not arguing we do away with statins or that they are ineffective. But if a doctor told me to take statins now for example I would question that. If my only symptom was high cholesterol and I was otherwise healthy.

I had high cholesterol for a long time and was advised statins. I didn't want them and tried the usual things we are told to do to reduce it. It did reduce a bit over time but not by that much. I'm now just at the recommended total level with a slightly higher LDL than HDL.

Anyway during a recent hospital stay for cardiac AFib I was given a cardiac CT scan and had a zero score of calcium (can block arteries - plaque) so having had high cholesterol for many years it didn't seem to cause any blocked arteries anyway. I dunno, it's all a bit mad if you ask me. Who do we listen to, ourselves I think!

Tbh, just because she has access to all of that does not mean she is healthy. To me she looks like she might have an eating disorder that would mess with your health just the same as eating very unhealthily....

No - I am working on the assumption that people look at the data, the relative risks associated with various variables including their cholesterol level as well as other factors and then works with the doctor and the NICE guidelines to see if it is worth it.

You seem to be reading things that people don't say.

It's about the data, the research, the variables etc

QRISK3