Anthony Colpo,
January 26, 2005.

When treating intensive care unit patients, conventional medical protocols recommend using insulin therapy only when blood glucose levels exceed 12 mmol/l. However, strict maintenance of blood glucose levels of less than 6.1 mmol/l with intensive insulin therapy has shown to reduce intensive care mortality, acute renal failure, critical illness polyneuropathy, and bloodstream infections in critically ill patients by about 40%.

To gain further insight into the possible mechanisms behind these benefits, 363 patients requiring intensive care for more than 7 days were randomly assigned to either conventional or intensive insulin therapy.

Intensive insulin therapy effectively normalized blood glucose levels within 24 hours, both in survivors and non-survivors. Intensive insulin therapy also increased serum levels of LDL, decreased the decline in HDL levels, and suppressed elevated blood triglycerides.

After adjustment for multiple confounders, the researchers found that it was the increase in lipids rather than the decrease in blood glucose that was most strongly correlated with the beneficial effects of intensive insulin therapy on morbidity and mortality.

The researchers speculated that the benefits of higher cholesterol in critically ill patients could be due to protection against infectious agents by LDL and HDL, or from LDL's role as a transporter for cholesterol which is essential for the integrity of cell membranes.

Reference

Aaahrggg.....

Please, can somebody refrase this in plain english?

yes. i think so. critically-ill patients that were given insulin to control the amount of glucose in their blood lived longer and/or were healthier than those who didn't receive the insulin treatments. the patients who received the treatments also had elevated cholesterol levels. researchers believe that is the higher cholesterol levels which are responsible for the benefits and not controlled blood glucose, as was first speculated.

[QUOTE=Angeline
Intensive insulin therapy effectively normalized blood glucose levels within 24 hours, both in survivors and non-survivors. [/QUOTE]

1. You're in intensive care.

2. For more than seven days.

3. Some unknown percentage of you don't leave.

I'm also thinking that we're not talking about too many sudden-trauma patients, because they wouldn't have needed the insulin in the first place.

So I would like to know, "relative to what?" What were the baseline lipid levels? If you're that sick, it's quite possibly diabetes, liver problems, severe heart problems. EVERYTHING's out of whack. Are we talking "a little better than baseline," or "higher than Mt. Everest and now even higher than that?"

But more: Sure hope I never need this discovery, but glad nevertheless they know it.

There were 363 patients in the study. The mortality was 21.3% for the control and 12.1% for the insulin group.

The details, including all lipid levels, are in the Reference at the bottom of Angeline's post.

Translation: Normally, in this context, they do not administer insulin unless your blood sugar reaches a certain level (12 mmol/l). In this experiement they divided the patients into two groups: One group received the standard treament, the other received an aggressive treatement where they kept the insulin level at a much lower level. They found that more people survived with this more aggressive insulin therapy. After some number crunching they have come to the conclusion that the lower death rate was due to the fact this therapy elevates cholesterol levels.

Is that clearer?

The significance of this, IMO, is that's it another nail in the coffin for those people who insist that cholesterol (LDL) is a nasty nasty substance that must be controlled/lowered) at all cost. (Statins). There already is a link between low cholesterol and higher mortality and some talk about the protective role of cholesterol against infection. Talk which has been mostly ignored as far as I can tell. So this why this study is significant.

I thought that the higher total cholesero was the protector; this is what was found in the Framingham study, so I'm not surprised. I'm sure that the confusing dialog, which is against everything that big Pharm has coerced us into accepting, is intentional so that we will not quit taking all the meds that make billionairs of them, and harm us.

What is really positive about this study is that it...
a)shows that higher blood glucose levels (even if not high enough for intervention) are dangerous. Just what low carb advocates have said.
b)there are reasons for the body to have cholesteral. We need it and it is protective on a cellular level.
c)the ratio of cholesteral is what is important, not the total number.
More proof!