Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I definitely think the prescribing of statins should involve some in depth thought.
I work in healthcare and have been reading medical journals for years and I am not convinced that we truly understand cholesterol and particularly what LDLs and VLDLs do for us (or not).
I have long been interested in the topic because I have had high cholesterol since high school (I am 47), and it has been above 320 for the last decade or so. I eat a super clean diet and am active and average weight (though my BMI is high because I have lots of muscle mass from years of long distance cycling). I have never been prescribed statins because every time I discuss it with my doctors, they say my HDLs are super high (outside the reference range) and I have low or no risk from other heart factors. They have all said that I am not a good candidate for statins. My LDLs are moderate, my VLDLs are extremely low and I am hypoglycemic (been that way since I was a little kid). Every now and then they want to watch to see if my HDLs lower and my LDLs rise, but that hasn't happened. All is pretty stable.
OTOH, I have met plenty of people with mid-range 200's cholesterol and everyone is acting they will have a heart attack tomorrow if they don't start statins. A few whom I knew well had liver issues (prior and unrelated to statin use), and I inquired if they were sure that they wanted to take the statins. They are hard on the liver. Are you sure you want to take them? Are you really in imminent risk of heart damage otherwise? Meh. They insisted it was the right course for them.
Maybe it is. IDK. I think the jury is still out for me. I don't think we ask the right questions in studies (far too many are paid for by Big Pharma), and I think the diet component for a lot of studies isn't controlled. That can be ok sometimes because it may have no net effect on the study, but other times, especially when the goal is to look at the effect of diet on cholesterol (which a large chunk of the studies out there), I am dismayed by how many of the studies's official documentation mentions absolutely nothing about the diet the participants ate.
All I know is unless and until I am in a couple of high risk categories, I'll wait and let the rest of y'all be the guinea pigs. For those who are in high risk categories and are status post some kind of heart surgery, I am happy there is something that may help. For the rest of us, the answer is murkier and you definitely have to weigh the pros and cons.
You make a lot of sense to me.
I remember years ago before I was ever on a computer and worked in a private school, the athletic coach, was slim, fit and always talking about his cholesterol ... I didn't know anything then but have a more awareness of it all today.
While I attended a Weston Price support group the leader was a little woman, nice and thin and was always talking up coconut oil and was bringing in tubs to sell to the members...she said her total was 300something. and not a worry about it.
Weston Price offers a lot of research on oils.
My total is over 200, HDL and Tris are optimal, LDL a little high and this from 2014 labs.
But it's my homocysteine that my integrative MD has been testing which is elevated and I'm working to bring that down for 3 yrs now.
Too many numbers, too much fear, too many drugs...that's today's medical picture.
As I said back in my folks days the "word" cholesterol was never ever heard of. They ate everything and lived into 90's.
Last edited by jaminhealth; 06-20-2016 at 01:22 PM..
I remember years ago before I was ever on a computer and worked in a private school, the athletic coach, was slim, fit and always talking about his cholesterol ... I didn't know anything then but have a more awareness of it all today.
While I attended a Weston Price support group the leader was a little woman, nice and thin and was always talking up coconut oil and was bringing in tubs to sell to the members...she said her total was 300something. and not a worry about it.
Weston Price offers a lot of research on oils.
My total is over 200, HDL and Tris are otimal, LDL a little high and this from 2014 labs.
But it's my homocysteine that my integrative MD has been testing which is elevated and I'm working to bring that down for 3 yrs now.
Too many numbers, too much fear, too many drugs...that's today's medical picture.
As I said back in my folks days the "word" cholesterol was never ever heard of. They ate everything and lived into 90's.
If you have been "working to bring that down for 3 yrs now" what you are doing does not seem to be working, does it?
Since your friend wants to sell coconut oil, obviously she would be "talking it up".
Statins not only lower cholesterol, they reduce inflammation.
The problem is that just lowering homocysteine per se does not appear to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease or stroke. That suggests that the elevated homocysteine is a marker for inflammation but lowering it does not treat the underlying inflammatory process.
Back in your folks day the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke was much higher than it is now. Not everyone "ate everything and lived into 90's".
"Patients who had experienced a heart attack and lowered their blood homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation did not have an associated lower risk of heart attack, coronary death or stroke, according to a new study."
Suzy, It all depends on where one comes FROM, the pharma world of business or non pharma world.
And YES my homocysteine numbers have come down...I didn't have labs in 2015 but two previous labs my numbers were down. I will get labs later this year and I'll know more. Where you got that my numbers aren't coming down, I don't know. Maybe an assumption.
And I never said "everyone" ate everything, I was talking my folks and I had a lot of older aunts and uncles too who ate everything....
All my relatives ate everything and lived long but an uncle who smoked, he died at 69 as I recall from way back. Worked in the steel mill and smoked.
Last edited by jaminhealth; 06-20-2016 at 01:46 PM..
Suzy, It all depends on where one comes FROM, the pharma world of business or non pharma world.
And YES my homocysteine numbers have come down...I didn't have labs in 2015 but two previous labs my numbers were down. I will get labs later this year and I'll know more. Where you got that my numbers aren't coming down, I don't know. Maybe an assumption.
And I never said "everyone" ate everything, I was talking my folks and I had a lot of older aunts and uncles too who ate everything....
All my relatives ate everything and lived long but an uncle who smoked, he died at 69 as I recall from way back. Worked in the steel mill and smoked.
The human body does not care what your viewpoint is.
You said that you had been "working on" getting your homocysteine levels down for "three years". You did not say that the level had actually decreased, so the assumption I made that the level had not come down was based on your comment. However, lowering homocysteine does not appear to help prevent heart attacks and strokes. It is not the actual homocysteine that is the problem evidently. Lowering the level does not treat whatever caused the level to be high. I gave you the reference earlier.
The fact is that the study in the OP contradicts many that show that lowering cholesterol with statins reduces the risk of heart attack and stroke. Furthermore, millions take statins and have no side effects from them.
No one should take any medication without knowing why it is being prescribed, the benefits, and the risks.
For me, with my family history, the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. I take simvastatin and have zero side effects from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
The CAC heart scan is used instead as the primary measure as to whether one is at risk.
For someone who is at low to moderate risk for atherosclerosis based on personal and family history the scan might be useful in helping to decide whether to take a statin or not. However, because of the radiation involved and cost it is not used as a routine screening test.
A safe, healthy and natural way to lower cholesterol is to drink eggplant juice. Everything that we need to heal ourselves already exists in nature. We don't need expensive, synthetic medications most of the time.
A safe, healthy and natural way to lower cholesterol is to drink eggplant juice. Everything that we need to heal ourselves already exists in nature. We don't need expensive, synthetic medications most of the time.
There is still the question and it will maybe be with us forever, is cholesterol an issue?
You guys are why I love Data. The above posters are what assists we lay people to protect ourselves
from a well intended FDA and a disliked ,uninterested, overworked mefical system. I literally love you people and thank you for push backs that are based on TRUTH not the lies of Pharma , medicine comm-unity (not all of course). The blatant lack of intuitiveness by hospitals and clinics including the VA ,who I believe is the benchmark for the most part of medical care running on empty with many drug education! and zero research ( very disturbing).
There is still the question and it will maybe be with us forever, is cholesterol an issue?
This question has been asked and answered many times over with decades of research to back it up....
Cholesterol is unequivocally an issue in heart disease....
Whether you choose to believe the research or not doesn't matter and neither do anecdotes about what people supposedly did or didn't do and how long they lived or didn't live...
It also doesn't matter what criminally fraudulent sites like Weston Price and Mercola make up out of thin air to sell their wares....
The "question" may be with YOU and others who choose to ignore facts and science, really isn't a question to most of "us" though...
This question has been asked and answered many times over with decades of research to back it up....
Cholesterol is unequivocally an issue in heart disease....
Whether you choose to believe the research or not doesn't matter and neither do anecdotes about what people supposedly did or didn't do and how long they lived or didn't live...
It also doesn't matter what criminally fraudulent sites like Weston Price and Mercola make up out of thin air to sell their wares....
The "question" may be with YOU and others who choose to ignore facts and science, really isn't a question to most of "us" though...
Exactly. I love how the pharmaceutical bashers blame everything on the pharmaceutical industry without a lick of scientific proof to back it up. I don't believe any conclusion an article claim without a link to the actual scientific study. I read the study itself to see what the experiment results were. Many times the results were either inconclusive or not similar to what the article says it is. And even if it is similar, every study ends with the caveat: "Further research needs to be conducted for us to strengthen our results."
This question has been asked and answered many times over with decades of research to back it up....
Cholesterol is unequivocally an issue in heart disease....
Sure and some people with heart disease have low cholesterol and clogged arteries and have heart attacks and some have high cholesterol, clogged arteries, and heart attacks.
Sure cholesterol is a factor in both but the question of how and to what extent varies. None of that is settled. We do have evidence that for some people, particularly ones with a genetic/familial history of heart attacks, cholesterol plays a bigger role, but that connection is way more tenuous for those who don't have that history. Which is the cart and which is the horse? Do genetics of heart issues also trigger something negative with how this person's body handles cholesterol that folks who don't have a family history of heart disease. The genetics of how our bodies process cholesterol is far from being complete or settled.
Also, some scientists are finally saying maybe what we have long believed to be true about cholesterol is wrong or slightly off. Several studies in the last 3 years have gone back to focus on original research and studies from the 60's and early 70's as a way to Monday morning quarterback: Did we make the right assumptions before? Is our view too myopic and narrow in just saying that HDLs are good and LDLs are bad?That is a normal, natural progression of scientific theory development. There nothing radical or subversive about that type of retrospective research.
I would say that those questions and dimensions make cholesterol much less unequivocal than you suggest. But meh. That is the crux of the debate really. If you believe that the research done thus far is settled then you will have fewer questions about your own personal use of statins and the probably by the community in general. Obviously those who have questions (and the time to wait for new revelations or answers) would be less gung ho about statins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
