Are Statins safe ?

[Steven]

Okay, my cardiologist returned my call and she said "the preventive attributes of statins, including decreasing risk of blockage formation in the heart and brain arteries, is well agreed upon."
She also said the risk of serious side affects are very small and tend to occur at dosages much higher than 10mg.

 

[gerrym51]

if you don't need e'm don,t take em.

 

[imoldernu]

Opinions are cheap and all over the place. One doctor will say, dump the statins another doctor will say they are not the problem. The bottom line is that statins are well known for causing muscle pain. I have no idea whether what you are experiencing is the type of symptom that could be due to statins but it is easy enough to test. Drop the statins for several months and see how you feel. This isn't a life and death issue like some meds - you are not going to fall off a cliff the day you quit your statins. Seems like a perfect situation for a self experiment. If you get better, great - stay off the statins. Doesn't matter why it works, maybe its psychosomatic. But relief is relief. If there is no change, go back on the statins and rest assured that they are not causing your symptoms.

+1
Muscle aches went away in less than 2 weeks.

The subject of Cholesterol has only been in the public eye since the mid 1980's and regular use of statin drugs only became popular after much Pharma advertising in the early to mid 1990's.

Diet and drugs... probably only second to politics in the OpinioNation.

Thank goodness we laid in a 50 year supply of Hadacol. DW has gallons of Lydia Pinkham's liniment in reserve. Learning to be a Prepper.

 

[ERD50]

... The bottom line is that statins are well known for causing muscle pain. ...

But it is my understanding (and I could have it wrong, that is why I'm posting here), is that if you experience muscle pain from statins, it is generally pretty severe, not of the 'aches/pains' type? I've heard it described as flu-like muscle pain.

Anyone know about this?

I've also considered going off it for 6 months, as an experiment. It's easy to attribute my general energy level and muscle tone to advancing age, but who knows?


-ERD50

 

[braumeister]

But it is my understanding (and I could have it wrong, that is why I'm posting here), is that if you experience muscle pain from statins, it is generally pretty severe, not of the 'aches/pains' type? I've heard it described as flu-like muscle pain.

No, it's highly variable.

The most common statin side effect is muscle pain. You may feel this pain as a soreness, tiredness or weakness in your muscles. The pain can be a mild discomfort, or it can be severe enough to make your daily activities difficult.

Statin side effects: Weigh the benefits and risks - MayoClinic.com

 

[Texas Proud]

But it is my understanding (and I could have it wrong, that is why I'm posting here), is that if you experience muscle pain from statins, it is generally pretty severe, not of the 'aches/pains' type? I've heard it described as flu-like muscle pain.

Anyone know about this?

I've also considered going off it for 6 months, as an experiment. It's easy to attribute my general energy level and muscle tone to advancing age, but who knows?


-ERD50

Well, I just started to take statins a few weeks ago and two nights ago had some muscle pain... last night it was really bad... I am still hurting right now...

So, I am off statins going forward... will talk to my doc to see what other options I have...

But, I do know a guy who has minor pain a lot of the time... and sometimes has a bit more. I do not think he is pain free, but I also do not know if it is all caused by statin....

 

[CoolChange]

Dietary belief systems is right. It is more dangerous to talk about what is healthy than to discuss politics or religion.

Calorie restriction has shown a lot of promise for health and longevity in rats and, from what I have read, people too. I have also read that you should take a gradual approach to it. Jumping on the calorie restriction bandwagon too quickly can be counterproductive. I have not been able to try this myself because my two beers with dinner would become my two beers for dinner.

Yep; I almost did not post this for fear of starting a fight. But, I thought this might be useful to the OP since calorie restriction (CR) does seem to have a positive impact on most markers. While I am not convinced that CR will add a significant number of years to the end of my life, I am convinced that it gives me the best chance of being healthy and active in those ending years. And, I thought it might be somewhat new and useful to the OP since this does not seem to get nearly as much media attention as some of the other dietary approaches even though it has a fairly large number of animal studies supporting its benefits.

This is definitely something that should be slowly phased in if it is tried at all. Quickly reducing caloric intake has definitely been shown to contribute to a laundry list of issues in adults.

My approach has been to track my calories in minute detail (the way some here track spending) and only reduce intake by 50 calories per week any time my weight stabilizes for about a month. I am still having my two (sometimes three) beers in the evening (for the B vitamins); but, I have all but cut out the cake, cookies, etc. For me, smaller portions were the key to most things; but, I have all but cut out some others like soda, french fries, etc.

 

[Texas Proud]

Yep; I almost did not post this for fear of starting a fight. But, I thought this might be useful to the OP since calorie restriction (CR) does seem to have a positive impact on most markers. While I am not convinced that CR will add a significant number of years to the end of my life, I am convinced that it gives me the best chance of being healthy and active in those ending years. And, I thought it might be somewhat new and useful to the OP since this does not seem to get nearly as much media attention as some of the other dietary approaches even though it has a fairly large number of animal studies supporting its benefits.

This is definitely something that should be slowly phased in if it is tried at all. Quickly reducing caloric intake has definitely been shown to contribute to a laundry list of issues in adults.

My approach has been to track my calories in minute detail (the way some here track spending) and only reduce intake by 50 calories per week any time my weight stabilizes for about a month. I am still having my two (sometimes three) beers in the evening (for the B vitamins); but, I have all but cut out the cake, cookies, etc. For me, smaller portions were the key to most things; but, I have all but cut out some others like soda, french fries, etc.

Don't have fear of posting if what you think is part of the discussion...


But, from the little knowledge that I have seen about CR, the people they showed looked horrible... they showed a guy who was 135 lbs and over 6 ft.. they said he did NO exercise since he did not have the strength (very little muscle on him)... IIRC, he ate like 600 to 1000 calories a day.... they were couting out leaves for the salad so it would meet his 'needs'...

Sorry, but that is not for me...

 

[CoolChange]

Don't have fear of posting if what you think is part of the discussion...


But, from the little knowledge that I have seen about CR, the people they showed looked horrible... they showed a guy who was 135 lbs and over 6 ft.. they said he did NO exercise since he did not have the strength (very little muscle on him)... IIRC, he ate like 600 to 1000 calories a day.... they were couting out leaves for the salad so it would meet his 'needs'...

Sorry, but that is not for me...

I have seen a few hard core CR practitioners that fit that description; but, most that I have actually spoken with do not go to that extreme. For me, I do not doubt the potential health advantages of that road, it just isn't worth the impact on my current happiness.

Based on my own interpretation of the data available, I believe much of the potential benefit of extreme CR can be achieved without becoming emaciated as you describe.

Moderation is the key for me in the area of exercise as well: I no longer attempt 100 mile/day bike rides or runs approaching 10 miles; but, I do try to run or at least walk 2-3 miles/day on most days when I do not take out my bike. I also try to lift weights 2-3 times per week. Some in the CR community do believe that exercise should be minimized/eliminated with extreme CR to maximize its benefits; but, I know how much better I feel now with some exercise. So, this is a risk I am more than willing to accept.

Longevity is an area that I hope to research much more once I finally retire. As for now, these posts are only ramblings from a random guy on the Internet who has likely missed many relevant studies (diet/nutrition, exercise, etc.) in recent years.

 

[ERD50]

RE - muscle pain/statins:

No, it's highly variable.


Statin side effects: Weigh the benefits and risks - MayoClinic.com

Thanks, I guess this is getting me a more interested to try an extended statin 'holiday' and see. Probably best to taper off over a few weeks I guess?

Well, I just started to take statins a few weeks ago and two nights ago had some muscle pain... last night it was really bad... I am still hurting right now...

So, I am off statins going forward... will talk to my doc to see what other options I have...

I don't recall any changes when I started though. That leads me to believe what I experience is just due to getting older, but who knows? BTW, my semi-annual blood tests for liver function have always been normal/stable.

-ERD50

 

[braumeister]

RE - muscle pain/statins:
Probably best to taper off over a few weeks I guess?

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I simply stopped cold.

On 40 mg Lipitor:
HDL 54, Trig 129 (Trig/HDL ratio = 2.4 where <3 is acceptable)
Two months later on my own:
HDL 88, Trig 94 (ratio = 1.1, about as good as it gets)

That was coupled with the concurrent change to a LC/HF diet, and my BP and glucose level also improved dramatically.

 

[razztazz]

Okay, my cardiologist returned my call and she said "the preventive attributes of statins, including decreasing risk of blockage formation in the heart and brain arteries, is well agreed upon."
She also said the risk of serious side affects are very small and tend to occur at dosages much higher than 10mg.

I would tell that Dr to F off. Treating the well as unwell is unethical. Secondly every time a Dr says "the risks are small" they are either ignorant or lying. My family is in the Pharma biz and the risks are always higher than stated. they just use statistical methods and weasel wording to make it sound like its less. Also, just because the risks are "small" what that really means is there is a 100% chance they will kill or cripple somebody. I want to know how much money they will give me if I have a bad outcome. Also, I want them to pay me if I do not take the drug and then do not have a heart attack. Ask them what hey mean by "small risk" and then ask them how they can rely on group aggregate outcomes to treat and diagnose a individual with such unwarranted confidence. Small doses of statins cause adverse reactions. If you get one or many for you the risk ain't small. The risk of listening to a doctor is potentially fatal.

The reality is NO Dr Anywhere will put any money on who has a heart attack -and when- based on cholesterol numbers. They get paid either way and get paid when their drugs kill or cripple you. They get to play as The House, betting on all those people's lives. The poor patient is carrying 100% of the risk 100% of the time. The risk of death/diminished capacity and quality of life by unnecessary pharmaceutical is real and immediate. The risk a heart attack is theorietical and sometime in the far off future. If I have a heart attack at 80 no Dr will say "He would have lived to 100 if only he'd have been on statins for the past 40 yrs" Ok, some will actually say that but we all know better.

 

[timo2]

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I simply stopped cold.

On 40 mg Lipitor:
HDL 54, Trig 129 (Trig/HDL ratio = 2.4 where <3 is acceptable)
Two months later on my own:
HDL 88, Trig 94 (ratio = 1.1, about as good as it gets)

That was coupled with the concurrent change to a LC/HF diet, and my BP and glucose level also improved dramatically.

With an HDL of 88, I'm not sure why you were on a statin anyway. That's where my wife's are, and her father's were also. It might be in your case that the statins lowered all of your numbers, even the good ones. That is the case with me. My HDLs are naturally at 39. In the effort by doctors to raise them, all they ever did was lower them, because statins make all of my numbers go up and down in unison. I finally have convinced them to give up, and just go with the lowest possible combination that keeps HDL at 39 and lowers the LDLs. My diet helps stabilize them also. Besides, I've had two cardiologists and a nurse practitioner tell me that the cholesterol ratio is more important than the actual numbers, and my ratio is good now.

 

[oldtrig]

Everyone is different. I know a lady who is now 94. Her total cholesterol was 300 when she was 80. Her doctor put her on lipitor. She told me the heck with that medicine and never took one pill. She is still healthy and going strong at 94. I for one would never take medicine for cholesterol. Its only a risk factor having higher than normal numbers. Who says what is normal to begin with? My wife takes Zocor and has for over 10 years. Her liver test always show higher than a normal person should show but she still risks taking it. I doubt anyone will ever know if this medicine is good or bad for ones body. What gets me is when you read all the side effects that could come with taking any medicine. One that comes to mind is the one that all these TV commercials show. I think everyone here knows which one I am talking about. What a joke advertising medicine like this and let your young children see it and then ask you about it.

 

[braumeister]

With an HDL of 88, I'm not sure why you were on a statin anyway.

I guess I wasn't clear.
My HDL had always been around 50, plus or minus about 5, and really didn't change when I started taking statins.

The change came after I went on the LC/HF diet. That raised HDL and lowered triglycerides, proving (to me, anyway) that it was the right thing for me to do.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

Yesterday my doctor called and told me to get off the simvastatin for a week and at my visit next week we would discuss it further. Had a visit scheduled anyway. I'll probably not see any results by then but maybe. I was scheduled for a visit anyway so I'll keep that appointment. I just hopt getting off the simvastatin is the answer to my muscle weakness.

 

[Khufu]

Okay, my cardiologist returned my call and she said "the preventive attributes of statins, including decreasing risk of blockage formation in the heart and brain arteries, is well agreed upon."
She also said the risk of serious side affects are very small and tend to occur at dosages much higher than 10mg.

If you take the statin you reduce the DOCTOR'S risk, which could be the doctor's motivation for prescribing it. How is that? Statins are a standard treatment. As long as the doctor is recommending standard treatments her risk of being sued for malpractice is lower. My own (former) doctor explained this to me when I informed him that I had stopped taking the statin because of the muscle pain and would switch to taking niacin. His actual words were, "So, if you keel over your wife can sue me." My actual words in reply were, "Do you expect me to take a pill to protect you from a lawsuit?" I never went back to him

Doctors are more exposed to lawsuits because their actions are never protected by the "corporate veil." They can be sued and lose all their personal assets for their actions even if they are an employee of a company or hospital. So, doctors live in fear of lawsuits. As a result they practice "defensive medicine" part of which is sticking to standard treatments to reduce their exposure to malpractice suits. Good for them; sometimes not so good for us.

 

[donheff]

@ the calory restriction advocates. I am too lazy to dig and find the references but I read something recently about calory restriction that cited some studies and/or hypothesis that changing some macro dietary factors could produce the result that calory restriction achieves. I think it was some variation on low carb with increased mid-chain oils or something - all without starving. The reason I think it may have involved MCT oils is that I react poorly to them so would not have retained the reference . The same source cited some major metabolic differences between humans and the mouse models used in starvation experiments that could indicate that the results would not be as good in us. In any event, being lean is a plus but I can't see hunger and emaciation as positive ER attributes regardless if it got me a couple of extra years on the far end.

 

[haha]

In any event, being lean is a plus but I can't see hunger and emaciation as positive ER attributes regardless if it got me a couple of extra years on the far end.

+1 I think we recently had a thread on "first world problems". To me, the idea of starving oneself to perhaps live a few years longer takes first world obsessiveness to a whole new level.

Ha

 

[NotMyFault]

+1 I think we recently had a thread on "first world problems". To me, the idea of starving oneself to perhaps live a few years longer takes first world obsessiveness to a whole new level.

Ha

This whole forum is a first world problem. How quickly can I amass enough wealth to live a life of leisure. Only in America baby.

 

[haha]

This whole forum is a first world problem. How quickly can I amass enough wealth to live a life of leisure. Only in America baby.

True enough. But voluntary starvation seems to take it to a whole new level. And not to appear more attractive; these people look like zombies.

Ha

 

[timo2]

@braumeister Well congratulations then. Getting your HDLs up to 88 from 50 is quite the feat!

 

[Stanley]

Okay, my cardiologist returned my call and she said "the preventive attributes of statins, including decreasing risk of blockage formation in the heart and brain arteries, is well agreed upon."

What bothers me about the above quote are the words "is well agreed upon." I would much rather have seen the words "has been repeatedly proven in studies using objective science to evaluate these risk factors." That would be followed by naming a few sources that a person could go to.

IIRC, ulcers used to be though of as being caused by excess stomach acid, etc. I am sure this was well agreed upon.

Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed the bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers.
Thanks to their work these ulcers are often no longer a long-term, frequently disabling problem.
They can now be cured with a short-term course of drugs and antibiotics.

A Greek doctor named Lykoudis (sp?) was treating his own ulcer with antibiotics in 1954. His papers were not well received and he was actually fined for treating his ulcer patients with antibiotics.

One other interesting quote:

1994 - Patents for acid reducing drugs expire, removing financial incentive to resist antibiotics as treatment of PUD.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...se_and_Helicobacter_pylori#cite_note-BM-hp-38

I am not anti-medicine. I think we live better and longer because of it. But, I can see why many lay people are confused and distrustful of some of the advice they are given.

The question in my mind is: "Where's the science?"

 

[eytonxav]

The question in my mind is: "Where's the science?"

My question is, where is the science that shows a concensus of opinion? But unfortunately, I suppose we will never arrive at that.

 

[obgyn65]

You can forget about this

My question is, where is the science that shows a concensus of opinion?