|
|
12-18-2017, 08:03 AM
|
#81
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 74
|
In September 2016 my numbers were 197 Total, 134 LDL, 31 HDL, 150 Triglycerides. In July I moved to a whole food, plant based diet (no meat, no dairy). In September of this year my numbers were 168 total, 102 LDL, 41 HDL, 126 Triglycerides.
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
12-18-2017, 08:07 AM
|
#82
|
gone traveling
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,375
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz
Why would one split second's worth of data captured in a blood test be used to justify drugs for life?
|
I find this comment ignorant. First, a blood extraction takes several seconds vs. a split second. But that's the minor exaggeration.
I know of no one on statins (of 10's of people) that didn't have multiple blood tests over years before a statin was ever prescribed for them UNLESS the first & quickly repeated test showed astronomical LDL level. Net, a split second didn't set a lifetime path. Additionally, people on statins have continual blood tests at a one to two year rate to see where the numbers are & if they change.
In my case, I had 5-8 tests over 10 years before I started on them. Split second is nonsense.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 08:10 AM
|
#83
|
gone traveling
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,375
|
To each their own belief system.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 08:14 AM
|
#84
|
gone traveling
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,375
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsbcal
This thread reminds me of the stock/bond ones. People of different ages and temperaments. All kinds of viewpoints.
Wish I could find the magic formula but I guess there is no one size for all.
Seems the anti-statin folks are quite vocal here.
|
This thread started & is titled to be about lowering cholesterol with statins. Fine. And I'm sure it works for some.
But when people started calling them a scam, I couldn't tolerate that nonsense so I spoke up. Not one to back down from an argument.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 08:14 AM
|
#85
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,796
|
My primary care physician wanted me to go on a statin since my bad cholesterol was high. Even though my 'ratio' was average. He was on a statin himself, and said he had muscle pain, but reduced his dosage and the muscle pain went away. I said no thanks. I took fish oil for a while, which reduced my triglycerides back into the normal range. Stopped taking fish oil when I read that it's not great for the prostate scenario. Triglycerides are back up now. But my 'good' cholesterol (HDL) has always been in the 'good' zone, above 40, so there's that good news. I agree, it's not the cholesterol that's bad, it's what happens to it on the walls of your arteries that matters. Latest culprit I've read about is 'inflammation' which allows something to build up on artery walls.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 08:17 AM
|
#86
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 8,809
|
It seems that the cholesterol test is like checking the river flow. While a CT Heart scan shows the sediment build up. Sound like a decent analogy?
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 08:31 AM
|
#87
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,328
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exrook
In September 2016 my numbers were 197 Total, 134 LDL, 31 HDL, 150 Triglycerides. In July I moved to a whole food, plant based diet (no meat, no dairy). In September of this year my numbers were 168 total, 102 LDL, 41 HDL, 126 Triglycerides.
|
That made me wonder about my numbers so I looked them up. Five years back while on statins my numbers were slowly getting worse year by year and the doc slowly increased my statin dosage to compensate. At the last statin era test in 2012 I rang in at 202 total, 67 HDL, 108 LDL, and 137 triglycerides. Then I dropped statins after DW had muscle problems prompting me to read up on them. I assume my numbers shot up without statins but I never found out exactly how much because I changed to LCHF eating before the next years test which was 227 total, 93 HDL, 122 LDL, and 58 triglycerides. So, without statins but with lowish carb eating my LDL went up modestly (potentially a little bad), HDL went up modestly (good), and triglycerides dropped substantially (good). My numbers have stayed roughly the same for the last 5 years with triglycerides moving down to 52. No way I am bothering with statins unless more conclusive science documents solid benefits.
__________________
Idleness is fatal only to the mediocre -- Albert Camus
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 08:56 AM
|
#88
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,639
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsbcal
It seems that the cholesterol test is like checking the river flow. While a CT Heart scan shows the sediment build up. Sound like a decent analogy?
|
Sounds pretty good. You really don't know if you've got clogged arteries without doing some testing. Your cholesterol could be great and you die tomorrow from a heart attack. You just never know. The only reason I got tested is trying to find out why I have chronic lightheadedness. Never got an answer to that, but found out my other problems as a byproduct of the testing.
I wouldn't start with a CT Heart Scan unless you can get it done cheap. A simple Echocardiogram can give you an idea.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 09:19 AM
|
#89
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 1,389
|
Yes, I cut way down on eggs and red meat. Thanks for the statin info.
__________________
Retired in 2013 and we are living the dream!
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 09:54 AM
|
#90
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz
I find this comment ignorant. First, a blood extraction takes several seconds vs. a split second. But that's the minor exaggeration.
I know of no one on statins (of 10's of people) that didn't have multiple blood tests over years before a statin was ever prescribed for them UNLESS the first & quickly repeated test showed astronomical LDL level. Net, a split second didn't set a lifetime path. Additionally, people on statins have continual blood tests at a one to two year rate to see where the numbers are & if they change.
In my case, I had 5-8 tests over 10 years before I started on them. Split second is nonsense.
|
No no. See your response is ignorant. You don't know everybody. The statement that people get their blood tested for years many many times before doctors prescribe drugs is incorrect . And finding some people in that situation only proves me right. It id not definitive of the medical applications of cholesterol mining. Every doctor I have every had bring up the subject did so on ONE BLOOD TEST. Numbers = X = need drugs = Have risk=Must lower. No doctor will test your blood for years before interfering unless he's one who is not on the cholesterol bandwagon. By total Cholesterol was just over 200. I have never had "really high" cholesterol and the numbers go up an down without me doing anything. I go different numbers same day.. 2 different tests. Doctor's office test always the higher number
No, when I was on statins I had to have my blood tested for LIVER DAMAGE every 60 days. Every single blood test was either abnormal or right at the limits and every single doctor told me I needed to stay on the drugs And this was the experience of everyone I knew at the time.
So your experience is the only one out there? I already know better
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 11:49 AM
|
#91
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 751
|
Razztazz has a valid point, which perhaps emotionalism is making some miss. The criticism is towards a seriously flawed one size fits all tendency in medicine, with statins in this case. Many drs will prescribe them after only one blood test. if you have a more cautious dr, good for you. Name calling is what is nonsense, especially when a serious problem such as side effects is being discussed.
Many thanks to all who have share their successful dietary and lifestyle changes. Those posts add immensely to the discussion and to our hopes that those who have not already been damaged by statins may never have to risk them. And yes, any added medication is always a risk to some extent.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 11:56 AM
|
#92
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,639
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamadogmamacat
Razztazz has a valid point, which perhaps emotionalism is making some miss. The criticism is towards a seriously flawed one size fits all tendency in medicine, with statins in this case. Many drs will prescribe them after only one blood test. if you have a more cautious dr, good for you. Name calling is what is nonsense, especially when a serious problem such as side effects is being discussed.
Many thanks to all who have share their successful dietary and lifestyle changes. Those posts add immensely to the discussion and to our hopes that those who have not already been damaged by statins may never have to risk them. And yes, any added medication is always a risk to some extent.
|
Any thanks to the people that shared their successful results after using statins?
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 12:06 PM
|
#93
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickA5
Any thanks to the people that shared their successful results after using statins?
|
Well given that MamaDogMamaCat has permanent and painful damage from using statins I doubt she was looking for success stories.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 12:14 PM
|
#94
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,328
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickA5
Any thanks to the people that shared their successful results after using statins?
|
The problem is no one can know whether they benefited. All you can know is that your cholesterol numbers went down and that is accepted by everyone - and is the primary reason statins are prescribed.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 12:43 PM
|
#95
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 8,765
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff
The problem is no one can know whether they benefited. All you can know is that your cholesterol numbers went down and that is accepted by everyone - and is the primary reason statins are prescribed.
|
And that's where the disconnect occurs. Lower numbers were long accepted as meaning decreased chance of dying of heart disease. However, the incidence of heart disease stayed the same even after a couple of decades of massive statin prescribing. So there's no way to tell whether lowering your numbers actually accomplished anything positive.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Anonymous (not Will Rogers or Sam Clemens)
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 12:48 PM
|
#96
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,639
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff
The problem is no one can know whether they benefited. All you can know is that your cholesterol numbers went down and that is accepted by everyone - and is the primary reason statins are prescribed.
|
Very true. I assume Statins are responsible for lowering my Cholesterol and perhaps stabilizing my coronary artery disease, but don't know for sure. But, the same can be said for just about any drug.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 12:53 PM
|
#97
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 8,809
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickA5
Very true. I assume Statins are responsible for lowering my Cholesterol and perhaps stabilizing my coronary artery disease, but don't know for sure. But, the same can be said for just about any drug.
|
There are some decisions in life we must make with incomplete data.
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 01:01 PM
|
#98
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 8,765
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickA5
Very true. I assume Statins are responsible for lowering my Cholesterol and perhaps stabilizing my coronary artery disease, but don't know for sure. But, the same can be said for just about any drug.
|
From everything I've read, including from the major statin skeptics, someone who already has CAD IS the target audience for statins. I think the research shows that if you already have it, statins do decrease your chance of a recurrence and increase your lifespan. So it's not that they are useless, just that they were massively over prescribed and over hyped.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Anonymous (not Will Rogers or Sam Clemens)
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 01:02 PM
|
#99
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,328
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickA5
Very true. I assume Statins are responsible for lowering my Cholesterol and perhaps stabilizing my coronary artery disease, but don't know for sure. But, the same can be said for just about any drug.
|
Actually, statins have been confirmed as causal for lowering cholesterol - that is accepted science. The assumption about reducing CVD is what is questionable.
__________________
Idleness is fatal only to the mediocre -- Albert Camus
|
|
|
12-18-2017, 01:07 PM
|
#100
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,639
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley
And that's where the disconnect occurs. Lower numbers were long accepted as meaning decreased chance of dying of heart disease. However, the incidence of heart disease stayed the same even after a couple of decades of massive statin prescribing. So there's no way to tell whether lowering your numbers actually accomplished anything positive.
|
If there is this overwhelming evidence that Statins don't work, wouldn't you think most doctors would stop prescribing them? My PCP is as about as anti-drug as you can find in a doctor. Trying to get an antibiotic or a pain pill stronger than a Advil from my doctor is like pulling teeth. But, as soon as he saw my test results (CT Scan, etc) he started up the Atorvastatin. My Cardiologist upped the dosage. When I brought up the fact that my dosage was increased to my PCP, he thought it was a good decision. Are all of these doctors stupid? Do they just not read these studies? Are they getting kickbacks from Big Pharma? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|