Need help: Not sure whether to start medicine on lowering cholesterol level

Moscyn said:
Anyone tried Red Yeast Rice tablets or Weider Red Mold Rice tablets? Someone recommended me to try as alternative to statins but from my internet research, Red Mold Rice supplement in form of tablets also have side effects. Any comments appreciated.
Click to expand...
I took Red Yeast Rice tablets for some years. Then decided to discontinue them after a discussion here and then with my doc. FWIW, I don't think they did a lot for my cholesterol readings.

If they have statin properties you would have to ask yourself why not take the actual statins? Are they as safe? They are probably cheaper but that's not a great reason to take them. You can buy Choleast on Amazon (along with a lot of other dubious and great stuff).

I do not know how much statin they represent as opposed to the actual FDA controlled drugs. I did find one paper that discussed how the preparation was done. Maybe there is some literature out there I do not know about.
 
Many years ago I was at a doc's office. I asked about curing some problem when he wanted me to take choloesterol lowering stuff. He said nowadays there is a pill for everything. I said I want that one.

He doubled over laughing. Clearly I misunderstood. The concept was that there is a pill for every ailment, but no cure for anything.
 
Moscyn said:
Anyone tried Red Yeast Rice tablets or Weider Red Mold Rice tablets? Someone recommended me to try as alternative to statins but from my internet research, Red Mold Rice supplement in form of tablets also have side effects. Any comments appreciated.
Click to expand...

To the OP:
You started this thread a month and a half ago, asking for general advice. You got quite a bit of feedback, along with a number of recommendations to do your own research and make some decisions. But you're still here with "someone recommended [some supplement]" and looking for more opinions instead of facts.

I have to seriously question whether you are genuinely interested in your health, or just aimlessly gathering input like the person who buys stocks based on a hot tip he heard in the barber shop.

Please don't be offended; I mean this as a constructive comment. You're certainly smart enough to look into these issues in a focused way, but it doesn't look as if you've put much effort into it.
 
I think Moscyn's question was a reasonable one. It can take some time to evaluate these things, particularly since test results are maybe once or twice a year.
 
Thanks Lsbcal for your kind comments. I am indeed serious about my health. I took a blood test in August and I intend to take another one end Nov to decide whether I should indeed take statin or just continue with lifestyle changes. I have cut down on carbs, eat oatmeal everyday, eat less red meat and seafood, exercise everyday, etc ....all these changes are done with many sacrifices. I think it is quite normal when one is taking a big decision to succumb to news of a "better" alternative medicine out there than to take statin. It was just something I never heard before and a doctor friend told me that, so naturally I wanted to read more about it and hear some views. Apologies if I offended anyone!


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
 
d0ug said:
75% of people who have a heart attack are in the good zone for cholesterol. 25% have high cholesterol So high cholesterol is safer as far as heart attack
Click to expand...

This does not follow. That is, the data you cite (even if true which I don't know if it is or not) does not necessarily lead to your conclusion. That is because you haven't accounted for how many people are in each group.

Imagine the following:

1,000,000 people have quality A.

100,000 people have quality B.

10,000 have X occur to them. 7500 of them have quality A and 2500 of them have quality B.

So, .025 of those with quality B have X occur to them.

But, only .0075 of those with quality A have X occur to them.

While X occurs to more people with quality A (since there are many more people with quality A), people with quality B are more likely to have X occur to them.
 
Moscyn said:
...I ... eat oatmeal everyday
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a good thing.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad.
You are inviting comments and asking for opinions.
A lot of the advice you're getting here is entirely contrary to what we have been told for the last 40 years.

Skepticism is an essential part of this process.
Figure out why you think eating a "healthy" breakfast of oatmeal is good.
Could it be because the people selling oatmeal have been paying millions of dollars to tell you that?

The contrary advice you're getting here is from people who have been where you are now and they want to be helpful.

If all of the information on this subject were entirely science based there would likely still be some differences of opinion that would need further analysis, but the profit motive that overlays the subject distorts the picture so much that it might look upside down.
 
Oatmeal is one of the most nutritionally void foods out there, plus you have to add so much sugar/honey/sweetner to it to make it palatable. I'll eat it about once a month in the winter when I want something warm, but it's kind of a pointless food IMO.
 
cantlogin said:
You say that like it's a good thing....

Figure out why you think eating a "healthy" breakfast of oatmeal is good.
Could it be because the people selling oatmeal have been paying millions of dollars to tell you that?...
Click to expand...

I object, leading the witness, your honor.
 
Last edited:
For what little it's worth, I have oatmeal every morning, as a source of dietary fiber. I generally mix 40 grams oatmeal (NOT the instant stuff), 14 grams raisins (maybe 20-30 raisins), and cinnamon with a cup of water, heat in the microwave, let stand a few minutes, then stir and reheat a bit.

Not many calories there, and good on a low sodium diet. I'll have that, yogurt, grapefruit, and coffee early in the morning before my hour run.
 
I used to do exactly that with the addition of some crushed walnuts.
I really miss that easy early morning breakfast.

Things improved for me dramatically after I stopped that and switched to eggs.
 
My cholesterol readings were not so good and my doctor has prescribed a followup visit this week. I'm sure they will be pushing the statins and I'm afraid of the side problems associated with statins.
My question: Has anyone had success with the use of Cholestyramine? It's basically a bile absorbent and supposedly does no harm to the liver/muscles/joint. It predates statins and is probably out of vogue with doctors today. If anyone has given it a try, I'd appreciate your feedback.
 
In keeping with their tendency to be well behind the science curve, the ADA (American Diabetes Association) has released new recommendations. They recommend that essentially all diabetics be given statins in order to decrease death by heart disease, which is the number one cause of death for diabetics. However, they never even mention in the article the issue with many statins increasing blood sugar levels.

Experts - Give Statins to All People With Diabetes

I don't know where the science will come down in the long run regarding cholesterol, statins, heart disease, et al. But it seems to me to be unwise to just throw these meds at people. Especially as they have fairly significant side effects. It does seem to me that they (statins) have been used on patients in significant numbers enough that there should be some clear data on whether people who take statins have less incidence of heart disease. But I haven't seen that. They have lower numbers, yes, but does that really correlate to a decrease in disease and death?

At this point all I know is that when I stopped taking my statin a couple of months ago now, pretty much all my muscle weakness and pain went away. I don't know what my numbers are now, and I don't want to increase my chance of heart disease, but I sure would like to actually have some real information about all this stuff. Very frustrating.
 
Statins have been around a long time and there is a ton of information on them. The side effects are fairly infrequent.

I read a paper that looked at statins and diabetes (I work in science and am used to reading scientific literature). From memory I want to say that in something like 1000 nondiabetic pts treated with statins, there were 6 who developed diabetes that were attributed to the statin. So while it does increase glucose or risk of diabetes, it seems pretty infrequent/not a big increase in glucose.

In your case if you had side effects then it's not an option to be on a statin. I want to think that I saw some papers that showed lower mortality in ppl on statins (not just affecting the numbers) but I don't know if I recall it properly. I'm certain that this would have been addressed in studies as statins have been so widely studied.
 
Traditional medicine has given us bad information for years about cholesterol - it's not the demon many doctors would still have us believe it is. Personally, I would never put a statin drug in my body, after learning more about cholesterol and about what statins actually do, and their side effects. Here is a link to a series of articles on heart disease and cholesterol by Chris Kresser - it's an excellent place to start learning the truth about this subject:

The Diet-Heart Myth: Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Are Not the Enemy

Best of luck to you, whatever you decide to do.
 
Sorry I haven't read the entire thread. The cardiologists that I know and have asked would say that you should definitely go on it. In fact, one of them tells me that even though he has normal cholesterol, he takes it. The rationale being that as time goes by we all have damage to our blood vessels caused by cholesterol. This happens faster in the presence of high blood pressure and smoking. Plaques form in large blood vessels, like the coronary arteries. These plaques come in two different types - one is hard and stable and the other is softer and more prone to rupture and then clot the vessel off causing a heart attack. The current evidence suggests that the statin drugs will change the dangerous type of plaque to the stable kind. Again, this could be so much marketing but I trust these cardiologists and they don't really have any ulterior motives. If your numbers are up, do your best to alter your lifestyle in heart healthy ways but I wouldn't hesitate more than an instant to take this class of meds.
 
RonBoyd said:
Apparently you should.
Click to expand...

Ok now I have. I'd go on them if my cholesterol were high. I have normal cholesterol, normal BMI, normal BP, don't smoke, have no significant family history of myocardial infarction and I still may go on them. There is much better evidence that they will potentially do me good than there is for any of the many vitamins and micronutrients jamming my shelves of my pharmacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Amethyst
High Cholesterol despite correct weight, diet, exercise...What to do?
3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
10K
orbops
O
T
Chest pain with no explanation? A PSA
Replies
7
Views
988
trumpeting_angel
T
M
Food Triggered Irregular Heart Rhythm?
3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
10K
mountainsoft
M
S
High School Best Friend Small Stroke - wife and legal recommendations?
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
stephenson
S
Katsmeow
High calcium score and angiogram
2 3
Replies
66
Views
9K
badatmath
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom