Have you lowered cholesterol without statins?

[gerntz]

They help a whole lot of folks lower their cholesterol numbers. There's an awful lot of science these days that says they don't help a whole lot of folks avoid heart disease, which is what they were touted for. .

The AMA & AHA disagree. I'll go with them. To each their own.

 

[harley]

LCHF can be hard, no doubt about it.
My answer is to give myself a free one day pass, usually two or three times a month. On my free pass day I can eat whatever I like, indulging my guilty pleasures like ice cream, pizza, or pancakes with maple syrup. Next day I go back on the wagon, no harm done. I've done this for years.

Glad that works for you, but carbs = heroin for me. I've read about this willpower thing, but never found the path to true enlightenment. The nice thing about LCHF for me is that I only need to tough it out for a week or so, then I don't crave the carbs anymore. But DW loads the pantry and fridge with goodies, and temptation is always lurking.

 

[gerntz]

One would think so- but according to a podcast I listened to a few years ago, after indications for prescribing statins were extended to include about half the population over 50, one doctor observed that, despite the huge increase in the % of the population already on statins, the rate of heart disease has not decreased accordingly.

As if cholesterol is the only cause of heart disease.

 

[braumeister]

The AMA & AHA disagree.

Right. The same AHA that used to tell us Cocoa Puffs and Frosted Mini Wheats were heart healthy foods.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[gerntz]

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.

 

[gerntz]

Right. The same AHA that used to tell us Cocoa Puffs and Frosted Mini Wheats were heart healthy foods.

To each their own belief system.

 

[gerntz]

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.

 

[John Galt III]

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.

 

[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?

 

[donheff]

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.

 

[PatrickA5]

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.

 

[iloveyoga]

Yes, I cut way down on eggs and red meat. Thanks for the statin info.

 

[razztazz]

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

 

[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.

 

[PatrickA5]

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?

 

[Helen]

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.

 

[donheff]

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.

 

[harley]

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.

 

[PatrickA5]

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.

 

[Lsbcal]

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.

 

[harley]

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.

 

[donheff]

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.

 

[PatrickA5]

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.