Have you lowered cholesterol without statins?

.013 or 1.3% died with the placebo.

.011 or 1.1% died with the real pills.

Note: rounded to the hundredths place.

That is an absolute difference of 0.2% in favor of the real pills.
 
A Question

So, a question about the blood tests.
From a totally horrible blood panel about 5 years ago, my current tests for all items are well below the high readings. Dr. says perfect for a 20 year old. :LOL:
I continue to take the same medications that were prescribed originally.
Five years and a change in diet and lifestyle later, I wonder if all of the medications are still necessary.
What I'd like to do, is to stop taking all the drugs, prior to my next doctor appointment and the requisite blood tests. The question is...

How long before the test will it take to rid my blood of the medications so that we can determine for sure that they are needed?

Can't seem to find the answer online.
 
I would just call my Doc about the blood test and your intentions. Some meditations should not be stopped all at once.

I would NOT rely on the internet for this kind of advice.
 
I would just call my Doc about the blood test and your intentions. Some meditations should not be stopped all at once.

I would NOT rely on the internet for this kind of advice.

I will check with my Guru......, :LOL:
 
Thanks for the info on studies. Does it also indicate gender of participants?

I don't have the references handy, but I've never seen anything that indicated any benefit to statins for women who have not already had one heart attack.
 
Statins do more harm then good. I lowered my cholesterol by 40 points in one month by using Cholestepure that you can buy over the counter.
 
.013 or 1.3% died with the placebo.

.011 or 1.1% died with the real pills.

Note: rounded to the hundredths place.

That is an absolute difference of 0.2% in favor of the real pills.
The numbers needed to treat are always the ones that make the issue pop for me.
 
That's my understanding.

Great, thanks. Makes my Dr seem even more the lazy *** for not bothering to find that out before insisting on them as strongly as she did for those six weeks of misery for me.
 
Great, thanks. Makes my Dr seem even more the lazy *** for not bothering to find that out before insisting on them as strongly as she did for those six weeks of misery for me.
I would not say your doctor is lazy, rather following the standard Cholesterol Guidelines/recommendations. The standard practice has been to prescribe statins to women with higher cholesterol (yet no heart disease/events) in spite of weak evidence that there is any benefit.

Even though statins are now off-patent and cheap generics are available, there was a long period when they were expensive and earned pharmaceutical companies a lot of money. The push to prescribe them was very strong. Some truly considered them a wonder drug and some fanatics even joked about adding them to the water supply!

Far too many healthy women are taking statins, they say, though some research indicates the drugs will do them little good and may be more likely to cause serious side effects in women.

“If you’re going to tell a healthy person to take a medicine every day for the rest of their life, you should have really good data that it’s going to make them better off,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine. Lowering cholesterol should not be not an end in itself, she added, and cholesterol may not play the same role in heart disease in women as in men. “You can have high cholesterol and still be really healthy and have a low risk of heart disease,” she said.

Although women represent slightly more than half of the population, they have been vastly underrepresented in clinical trials of statins. As a result, evidence on the benefits and risks for women is limited.

Studies have found that healthy women who took statins to prevent cardiovascular disease did experience fewer episodes of chest pain and had fewer treatments like stents and bypass surgery. But statins didn’t prevent healthy women from having their first heart attacks and didn’t save lives.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/a-new-womens-issue-statins/

Not everyone agrees. Some doctors feel that you should take a drug that might help in the absence of data, but I will always see it the opposite way and never understood the "just in case" mentality. Daily statins is a huge intervention.
“The data are underwhelming, to say the least,” said Dr. Barbara Roberts, author of “The Truth About Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs” and an associate professor of medicine at Brown University. “Women who are healthy derive no benefit from statins, and even those women who have established heart disease derive only half the benefit men do.”

Dr. C. Noel Bairey Merz, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, disagreed. “We haven’t shown that we can prevent deaths, because we just haven’t enrolled enough women, and that’s a crime,” she said. “But the absence of data is not the same as negative data.”

In the meantime, she said, “we can either sit on our hands or use our best judgment to make an educated guess, and can decide to treat.” (Dr. Bairey Merz has had financial relationships with drug companies, including Abbott Vascular, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead.)
OK - I have to say her later seat-belt analogy downright made me mad!

The debate has taken on added urgency because of the risks associated with statins, which often are supposed to be taken daily for the rest of one’s life. The drugs have long been known to cause muscle pain in some people and, more rarely, liver and kidney damage, as well as cognitive side effects like memory loss and confusion.

In 2010, Johns Hopkins researchers discovered that statins could, in rare instances, make the body produce antibodies against its own proteins, engendering a painful and debilitating muscle disease that actually gets worse when patients stop taking the drugs. But the most common side effect is diabetes.

In 2012, researchers published a study showing that postmenopausal women who took part in the Women’s Health Initiative were much more likely to develop diabetes if they took statins, and diabetes itself increases the risk of heart disease considerably.

Despite the concerns, women are heavy users of statins, especially in midlife — when the gap in heart disease risk between men and women happens to be greatest. Some 16 percent of women ages 45 to 64 take statins, compared with 18 percent of men.

Over all, 26.9 percent of men 45 and over take statins, compared with 23.6 percent of women, though significantly more elderly men than elderly women use statins.

OK - I need to stop quoting the article!!!!

That's what we face as adults in the US. We have to study the medical issues ourselves (particularly blanket guidelines) and try to come up with our personal answer, because doctors are under a lot of professional pressure to kowtow to the latest recommendations. They are not going to get into trouble for following guidelines. But when the guidelines are flawed - as a patient your health can become the victim!
 
Last edited:
Reading that article was pretty infuriating. This part
But some healthy younger women certainly will go on to develop cardiovascular disease, Dr. Bairey Merz said, and statins may help prevent it. “I’m driving in my car, I’m perfectly healthy. Why do I have my seatbelt on?” she asked.

To some extent, the differences represent different philosophies.

Although the new treatment guidelines recommend lifestyle changes for lowering cholesterol, Dr. Bairey Merz said: “I think they should probably go out the window. We have yet to find any kind of lifestyle change intervention that actually helps people live longer.”
should come with a footnote saying "owned and operated by the pharmaceutical industry". I mean, seriously, throw out lifestyle change recommendations and just take this pill? Why? Because I said so!
 
I mean, seriously, throw out lifestyle change recommendations and just take this pill? Why? Because I said so!!

Yes, take this drug everyday for 30 or 40 years and have your liver tested every 60-90 days. Don't worry. It's safe. But don't eat meat or eggs. They'll give you a heart attack... at any moment!!

Talk about Jim Jones. Chug-a-luggin' the kool-aid
 
A short history of medicine.

I have an earache:

2000 BC: Here, eat this root.

1000 AD: That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.

1850 AD: That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.

1940 AD: That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.

1985 AD: That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.

2000 AD: That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root.
 
Reading that article was pretty infuriating. This part should come with a footnote saying "owned and operated by the pharmaceutical industry". I mean, seriously, throw out lifestyle change recommendations and just take this pill? Why? Because I said so!

Yep! I couldn’t believe she said it was like wearing a seatbelt. Must be “safer”. Simple logic. Really? How do you know?

And how can she claim lifestyle changes are worthless?
 
Last edited:
Is your seat belt going to slowly, almost imperceptibly, make you weaker, day by day, until one day you can no longer squat down to pick the string beans in your garden?

And is your son in law going to say, hey, I think you should stop wearing your seat belt because you can no longer squat in your garden?

And is your son in law going to tell you that your seat belt usage stats don't matter if you're dead.

True story.

He didn't quit taking the statin until he was literally in a wheel chair.
 
Having the CT Heart Scan information is important to me. I'll double down a bit on my dietary habits and not do any stupid extreme exercise to push limits. And I started a low dose of BP meds + low dose statins. No side effects so far.

So, as I understand it, the BP meds and low dose statins were recommended before the CT Heart Scan and everybody knows to eat a healthy diet anyways.

But it was the scan that motivated you to actually follow through on the previous recommendations.

The reason I ask is that if one is already doing everything they can, then a CT Heart Scan isn't going to change anything for you, right? The results are not going to lead to anything else? They are not going to wheel you into a cath lab to open up your arteries just based on a CT Heart Scan. They are going to wait until you have an episode like an infarction before that will happen.
 
So, as I understand it, the BP meds and low dose statins were recommended before the CT Heart Scan and everybody knows to eat a healthy diet anyways.
...

No the Doc said that my BP and cholesterol results were decent. I had good habits in diet and exercise so no real risk factors. In fact he said I was a great model for how he wanted to be at my age.

The Doc suggested the CT Heart Scan as I run a lot (I think I mentioned this in a previous post above). It was just a precautionary test. But the results were a surprise and he said in a resigned way, "well, that's why we do this test".

In this context and looking at my previous BP data, I think I was kind of marginal there.
 
The reason I ask is that if one is already doing everything they can, then a CT Heart Scan isn't going to change anything for you, right? The results are not going to lead to anything else? They are not going to wheel you into a cath lab to open up your arteries just based on a CT Heart Scan. They are going to wait until you have an episode like an infarction before that will happen.

My DW's friend had a CT Scan that show 80% blockage in a couple of arteries . No symptoms, no history, no reason to think anything was wrong. Just had a test because it was recommended by her daughter who was a nurse at the hospital that was offering the test (at a discount). She was a health nut, doing everything right. She spent the night in the hospital and had some stents put in the next day. That scan might have saved her life.
 
Thanks for the additional comment after my query.
 
I got very happy news at the doc yesterday. My cholesterol has always been borderline high and I had a bad reaction to statins so I've been working on improving diet even though it's been pretty healthy. My big concern was glucose/a1c and I'd cut back on potatoes, pasta, etc. in favor of bulghur, couscous and other grains. I cut back on sugar and I'm also eating more fish and less of the other meats. The changes have been pretty painless.

From last year: total cholesterol down from 256 to 223. HDL (good) down only from 96 to 94. LDL 144 to 118, Triglycerides 80 to 54. So- LDL still an issue but the other numbers and most of the ratios look good. I'm happy!
 
From last year: total cholesterol down from 256 to 223. HDL (good) down only from 96 to 94. LDL 144 to 118, Triglycerides 80 to 54. So- LDL still an issue but the other numbers and most of the ratios look good. I'm happy!

Did you know that the LDL number is calculated via the Friedewald equation, which is only valid if TG>100? When TG<100 you should use the "Iranian" equation, which calculates your LDL at 92.
 
Did you know that the LDL number is calculated via the Friedewald equation, which is only valid if TG>100?

Ooh, I like that one better- it even puts the total under 200!
 
Back
Top Bottom