OT high cholesterol/Pravastatin

[wc1934]

Curious if anyone is using pravastain to lower their cholesterol levels.
I just got my lipid results and doc wants me to start taking pravastain.

My cholesterol is 203 (standard range is 0-199) so it was flagged as high.
My HDL was 45 (standard range is > 40)
Cholo/HDL ratio was 4.5 (standard range is 0-4.90)
LDL was 142 (standard range is 0-130) so it was flagged as high.
Triglycerides was 80 (standard range 0-149)

The above numbers were a bit higher than last test in which cholo was 188 and LDL was 131.

I am pretty active for a senior citizen. I run and ride, lift weights occasionally etc. Weight is good (127 lbs), diet ok = vegetarian (no meat or chicken), but use a ton of olive oil in sauteing my vegetables/beans/tofu etc.

Of course I am not seeking medical advice (on a biking forum) but rather personnel experiences/opinions and ideas I may not have thought of.

As always, Thanks!!

[DonH]

Been on Pravastatin in a small dosage for several years. Does what it's supposed to with no side effects as far as I can tell.
My tests have been favorable since I started.

[thwart]

Lots of other factors come into play here...

Most importantly, have you ever had a heart problem or stroke? Do you have other risk factors for heart disease, such as a family history, smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes... there are a few others...

If… and that's a big if... you have none of those risk factors, and you're quite physically active, at a good weight (OK, you could probably stand to put on a few lbs. :rolleyes:) then a lot of doctors would not recommend cholesterol medication with those numbers.

Sometimes it's good to share with your doc what your philosophy about medication is, especially when it's a gray zone like this. He/She might err on the side of putting people on a medication if it may possibly help. You very well may not embrace that perspective.

[bigbill]

I've been on Atorvastatin (Lipitor) for the last 4 years. I have risk factors so my doctor wants me to stay on it forever. He has reduced my dosage in half since last year and that dosage is holding everything just right. The hard thing for me was reducing triglycerides but even that is in lower end of the range now. For me, more miles equals better cholesterol levels.

[Peter P.]

I'm on Pravastatin. I asked my doc if I could start with the smallest dosage, 10mg. She said yes. Little did I know, the smallest pill is 20mg. Slicing the pills in half was just plain silly and aggravating.

No side effects.

[pitonpat]

Ditto Atorvastatin 40 mg for me for 5 years. This past June my LDL cholesterol was at 105, not real bad but my cardio wanted it lower and he added Ezetimibe 10mg (generic for Zetia). Last week my LDL was 62! Stunning result and no discernable side effects.

[oldpotatoe]

Curious if anyone is using pravastain to lower their cholesterol levels.
I just got my lipid results and doc wants me to start taking pravastain.

My cholesterol is 203 (standard range is 0-199) so it was flagged as high.
My HDL was 45 (standard range is > 40)
Cholo/HDL ratio was 4.5 (standard range is 0-4.90)
LDL was 142 (standard range is 0-130) so it was flagged as high.
Triglycerides was 80 (standard range 0-149)

The above numbers were a bit higher than last test in which cholo was 188 and LDL was 131.

I am pretty active for a senior citizen. I run and ride, lift weights occasionally etc. Weight is good (127 lbs), diet ok = vegetarian (no meat or chicken), but use a ton of olive oil in sauteing my vegetables/beans/tofu etc.

Of course I am not seeking medical advice (on a biking forum) but rather personnel experiences/opinions and ideas I may not have thought of.

As always, Thanks!!

I take Lipitor and my wife takes Pravastatin..My Total was 219, now 165..all my other numbers well w/i the 'good/excellent' range. No family history, never smoked. Same with wife but hers 370..now 175...both very active, decent diets.

When I had a few bouts of AFib, once that determined to be self induced(alcohol)...heart doc gave me the '100 men like you in a room..50% get a 'statin' and 50% don't..then see incidence of heart disease...MUCH lower with the group that took a statin of some type'.

I KNOW it's not that simple but if you have no side effects..and the $ is right(mine are free, wife's are $20 for 90 days)...I see no reason to NOT take it..

[Birddog]

I would read up on the side effects of taking any Statin. Your numbers are just barely over the line. Start eating a ton of oatmeal (if you aren't already) and have the numbers run again in 6 mos.

[Geeheeb]

Start eating a ton of oatmeal (if you aren't already) and

and cut down on cholesterol intake if you don't want to take / can't tolerate a statin.

[numbskull]

Review these links.

http://www.cvriskcalculator.com
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/statin-use-in-adults-preventive-medication1
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013

Understand also that therapy does not eliminate risk, it reduces it by 15-30% (i.e., if your 10 year risk is 10% with therapy it drops to @8%).

If you are still unsure what to do, you might ask your Dr for a hsCRP test (a nonspecific measure of inflammation). If low (<1) cardiac risk is small, high (>2-3) then risk is "high" and it would push you to take a statin (if tolerated) even with borderline numbers.

[ultraman6970]

I was in that cr@p of pravastain and other ones aswell, actually i was getting a cocktail of ****tzzz... I couldnt ride at all, body aches, stamina was gone, getting sleep anywhere... sucks.

Hope it works for you because for me any cr@p for cholesterol barely works and the side effects were just bad. My other issue and this is the thing that is hard for some doctors to understand because the two I visit told me that I was going to get a heart attack tomorrow night (shock therapy?), had to tell them that those words dont work on me because apparently I one of those people with high cholesterol, always been high the problem is that I never got cholesterol exams when I was in full racing season so I really dont even I know if my cholesterol had been normal ever.

[wc1934]

Lots of other factors come into play here...

Most importantly, have you ever had a heart problem or stroke? Do you have other risk factors for heart disease, such as a family history, smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes... there are a few others...

If… and that's a big if... you have none of those risk factors, and you're quite physically active, at a good weight (OK, you could probably stand to put on a few lbs. :rolleyes:) then a lot of doctors would not recommend cholesterol medication with those numbers.

Sometimes it's good to share with your doc what your philosophy about medication is, especially when it's a gray zone like this. He/She might err on the side of putting people on a medication if it may possibly help. You very well may not embrace that perspective.

Exactly my dilemma - My lifestyle = eating, exercise etc and my cholo is still high. Heart is supposedly good - no diabetes - no family history or huge risk factors. I think I am sorta healthy (currently only on one medication -hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic water pill). I just dont like taking medication (use tequila to cure all ills - hahah).

My doc is pretty conservative - stated that adding this statin will reduce my risk of a heart attack by 18%. Guess it is worth another discussion with him.

[Ralph]

My Doc also says...."statins save lives" in people with moderately elevated LDL.

I've taken all the statins thru the years. Pravastatin is one of the earlier meds.....very "weak" (not a good way to describe it) compared to modern meds like Crestor. Takes 40 MG of Pravastatin to be equivalent dose of 5 MG of Crestor. I get leg pains with a daily dose of any of them.

So....I take 100 MG of CoQ10 daily to replace the enzyme the statin takes out....and take a relatively high dose (10 MG) of Crestor (actually the generic equivalent) twice a week. No leg or knee pains this way....and brings my LDL well below 100. I learned about different dosing.....every other day, 3 times weekly, twice weekly.....dosing from the Internet. Doc says works for cyclists who getleg pains....and it's OK with him....even though he can't recommend dosing other than what drug maker says.

[djg21]

I’ve was put on simvistain about 2 years ago. I don’t have any side effects or issues at all.

[smead]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/statins_muscle_damage_heart_failure.html

Prolonged use will mess you up, I have my father who cannot move his legs (he took statins for 20 years) as first hand evidence of the damage they'll eventually do to your muscles and nervous system. Throw that crap (statins) away and just eat good food.

[Shoeman]

I’ve was put on simvistain about 2 years ago. I don’t have any side effects or issues at all.

I've been on this for 10 years no side effects or issues, probably not the best for you. Major heart attack 11 years ago Doc wants to keep the pipes clean.

[oldpotatoe]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/statins_muscle_damage_heart_failure.html

Prolonged use will mess you up, I have my father who cannot move his legs (he took statins for 20 years) as first hand evidence of the damage they'll eventually do to your muscles and nervous system. Throw that crap (statins) away and just eat good food.

Righto-a heart attack will 'mess up up' too. My wife eats VERY well, exercises, VERY health conscious, and her numbers are way high..never smoked. BUT is taking a statin because her risk was very high..YMMV and all that but 'just eat good food' is naive and ineffective in many cases. BTW-Wife takes Praluent, injection twice a month because she had severe side effects from all other tried statins. None from this.

https://www.praluent.com/what-is-praluent?moc=pluco25009ps&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2016_G_DTC_Branded&utm_content=Drug%20Information_Praluent_E&utm_term=praluent&gclid=CMG6g-DeytcCFcydfgodwKMHEA&gclsrc=ds

Sorry about your father but I can find a dozen web articles pro and con on anything.

[paredown]

There is a hereditary component (as I understand it) in the body's ability to manage cholesterol, so 'good diet' and exercise is certainly a component, it seems like it is harder for some people to deal...

A good friend is trying to manage her levels by going vegan--and so far she has seen some real positive changes--weight loss, clearer skin, more energy. She is also exercising every day. And yes, she has reduced her cholesterol levels as well--but they are not dropping that fast or that significantly. Not coincidentally, her family has a history of heart disease--so she is still being urged by her doctor to go on statins. It's interesting to see a 'real life' experiment by someone who is consciously trying to manage without meds.

[Mikej]

Well, I’m sure they will lower the numbers so it will include all of mankind and require everybody to take it - the just lowered blood pressure numbers...

[oldpotatoe]

Well, I’m sure they will lower the numbers so it will include all of mankind and require everybody to take it - the just lowered blood pressure numbers...

Actually, my heart doc mentioned this..if statins were 'required', the resulting savings on health care $ would be YUGE..:)

[Fuzzy2964]

I have been on statins for over 20 years. High cholesterol runs in my family. Have been using 20mg Crestor ... no side effects or issues.

[Drmojo]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/statins_muscle_damage_heart_failure.html

Prolonged use will mess you up, I have my father who cannot move his legs (he took statins for 20 years) as first hand evidence of the damage they'll eventually do to your muscles and nervous system. Throw that crap (statins) away and just eat good food.

risk benefit
tiny potential benefit unless you work for Big Pharm
risks not yet known
clearly not worth it

[smead]

Righto-a heart attack will 'mess up up' too. My wife eats VERY well, exercises, VERY health conscious, and her numbers are way high..never smoked. BUT is taking a statin because her risk was very high..YMMV and all that but 'just eat good food' is naive and ineffective in many cases. BTW-Wife takes Praluent, injection twice a month because she had severe side effects from all other tried statins. None from this.

https://www.praluent.com/what-is-praluent?moc=pluco25009ps&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2016_G_DTC_Branded&utm_content=Drug%20Information_Praluent_E&utm_term=praluent&gclid=CMG6g-DeytcCFcydfgodwKMHEA&gclsrc=ds

Sorry about your father but I can find a dozen web articles pro and con on anything.

It's your body (and your wife's), do with them as you think is best.

[pdmtong]

Eating and exercise gets my overall cholesterol level to an acceptable level but my LDL still remain borderline. Bad genetics...pre-disposed to high numbers.

10mg atorvostatin knocks my LDL 9the one to worry about) way down.

I know every day will nail it, but currently trying every other day to balance te known effect and my want not to use everyday long term.

[weisan]

My numbers are similar to yours, have always been on the borderline or slightly high side regardless of exercise or diet, don't smoke or drink, got family history of heart problems too, but everytime when I had my physical, I would ask my family physician if I need the meds, she would say no. That didn't put my mind at ease so one year I went and did a cardio test and an MRI, both came back with flying colors, no buildup whatsoever and my VO2 max was Tour-worthy :D. I asked her again back in June, she still said no.

[dziehr]

Foremost, if you have had an MI, lowering your LDL with a statin has been shown repeatedly in large, blinded, randomized controlled trials to reduce both cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality. In other words, for secondary prevention, there are exceedingly few cases when you should not be on a statin (or other lipid-lowering therapy). Period.

Most folks here are commenting on statins for primary prevention (ie prevention of the first MI for someone at risk of atherosclerotic coronary disease). There is unequivocal evidence from both prospective randomized trials as well as epidemiological studies with hundreds of thousands of patients that show that: 1. there is a dose response between LDL and incidence of heart disease and all-cause mortality and 2. when patients lower their LDL (with medication or lifestyle modification), this risk decreases.

It's also worth mentioning that many of the cardiologists and endocrinologists who study statins believe that their effects are pleiotropic; that is, they lower LDL but also have other antiinflammatory off-target effects that reduce atherosclerosis and stabilize coronary plaques. (And we know that inflammation is a prime driver of atherosclerosis.)

For those with elevated LDL, there are risk calculators that use strong epidemiological data to determine if you and your doctor should consider a statin. These calculators are helpful but not a panacea. Statin myopathy can be troublesome, and folks will sometimes need to try different meds (we handle different statins differently) or dosing strategies. The decision to start a medication should always be collaborative, but expert guidance with facts from innumerable studies should outweigh uniformed anecdote.

Finally, there's new evidence to suggest that it's not just the degree of elevation of LDL but also the duration of that elevation (tracking back decades, before other risk factors were introduced) that contributes to coronary artery disease. (Which is common sense I suppose.) There's a lot of hereditary hypercholesterolemia and we Western folk in the 21st century are exposed to an environment that is driving up our lipids for various other reasons. I know several folks (physicians) in my age cohort (30s) who know the data and take a statin.

Nota bene: I'm an MD.

[oldpotatoe]

Foremost, if you have had an MI, lowering your LDL with a statin has been shown repeatedly in large, blinded, randomized controlled trials to reduce both cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality. In other words, for secondary prevention, there are exceedingly few cases when you should not be on a statin (or other lipid-lowering therapy). Period.

Most folks here are commenting on statins for primary prevention (ie prevention of the first MI for someone at risk of atherosclerotic coronary disease). There is unequivocal evidence from both prospective randomized trials as well as epidemiological studies with hundreds of thousands of patients that show that: 1. there is a dose response between LDL and incidence of heart disease and all-cause mortality and 2. when patients lower their LDL (with medication or lifestyle modification), this risk decreases.

It's also worth mentioning that many of the cardiologists and endocrinologists who study statins believe that their effects are pleiotropic; that is, they lower LDL but also have other antiinflammatory off-target effects that reduce atherosclerosis and stabilize coronary plaques. (And we know that inflammation is a prime driver of atherosclerosis.)

For those with elevated LDL, there are risk calculators that use strong epidemiological data to determine if you and your doctor should consider a statin. These calculators are helpful but not a panacea. Statin myopathy can be troublesome, and folks will sometimes need to try different meds (we handle different statins differently) or dosing strategies. The decision to start a medication should always be collaborative, but expert guidance with facts from innumerable studies should outweigh uniformed anecdote.

Finally, there's new evidence to suggest that it's not just the degree of elevation of LDL but also the duration of that elevation (tracking back decades, before other risk factors were introduced) that contributes to coronary artery disease. (Which is common sense I suppose.) There's a lot of hereditary hypercholesterolemia and we Western folk in the 21st century are exposed to an environment that is driving up our lipids for various other reasons. I know several folks (physicians) in my age cohort (30s) who know the data and take a statin.

Nota bene: I'm an MD.

Thanks for your time...:)

[metalheart]

Foremost, if you have had an MI, lowering your LDL with a statin has been shown repeatedly in large, blinded, randomized controlled trials to reduce both cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality. In other words, for secondary prevention, there are exceedingly few cases when you should not be on a statin (or other lipid-lowering therapy). Period.

Most folks here are commenting on statins for primary prevention (ie prevention of the first MI for someone at risk of atherosclerotic coronary disease). There is unequivocal evidence from both prospective randomized trials as well as epidemiological studies with hundreds of thousands of patients that show that: 1. there is a dose response between LDL and incidence of heart disease and all-cause mortality and 2. when patients lower their LDL (with medication or lifestyle modification), this risk decreases.

It's also worth mentioning that many of the cardiologists and endocrinologists who study statins believe that their effects are pleiotropic; that is, they lower LDL but also have other antiinflammatory off-target effects that reduce atherosclerosis and stabilize coronary plaques. (And we know that inflammation is a prime driver of atherosclerosis.)

For those with elevated LDL, there are risk calculators that use strong epidemiological data to determine if you and your doctor should consider a statin. These calculators are helpful but not a panacea. Statin myopathy can be troublesome, and folks will sometimes need to try different meds (we handle different statins differently) or dosing strategies. The decision to start a medication should always be collaborative, but expert guidance with facts from innumerable studies should outweigh uniformed anecdote.

Finally, there's new evidence to suggest that it's not just the degree of elevation of LDL but also the duration of that elevation (tracking back decades, before other risk factors were introduced) that contributes to coronary artery disease. (Which is common sense I suppose.) There's a lot of hereditary hypercholesterolemia and we Western folk in the 21st century are exposed to an environment that is driving up our lipids for various other reasons. I know several folks (physicians) in my age cohort (30s) who know the data and take a statin.

Nota bene: I'm an MD.

And also thanks for noting the evidence and facts. We can all have our beliefs about statins, but there is evidence that you note that indicates their benefits, especially for those of us who have had a couple MIs. It is just not one random study supporting or not the benefits of statins, but the preponderance of evidence.

[wc1934]

Foremost, if you have had an MI, lowering your LDL with a statin has been shown repeatedly in large, blinded, randomized controlled trials to reduce both cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality. In other words, for secondary prevention, there are exceedingly few cases when you should not be on a statin (or other lipid-lowering therapy). Period.

Most folks here are commenting on statins for primary prevention (ie prevention of the first MI for someone at risk of atherosclerotic coronary disease). There is unequivocal evidence from both prospective randomized trials as well as epidemiological studies with hundreds of thousands of patients that show that: 1. there is a dose response between LDL and incidence of heart disease and all-cause mortality and 2. when patients lower their LDL (with medication or lifestyle modification), this risk decreases.

It's also worth mentioning that many of the cardiologists and endocrinologists who study statins believe that their effects are pleiotropic; that is, they lower LDL but also have other antiinflammatory off-target effects that reduce atherosclerosis and stabilize coronary plaques. (And we know that inflammation is a prime driver of atherosclerosis.)

For those with elevated LDL, there are risk calculators that use strong epidemiological data to determine if you and your doctor should consider a statin. These calculators are helpful but not a panacea. Statin myopathy can be troublesome, and folks will sometimes need to try different meds (we handle different statins differently) or dosing strategies. The decision to start a medication should always be collaborative, but expert guidance with facts from innumerable studies should outweigh uniformed anecdote.

Finally, there's new evidence to suggest that it's not just the degree of elevation of LDL but also the duration of that elevation (tracking back decades, before other risk factors were introduced) that contributes to coronary artery disease. (Which is common sense I suppose.) There's a lot of hereditary hypercholesterolemia and we Western folk in the 21st century are exposed to an environment that is driving up our lipids for various other reasons. I know several folks (physicians) in my age cohort (30s) who know the data and take a statin.

Nota bene: I'm an MD.

Thanks Doc. I appreciate your response.

[pdmtong]

Foremost, if you have had an MI, lowering your LDL with a statin has been shown repeatedly in large, blinded, randomized controlled trials to reduce both cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality. In other words, for secondary prevention, there are exceedingly few cases when you should not be on a statin (or other lipid-lowering therapy). Period.

Most folks here are commenting on statins for primary prevention (ie prevention of the first MI for someone at risk of atherosclerotic coronary disease). There is unequivocal evidence from both prospective randomized trials as well as epidemiological studies with hundreds of thousands of patients that show that: 1. there is a dose response between LDL and incidence of heart disease and all-cause mortality and 2. when patients lower their LDL (with medication or lifestyle modification), this risk decreases.

It's also worth mentioning that many of the cardiologists and endocrinologists who study statins believe that their effects are pleiotropic; that is, they lower LDL but also have other antiinflammatory off-target effects that reduce atherosclerosis and stabilize coronary plaques. (And we know that inflammation is a prime driver of atherosclerosis.)

For those with elevated LDL, there are risk calculators that use strong epidemiological data to determine if you and your doctor should consider a statin. These calculators are helpful but not a panacea. Statin myopathy can be troublesome, and folks will sometimes need to try different meds (we handle different statins differently) or dosing strategies. The decision to start a medication should always be collaborative, but expert guidance with facts from innumerable studies should outweigh uniformed anecdote.

Finally, there's new evidence to suggest that it's not just the degree of elevation of LDL but also the duration of that elevation (tracking back decades, before other risk factors were introduced) that contributes to coronary artery disease. (Which is common sense I suppose.) There's a lot of hereditary hypercholesterolemia and we Western folk in the 21st century are exposed to an environment that is driving up our lipids for various other reasons. I know several folks (physicians) in my age cohort (30s) who know the data and take a statin.

Nota bene: I'm an MD.

I'll chime in too. THANK YOU! :hello::banana::banana::banana:

[biker72]

I've been on statins since around 1990. Diet and exercise got my cholesterol down to 230 overall with HDL's at 25. This is awful.

Statins have reduced my overall cholesterol to 160 with HDL's at 45 and LDL's at 78. Still riding a bike almost daily with no apparent side effects.

[SoCalSteve]

Foremost, if you have had an MI, lowering your LDL with a statin has been shown repeatedly in large, blinded, randomized controlled trials to reduce both cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality. In other words, for secondary prevention, there are exceedingly few cases when you should not be on a statin (or other lipid-lowering therapy). Period.

Most folks here are commenting on statins for primary prevention (ie prevention of the first MI for someone at risk of atherosclerotic coronary disease). There is unequivocal evidence from both prospective randomized trials as well as epidemiological studies with hundreds of thousands of patients that show that: 1. there is a dose response between LDL and incidence of heart disease and all-cause mortality and 2. when patients lower their LDL (with medication or lifestyle modification), this risk decreases.

It's also worth mentioning that many of the cardiologists and endocrinologists who study statins believe that their effects are pleiotropic; that is, they lower LDL but also have other antiinflammatory off-target effects that reduce atherosclerosis and stabilize coronary plaques. (And we know that inflammation is a prime driver of atherosclerosis.)

For those with elevated LDL, there are risk calculators that use strong epidemiological data to determine if you and your doctor should consider a statin. These calculators are helpful but not a panacea. Statin myopathy can be troublesome, and folks will sometimes need to try different meds (we handle different statins differently) or dosing strategies. The decision to start a medication should always be collaborative, but expert guidance with facts from innumerable studies should outweigh uniformed anecdote.

Finally, there's new evidence to suggest that it's not just the degree of elevation of LDL but also the duration of that elevation (tracking back decades, before other risk factors were introduced) that contributes to coronary artery disease. (Which is common sense I suppose.) There's a lot of hereditary hypercholesterolemia and we Western folk in the 21st century are exposed to an environment that is driving up our lipids for various other reasons. I know several folks (physicians) in my age cohort (30s) who know the data and take a statin.

Nota bene: I'm an MD.

I’ll add my $.02 as well. Thank you!!!

One of the MANY reasons why this forum is such a great place. We can discuss ETap vs wired til the cows come home...but in the end, it’s people like the doc here who make this place such an amazing resource.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!!!!

[2metalhips]

Let's pump the brakes on the drugs. Do some research.
Documentaries: Forks over Knives. Cowspiracy. What the Health.
Dr Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic.
Dr Michael Greger founder of NutritionFacts,org.
Dr Dean Ornish
Dr John McDougall
Dr T Colin Campbell PHD Author of The China Study
Dr Neal Barnard
Dr Kim Williams Past President of The American College of Cardiology

These distinguished gentlemen are the giants/pillars of diet and lifestyle medicine. The medical profession doesn't like them because they threaten their bottom line.

If your doctor prescribes statins or you are already taking them you owe it to yourself and your family to learn about this research. It is all about the food. Some have mentioned a good diet. What exactly is that, well if you are not eating 95-100% plant based you are not eating a "good diet".

A popular analogy is the overflowing sink, your md is more than happy to write you a scrip for some paper towels to mop up the floor. Why not just turn off the faucet. The high blood pressure and diabetes sink are running over also, time for more paper towels.

"There are two kinds of cardiologists: vegans and those who haven't read the data" Dr Kim Williams. PPACC

[jimcav]

one of the interesting things I learned after my dad's 1st stroke was the relationship between cavities/gingivitis and cardiovascular health. He grew up poor with bad dental hygiene (1930s)leading to many cavities and a lifelong avoidance of the dentist until really needed... and there was some pretty compelling research that there is systemic low grade inflammation from poor dental health that accounts for a significant portion of cardiovascular lesion development and progression. this never seems to get much attention, but I'd research that more and take care of your teeth and gums...