OT high cholesterol/Pravastatin

[Shoeman]

Originally Posted by djg21

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]

Originally Posted by smead

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/s...t_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-pra...MHEA&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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by smead

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/s...t_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]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

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-pra...MHEA&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 . 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for your time...

[metalheart]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks Doc. I appreciate your response.

[pdmtong]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'll chime in too. THANK YOU!