Any of you guys using a Statin ?
- Thread starter derektrader
- Start date
Interesting article about the history of cholesterol research:
https://www.escardio.org/Journals/E...he-story-of-cholesterol-lipids-and-cardiology
Couple of tidbit:
"In 1997, Bayer marketed cerivastatin (Baycol/Lipobay), another pure synthetic statin, and 100 times more powerful than Mevacor. However, it had to be taken off the market in 2001, because of substantial side effects: the prevalence of rhabdomyolyse was 15-60 times higher, and 100 deaths were reported"
"In 1922, he performed probably the first controlled study of dietary effect on cholesterol. Indonesians, put on a “Dutch diet” (rich in eggs and meat) for 3 months, presented an average cholesterol rise of 27%."
"He fed rabbits large amounts of meat, eggs and milk. It was indeed toxic for young rabbits, while adult rabbits developed atherosclerosis. " <<<<< WTF??????
"However, when similar experiments in dogs and rats did not reproduce confirmatory results, his findings were rejected. For the next 35 years, little work was done on the lipid hypothesis. Later, it appeared that dogs and rats, unlike rabbits, are quite efficient in converting cholesterol into bile acids "
https://www.escardio.org/Journals/E...he-story-of-cholesterol-lipids-and-cardiology
Couple of tidbit:
"In 1997, Bayer marketed cerivastatin (Baycol/Lipobay), another pure synthetic statin, and 100 times more powerful than Mevacor. However, it had to be taken off the market in 2001, because of substantial side effects: the prevalence of rhabdomyolyse was 15-60 times higher, and 100 deaths were reported"
"In 1922, he performed probably the first controlled study of dietary effect on cholesterol. Indonesians, put on a “Dutch diet” (rich in eggs and meat) for 3 months, presented an average cholesterol rise of 27%."
"He fed rabbits large amounts of meat, eggs and milk. It was indeed toxic for young rabbits, while adult rabbits developed atherosclerosis. " <<<<< WTF??????
"However, when similar experiments in dogs and rats did not reproduce confirmatory results, his findings were rejected. For the next 35 years, little work was done on the lipid hypothesis. Later, it appeared that dogs and rats, unlike rabbits, are quite efficient in converting cholesterol into bile acids "
Another one about measuring apoB instead of total Cholesterol:
https://www.science.org/content/article/it-time-retire-cholesterol-tests
"A 2009 study found that nearly half of patients admitted to hospitals because of heart attacks had normal or low LDL levels. "
"even apoB advocates admit that LDL cholesterol's track record is pretty good. About 85% of the time, it provides an accurate indication of a patient's likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease, Ference says. But that means it's wrong 15% of the time, he adds."
" Cholesterol cruises through our blood in several kinds of protein-containing particles, including HDLs, LDLs, and very low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs). When certain particles, such as LDLs and VLDLs, depart the bloodstream and get stuck in the lining of our arteries, atherosclerosis can result. Total cholesterol level was the first widely used indicator of this risk, but after researchers discovered that one form of cholesterol, HDL, may be protective, LDL cholesterol became the benchmark. Now, some physicians favor non-HDL cholesterol, which encompasses multiple cholesterol types, including LDL and VLDL."
"The patients with the best odds of surviving for at least 20 years had low levels of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol, the team found. But the patients with the worst chances had high levels of apoB, even though their non-HDL cholesterol was low. "
https://www.science.org/content/article/it-time-retire-cholesterol-tests
"A 2009 study found that nearly half of patients admitted to hospitals because of heart attacks had normal or low LDL levels. "
"even apoB advocates admit that LDL cholesterol's track record is pretty good. About 85% of the time, it provides an accurate indication of a patient's likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease, Ference says. But that means it's wrong 15% of the time, he adds."
" Cholesterol cruises through our blood in several kinds of protein-containing particles, including HDLs, LDLs, and very low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs). When certain particles, such as LDLs and VLDLs, depart the bloodstream and get stuck in the lining of our arteries, atherosclerosis can result. Total cholesterol level was the first widely used indicator of this risk, but after researchers discovered that one form of cholesterol, HDL, may be protective, LDL cholesterol became the benchmark. Now, some physicians favor non-HDL cholesterol, which encompasses multiple cholesterol types, including LDL and VLDL."
"The patients with the best odds of surviving for at least 20 years had low levels of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol, the team found. But the patients with the worst chances had high levels of apoB, even though their non-HDL cholesterol was low. "
Those are perfect numbers I would even say a little too low, specially if you are 50+.
But as we know, numbers are baloney, the ratios what matter and the Trig, what is also low.
Overall they are good. The HDL has been the one that I can't seem to push into range, even when I was taking my full dosage. I'm not sure it is considered really bad as my ratio is pretty good and as you point out the rest are looking good. I tried searching last night to see if I could find info on how the HDL number and the rest being good may correlate in terms of risk, but didn't come up with much. I'll keep looking.
New results after 1 year down to 3 times a week of my statin. Actually probably a little less than 3 times a week for the various days I forgot.
Cholesterol =128 Tri's= 64 HDL 46 LDL 69 Chol/HDL ratio = 2.8 Non HDL Chol =82
HDL is still off, but my ratio is still good. Also my HDL falls within the old range by 1 pt value, but the range now shows >= 60, used to be >=40. Wife says the range change maybe due to a reagent change for the test.
I call b.s. and say it's the drug companies changing it for more business! Wife said no, we will agree to disagree.
Cholesterol =128 Tri's= 64 HDL 46 LDL 69 Chol/HDL ratio = 2.8 Non HDL Chol =82
HDL is still off, but my ratio is still good. Also my HDL falls within the old range by 1 pt value, but the range now shows >= 60, used to be >=40. Wife says the range change maybe due to a reagent change for the test.
I call b.s. and say it's the drug companies changing it for more business! Wife said no, we will agree to disagree.
Friend of mine did that. Was started on 20mg, and it kept her levels totally within normal range. So then stopped for a month to see how she'd fare, right back to old elevated levels. Started again but with half (10mg), and levels within normal range again.
Always nice to find that minimum you can get by with when it comes to prescribed meds.