Well, I 've been on Crestor 10 mg with 5 mg Zetia (half dose) for over a year now. I was on Lipitor for about 6 years, then discontinued due to probable side effects. I resumed treatment two years later when my Total cholesterol was 250 and LDL was around 155, HDL 60 and trigs 180. I'm happy to say my total now is 158..LDL is 69, HDL 72 and trigs 86. I think I got the HDL higher eating Omega 3 eggs DAILY and lowered the trigs with Omega 3 Fish Oil and statin. I've had NO side effects using Crestor and Zetia combo :D .

Your total cholesterol is too low...you need to watch it.

Wonderful numbers. rahod...can I borrow them for a few years?

Wonderful numbers. rahod...can I borrow them for a few years?

LOL..sure!

I really got concerned when the *CLINTON* news broke. Here was a guy with modestly poor #'s (like mine) and then BOOM...90% blockages. I'm the same age :eek: I wanted an LDL that was well below 100. Unlike Clinton, I had been on Lipitor since age 50 and only got off for two years ( age 56-58). Now back on over a year with the combo. Clinton had sporadically taken a statin and got off years before his heart problem started. I really think if he had kept his #s LOW since age 50, he might have avoided his problem 8 years later. An aside...I just recently learned how important it is to get your BP under control as well. I was *borderline*..140/85ish. I just started taking a BP med and now have 120/75!

Your total cholesterol is too low...you need to watch it.

REALLY?? :rolleyes:

I beg to differ my friend. What do you think of having an LDL that's EQUAL TO..or LOWER than your HDL?? ;)

I'd say what I have said before and has been supported by the people at the Statin Study. Your cholesterol is too low at 158. Evidence suggests that mortality benefit associated with lower TC plateaus at levels around 180, and that mortality actually appears to increase somewhat at levels below 180. LDL is still a poor predictor. I find it still funny that the information given out by Crestor still says "Crestor...has not been determined to prevent heart disease, heart attacks, or strokes.

I'd say what I have said before and has been supported by the people at the Statin Study. Your cholesterol is too low at 158. Evidence suggests that mortality benefit associated with lower TC plateaus at levels around 180, and that mortality actually appears to increase somewhat at levels below 180. LDL is still a poor predictor. I find it still funny that the information given out by Crestor still says "Crestor...has not been determined to prevent heart disease, heart attacks, or strokes.


:rolleyes: Show me a study that indicates a level below 180 is associated with an INCREASE in mortality. Secondly, Crestor has not been shown to prevent heart disease and strokes because>>>DRUM ROLL >>>IT HASN"T BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH to generate long term studies..like Zocor and Lipitor have. Give it another 5 years.

:rolleyes: Show me a study that indicates a level below 180 is associated with an INCREASE in mortality. Secondly, Crestor has not been shown to prevent heart disease and strokes because>>>DRUM ROLL >>>IT HASN"T BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH to generate long term studies..like Zocor and Lipitor have. Give it another 5 years.


You might want to call the Statin Study at UCSD. Just type in statin study on your computer it will come up. Call the number (ext 215) Ask them to e-mail you the information on "Low and Lowered Cholesterol and Total Mortality", also you might request the article "implications of statin adverse effects in the elderly". As for the Crestor information, I don't care if you have a drum roll and an entire marching band. We are not lab animals. I don't think any of these people that post on this site, or people they know want to be a long term study. Also Lipitor says "not know to decrease the risk of heart disease or stroke" In 5 years crestor will not exist. I think the statin study information should answer some of your questions from the footnotes on where the information was obtained. I have the highest regard for people like you who do not take things (information) forgranted, and want backup. That is the most important thing we can do to help other people.

Also Lipitor says "not know[n] to decrease the risk of heart disease or stroke"

What you're describing is an FDA issue, mostly. Companies cannot make claims that certain drugs prevent or cure diseases without *substantial evidence* to back it up (this typically involves long-term clinical studies backed up by peer reviewed journal evidence). This is why you typically won't see such statements made by such drug producing companies.

Another factor is that they simply don't want to get sued. Even if the FDA did allow such a statement to be made in light of weak evidence to backup the claim, would you, as a company, be willing to make such a claim? Probably not unless you were sure the product you were claiming to "cure" or "prevent" such a disease met 100% efficacy.

If a company like Pfizer produced a drug that claimed it could cure or prevent a disease such as CAD, and then a patient, after four years of taking the drug, later died from CAD, the patient (well, a representative of the patient) could easily sue Pfizer for damages and win!

Similarly, if a company like Pfizer produced a drug that claimed it could prevent heart attacks and strokes, and then a patient, after four years of taking the drug, later died from a heart attack or a stroke, the patient (well, a representative of the patient) could easily sue Pfizer for damages and win!

In this case, however, the word "risk" is used. Risk is simply a quantitative measure of chance - what are the chances that you will develop CAD, have a stroke, etc. The problem here though is the same - a drug company like Pfizer cannot guarantee that the risk will be lowered to 0% if you take their drug. If they did, they would be subject to law suits when and if patients taking the drugs died. It's because the nation is sue happy that these unfortunate conditions of restraint exist!

We should never depend on what a drug company has to say about such a drug product, in terms of efficacy and outcomes anyway, but rather what the independent clinical studies tell us - as they are typically more unbiased and not subject to such law suits.

"You might want to call the Statin Study at UCSD."


From that study you site>>>

"Lowest levels. Several prospective population studies have
suggested that the mortality benefit associated with lower
TC plateaus at levels around 180 mg/dl (3). Indeed, total
mortality actually appears to increase somewhat at levels
below 180 mg/dl, a finding partially but not completely
explained by illness-related reductions in TC
.......
Lowered by treatment. Lowered TC, either by behavioral
intervention or—much more potently— by drug therapy, is
a question distinct from naturally low TC. The evidence
that pharmacologic therapy of dyslipidemia in higher risk
middle-aged men results in a total mortality benefit is
extensive and convincing"

You might want to call the Statin Study at UCSD. Just type in statin study on your computer it will come up. Call the number (ext 215) Ask them to e-mail you the information on "Low and Lowered Cholesterol and Total Mortality", also you might request the article "implications of statin adverse effects in the elderly". As for the Crestor information, I don't care if you have a drum roll and an entire marching band. We are not lab animals. I don't think any of these people that post on this site, or people they know want to be a long term study. Also Lipitor says "not know to decrease the risk of heart disease or stroke" In 5 years crestor will not exist. I think the statin study information should answer some of your questions from the footnotes on where the information was obtained. I have the highest regard for people like you who do not take things (information) forgranted, and want backup. That is the most important thing we can do to help other people.


Another snipet from CIRCULATION..1995:



"The key finding of this report is that spontaneously falling TC levels were associated with increased risk of nonmalignant liver disease, total cancer, and most noticeably, cancers of the esophagus, prostate, and hemopoietic systems. By contrast, after confounders were controlled for, a stable low TC level was not associated with significantly increased mortality risk...... In conclusion, the results of this longitudinal analysis, together with existing coherent biological plausibility of reverse causality, support the hypothesis that low TC, independent of the risk factors considered in this study, appears to be a manifestation of tumor activity or the consequence of chronic liver disease."

So....It's not the LOWERING that causes increased mortality...the very low levels are a manifestation of an underlying disease. It's very easy to twist logic and say lowering below 180 will CAUSE increased mortality, when in fact, we find that those with underlying disease manifest low cholesterol.

So....It's not the LOWERING that causes increased mortality...the very low levels are a manifestation of an underlying disease. It's very easy to twist logic and say lowering below 180 will CAUSE increased mortality, when in fact, we find that those with underlying disease manifest low cholesterol.

That's a very good point - the truth is in the details.

Notice how the low TC is a manifestation brought on by the underlying pathology and a stable low TC level was not associated with significantly increased mortality risk.

Folks,

I've read some of those studies, and they THINK that the relationship between higher mortality and low cholesterol may be due to the underrlying diseases (like cancer) causing cholesterol levels to drop - but this is only an unsubstantiated theory at this time. It also makes you think - if acute diseases cause a drop in cholesterol - maybe cholesterol has some sort of role in the immune system - since acute diseases usually impair the immune system - and lowering TC too much may not be a good thing...

I think that excessively high or low cholesterol levels are probably not good. I also think there's probably a much greater range where cholesterol levels are OK than we're being led to believe.

No one really knows the long-term effects of very low cholesterol levels.

The problem is that heart disease is much more complicated than just cholesterol levels. If cholesterol were the prime cause of heart disease, then half of heart attack victims would not have low-to-normal cholesterol levels - but they do.

I personally believe that chronic low-level inflammation of the arteries is more significant in producing heart disease than cholesterol. I think that very low (under 150 or so) and very high (over 250) are probably not good for you, and I try to keep my cholesterol under 250. But I also take aspirin, folic acid tp reduce inflammation, and anti-oxidants (vitamin-c, vitamin-e) to keep LDL and VLDL from becoming oxidized and drawn into plaques.

I also believe that high-blood pressure is worse than high cholesterol. In my opinion, the physical stress on the arteries from high-blood pressure causes arterial damage and the resulting inflammatory response helps cause plaques to form, and may have more to do with heart disease than cholesterol... (just my humble opinion)...



HubbleRules
:cool:

You might want to read the entire article, I know this particular article is not easy to read, AI had to go back over it several times. From the first line....confirms that in relatively young, healthy men form higher socioeconomic strata, a (NATURALLY) low total cholesterol is associated with increased longevity..... On the lowering of cholesterol, if we find those with underlying disease manifest low cholesterol...could it be that those with low cholesterol manifest disease?? I would say the later since cholesterol is used for immune function. Statins interupt the malvonic acid pathway at the beginning . You might look up the role of the malvonic acid pathway.

I also believe that high-blood pressure is worse than high cholesterol. In my opinion, the physical stress on the arteries from high-blood pressure causes arterial damage and the resulting inflammatory response helps cause plaques to form, and may have more to do with heart disease than cholesterol... (just my humble opinion)...



HubbleRules
:cool:

I agree 100%! I have now taken measures to get my BP to 120/80 (was 140/85)