jane bauer
03-08-2006, 06:21 PM
My doctor just called with my cholesterol readings: Total: 267, Tri 219,
HDL 68, LDL 155. He wants to put me on 20mg Lovastatin.
I am terrified of the possible side effects of statins.
My overall ratio is 3.9 and I thought that was very good.
Also, I have a couple drinks each night before dinner. I heard statins affect the liver. Would the combination of statins and alcohol be dangerous?
With my ratio is 3.9 I don't feel like I even need meds.
Any thoughts, please.
Thanks.
Jane
HDL 68, LDL 155. He wants to put me on 20mg Lovastatin.
I am terrified of the possible side effects of statins.
My overall ratio is 3.9 and I thought that was very good.
Also, I have a couple drinks each night before dinner. I heard statins affect the liver. Would the combination of statins and alcohol be dangerous?
With my ratio is 3.9 I don't feel like I even need meds.
Any thoughts, please.
Thanks.
Jane
Sponsor
JaneM
03-08-2006, 07:16 PM
Jane, you have a great HDL!
Are you currently following a diet that, in many people, naturally lowers cholesterol? If not, there are some great suggestions on this board and on other sites if you want to try that before medication.
Also, when LDL is elevated in women, there is a chance it may be caused by a thyroid problem. This seems to hit women more when we approach middle age. A thyroid test should always be done on women before beginning cholesterol medicine, in my opinion.
Are you currently following a diet that, in many people, naturally lowers cholesterol? If not, there are some great suggestions on this board and on other sites if you want to try that before medication.
Also, when LDL is elevated in women, there is a chance it may be caused by a thyroid problem. This seems to hit women more when we approach middle age. A thyroid test should always be done on women before beginning cholesterol medicine, in my opinion.
jane bauer
03-08-2006, 08:13 PM
Thanks for the replies.
I have been tested for thyroid, no problems there.
My husband has serious heart disease and I have cooked low cholesterol for 20 years. I do eat too much cheese. No sweets or desserts though. Maybe 10 pounds over weight.
Three years ago they did an angiogram on me because of false/positive stress test. The cardiologist said my arteries were in great shape. That also leads me to believe I don't need drugs for cholesterol.
I am really leaning toward throwing away the prescription. I will look up the health food route. Any information on that will be appreciated.
I have been tested for thyroid, no problems there.
My husband has serious heart disease and I have cooked low cholesterol for 20 years. I do eat too much cheese. No sweets or desserts though. Maybe 10 pounds over weight.
Three years ago they did an angiogram on me because of false/positive stress test. The cardiologist said my arteries were in great shape. That also leads me to believe I don't need drugs for cholesterol.
I am really leaning toward throwing away the prescription. I will look up the health food route. Any information on that will be appreciated.
Spin444
03-08-2006, 08:25 PM
My Dad just quit taking Lovastatin after I sent him reams of info on the problems that it and other statins can cause.
Try eating whole oats each morning in the form of Cheerios or oatmeal. Take a vitamin C each day, at least 500 mgs. Cut down on the cheese and maybe just one drink a day, although none is best. Some have talked about niacin, but I don't know much about it. Fresh fruits and vegetables, daily, are important to vascular health. Cut down on or eliminate fast food burgers, fries, etc.
Good luck.
Try eating whole oats each morning in the form of Cheerios or oatmeal. Take a vitamin C each day, at least 500 mgs. Cut down on the cheese and maybe just one drink a day, although none is best. Some have talked about niacin, but I don't know much about it. Fresh fruits and vegetables, daily, are important to vascular health. Cut down on or eliminate fast food burgers, fries, etc.
Good luck.
Stumper
03-08-2006, 10:49 PM
Jane,
That will be decision you will have to make. Personally I would take the Statin but only take 1/2 of what they tell you, and adjust the rest through diet.
I have a book here that states that nearly ALL cardiologists past the age of 40 are now ELECTIVELY taking statins due to all the plugged arteries they see in their profession. They see statins as a true deterrent.
That will be decision you will have to make. Personally I would take the Statin but only take 1/2 of what they tell you, and adjust the rest through diet.
I have a book here that states that nearly ALL cardiologists past the age of 40 are now ELECTIVELY taking statins due to all the plugged arteries they see in their profession. They see statins as a true deterrent.
ARIZONA73
03-08-2006, 11:31 PM
Three years ago they did an angiogram on me because of false/positive stress test. The cardiologist said my arteries were in great shape. That also leads me to believe I don't need drugs for cholester.
Well, if that's the case, then I'd definitely say forget about statins. Most people who are taking them don't need them anyway. Statins are drugs which are over prescribed, and cause needless pain and suffering to a great many people.
Well, if that's the case, then I'd definitely say forget about statins. Most people who are taking them don't need them anyway. Statins are drugs which are over prescribed, and cause needless pain and suffering to a great many people.
HubbleRules
03-09-2006, 01:27 AM
My doctor just called with my cholesterol readings: Total: 267, Tri 219,
HDL 68, LDL 155. He wants to put me on 20mg Lovastatin.
I am terrified of the possible side effects of statins.
My overall ratio is 3.9 and I thought that was very good.
Also, I have a couple drinks each night before dinner. I heard statins affect the liver. Would the combination of statins and alcohol be dangerous?
With my ratio is 3.9 I don't feel like I even need meds.
Any thoughts, please.
Thanks.
Jane
Jane,
Your problem appears to be the high triglycerides, and statins are not good at lowering them - they work on LDL. Your HDL is very good, as is your LDL/HDL ratio. Your LDL level was probably 'calculated', not directly measured, and part of the calculation is based on the triglycerides. So if you lower the trigs, your LDL will go down also.
The chances of liver problems with statins are low - but your doctor will definitely do blood tests (usually every 3 months) for probably a year to see how your liver is doing. Excessive drinking can harm the liver - but I don't think a couple of drinks a day plus the statin should be a problem.
Try eating foods with a lower Glycemic Index. You can find many listings of the GI rating of foods on the internet. This will help drop your trigs, plus will also help prevent diabetes... Cut back on the cheese, and on carbs - especially starches and sugars - that will help lower the trigs also. And yes, alchohol raises trigs, but see how the above works before you decide to cut back - I know I need a beer or 2 when I get home from work...
It is true that statins have an anti-inflammatory quality - but it is thought that this benefit can be obtained at a much lower dose than is generally prescribed. If you are afraid to take the statin, why not try cutting the pills in half, and maybe even take it every other day for the anti-inflammatory properties. You can also help fight inflammation by taking low-dose aspirin, and Folic Acid (400-800mg/day).
I think if you drop the trigs a little, you'll have great numbers...
HubbleRules
:cool:
HDL 68, LDL 155. He wants to put me on 20mg Lovastatin.
I am terrified of the possible side effects of statins.
My overall ratio is 3.9 and I thought that was very good.
Also, I have a couple drinks each night before dinner. I heard statins affect the liver. Would the combination of statins and alcohol be dangerous?
With my ratio is 3.9 I don't feel like I even need meds.
Any thoughts, please.
Thanks.
Jane
Jane,
Your problem appears to be the high triglycerides, and statins are not good at lowering them - they work on LDL. Your HDL is very good, as is your LDL/HDL ratio. Your LDL level was probably 'calculated', not directly measured, and part of the calculation is based on the triglycerides. So if you lower the trigs, your LDL will go down also.
The chances of liver problems with statins are low - but your doctor will definitely do blood tests (usually every 3 months) for probably a year to see how your liver is doing. Excessive drinking can harm the liver - but I don't think a couple of drinks a day plus the statin should be a problem.
Try eating foods with a lower Glycemic Index. You can find many listings of the GI rating of foods on the internet. This will help drop your trigs, plus will also help prevent diabetes... Cut back on the cheese, and on carbs - especially starches and sugars - that will help lower the trigs also. And yes, alchohol raises trigs, but see how the above works before you decide to cut back - I know I need a beer or 2 when I get home from work...
It is true that statins have an anti-inflammatory quality - but it is thought that this benefit can be obtained at a much lower dose than is generally prescribed. If you are afraid to take the statin, why not try cutting the pills in half, and maybe even take it every other day for the anti-inflammatory properties. You can also help fight inflammation by taking low-dose aspirin, and Folic Acid (400-800mg/day).
I think if you drop the trigs a little, you'll have great numbers...
HubbleRules
:cool:
Stumper
03-09-2006, 06:49 PM
It is true that statins have an anti-inflammatory quality - but it is thought that this benefit can be obtained at a much lower dose than is generally prescribed. If you are afraid to take the statin, why not try cutting the pills in half, and maybe even take it every other day for the anti-inflammatory properties. You can also help fight inflammation by taking low-dose aspirin, and Folic Acid (400-800mg/day).
Hubbles, I agree.
This is good advice.
Hubbles, I agree.
This is good advice.
Rick49
03-10-2006, 12:55 AM
...I dropped my triglycerides from 350 to 97 when I started planning my meals based on the glycemic index. The GI didn't help with my cholesterol but I recently went on a high fiber diet (20 to 30 grams /day) and that lowered my cholesterol from 225 to 187. My triglycerides dropped again to 72.
Rick
Rick
jane bauer
03-10-2006, 10:38 AM
Thank you everyone for all the informative replies. I am going to start taking Vitamin C and folic acid.
I have never heard of the Glycemic Index but have started researching it. I will give that a try. I have found lots of websites through google regarding the GI.
Does anyone have any sites that they find helpful? Also, I was looking for a sample diet for the GI.
Thank You
I have never heard of the Glycemic Index but have started researching it. I will give that a try. I have found lots of websites through google regarding the GI.
Does anyone have any sites that they find helpful? Also, I was looking for a sample diet for the GI.
Thank You
Lenin
03-10-2006, 11:05 AM
Hi Jane,
If I were you I would take the 20 mg. lovastatin and if results were super, I'd see if I could get away with 10 mg. It is a "low guage" statin that will probably cause you no difficulty.
The Glycemic Index diet is an offshoot of the low carb approach to dieting and is based on the premise that slowly digested carbs are better than quick acting carbs...beans better than fruit. It's useful for diabetics but of course diet book writers picked up the ball and are carrying it for a financial touchdown. The father of the movement was David Mendosa but now that it has become something akin to "Atkins Light" the Barnes and Noble bookshelves are filled with versions of the diet. Any links too Mendosa will get you started.
Give us a report if any of them lower your cholesterol.
If I were you I would take the 20 mg. lovastatin and if results were super, I'd see if I could get away with 10 mg. It is a "low guage" statin that will probably cause you no difficulty.
The Glycemic Index diet is an offshoot of the low carb approach to dieting and is based on the premise that slowly digested carbs are better than quick acting carbs...beans better than fruit. It's useful for diabetics but of course diet book writers picked up the ball and are carrying it for a financial touchdown. The father of the movement was David Mendosa but now that it has become something akin to "Atkins Light" the Barnes and Noble bookshelves are filled with versions of the diet. Any links too Mendosa will get you started.
Give us a report if any of them lower your cholesterol.
ARIZONA73
03-10-2006, 07:00 PM
Hi Jane,
If I were you I would take the 20 mg. lovastatin and if results were super, I'd see if I could get away with 10 mg. It is a "low guage" statin that will probably cause you no difficulty.
Why should she? She already said that an angiogram revealed that there were no problems. In fact, her doctor told her that her arteries were in great shape. :confused: :confused:
If I were you I would take the 20 mg. lovastatin and if results were super, I'd see if I could get away with 10 mg. It is a "low guage" statin that will probably cause you no difficulty.
Why should she? She already said that an angiogram revealed that there were no problems. In fact, her doctor told her that her arteries were in great shape. :confused: :confused:
HubbleRules
03-10-2006, 07:58 PM
The Glycemic Index diet is an offshoot of the low carb approach to dieting and is based on the premise that slowly digested carbs are better than quick acting carbs...beans better than fruit. It's useful for diabetics but of course diet book writers picked up the ball and are carrying it for a financial touchdown. The father of the movement was David Mendosa but now that it has become something akin to "Atkins Light" the Barnes and Noble bookshelves are filled with versions of the diet. Any links too Mendosa will get you started.
Lenin,
I have visited several web sites about the Glycemic Index, and none of them are trying to 'Sell' me anything.... So I'm not sure what kind of financial angle you see to the GI, but frankly, I don't see it at all..
I've been to a few sites that are very informative - and they're all completely free and very willing to share information. As a matter of fact, some are sponsored by diabetes non-profit organizations...
Rick49 reduced his triglycerides quite a bit following a low-GI diet...
And many people today are either diabetic, or pre-diabetic, so I think trying to lower your GI profile is just a good idea...
HubbleRules
:cool:
Lenin,
I have visited several web sites about the Glycemic Index, and none of them are trying to 'Sell' me anything.... So I'm not sure what kind of financial angle you see to the GI, but frankly, I don't see it at all..
I've been to a few sites that are very informative - and they're all completely free and very willing to share information. As a matter of fact, some are sponsored by diabetes non-profit organizations...
Rick49 reduced his triglycerides quite a bit following a low-GI diet...
And many people today are either diabetic, or pre-diabetic, so I think trying to lower your GI profile is just a good idea...
HubbleRules
:cool:
Lenin
03-10-2006, 08:16 PM
ARIZONA,
Personally I think it is best to treat blood lipids BEFORE developing coronary artery disease rather than after. Alas, I was born too early to follow my advice.
HUBBLE,
The way diet gurus make their "financial touchdown" is to sell DIET BOOKS. The Glycemic Index Diet is VERY well represented on the shelves. I think characterizing it as "Atkins' Light" is fairly on target, if a bit flip.
As I said, it's a good way for diabetics to view carbohydrates and I'm sure the ADA's motives are laudable...it's a good organization.
There will ALWAYS be a current FAD diet! It's just a fact of modern, overfed life. Of course when the fad diet reaches the pinnacle for several months or years, it's temporarily cloaked in religious garb...then it soon becomes just another also-ran.
Personally I think it is best to treat blood lipids BEFORE developing coronary artery disease rather than after. Alas, I was born too early to follow my advice.
HUBBLE,
The way diet gurus make their "financial touchdown" is to sell DIET BOOKS. The Glycemic Index Diet is VERY well represented on the shelves. I think characterizing it as "Atkins' Light" is fairly on target, if a bit flip.
As I said, it's a good way for diabetics to view carbohydrates and I'm sure the ADA's motives are laudable...it's a good organization.
There will ALWAYS be a current FAD diet! It's just a fact of modern, overfed life. Of course when the fad diet reaches the pinnacle for several months or years, it's temporarily cloaked in religious garb...then it soon becomes just another also-ran.
ARIZONA73
03-10-2006, 09:26 PM
ARIZONA,
Personally I think it is best to treat blood lipids BEFORE developing coronary artery disease rather than after. Alas, I was born too early to follow my advice.
Your logic would make sense if we were able to determine beforehand who will, and who will not develop heart disease. But we still cannot reliably make that determination based on cholesterol numbers. And I'm certainly not in favor of some blanket approach in which all people who's numbers fall outside of the official "guidelines" are to be put on a lifelong regimen of risky drugs. Now, I don't know how old Jane is, but if she is anywhere near my age (51), and the doctor has determined that her arteries are in great shape, then I just can't see any point in her taking these drugs. Why try to fix what's not broken, and consequently take the risk of developing some debilitating side-effects as a result? Of course, the choice is ultimately hers, but in my opinion it's just not worth it.
Personally I think it is best to treat blood lipids BEFORE developing coronary artery disease rather than after. Alas, I was born too early to follow my advice.
Your logic would make sense if we were able to determine beforehand who will, and who will not develop heart disease. But we still cannot reliably make that determination based on cholesterol numbers. And I'm certainly not in favor of some blanket approach in which all people who's numbers fall outside of the official "guidelines" are to be put on a lifelong regimen of risky drugs. Now, I don't know how old Jane is, but if she is anywhere near my age (51), and the doctor has determined that her arteries are in great shape, then I just can't see any point in her taking these drugs. Why try to fix what's not broken, and consequently take the risk of developing some debilitating side-effects as a result? Of course, the choice is ultimately hers, but in my opinion it's just not worth it.
jane bauer
03-11-2006, 12:32 AM
<<Your logic would make sense if we were able to determine beforehand who will, and who will not develop heart disease. But we still cannot reliably make that determination based on cholesterol numbers. And I'm certainly not in favor of some blanket approach in which all people who's numbers fall outside of the official "guidelines" are to be put on a lifelong regimen of risky drugs. Now, I don't know how old Jane is, but if she is anywhere near my age (51), and the doctor has determined that her arteries are in great shape, then I just can't see any point in her taking these drugs. Why try to fix what's not broken, and consequently take the risk of developing some debilitating side-effects as a result? Of course, the choice is ultimately hers, but in my opinion it's just not worth it.>>
I am 59 and have decided not to go on the drugs. I am going to try very hard to reduce the LDL and Try's with exercise and diet. I have been resisting going on these drugs for two years and finally the doctor said he thought I should do it now. My numbers have been virtually the same for 3 years, and even going down 5 or 6 points each year.
I work out at a gym 3 times a week, but in the last 5 years I am getting the fat around the middle section with no increase in calories. That does concern me, but I think my diet will have to change to fix that.
I am 59 and have decided not to go on the drugs. I am going to try very hard to reduce the LDL and Try's with exercise and diet. I have been resisting going on these drugs for two years and finally the doctor said he thought I should do it now. My numbers have been virtually the same for 3 years, and even going down 5 or 6 points each year.
I work out at a gym 3 times a week, but in the last 5 years I am getting the fat around the middle section with no increase in calories. That does concern me, but I think my diet will have to change to fix that.
Rick49
03-11-2006, 11:16 AM
...Let me clear up a little on the confusion with the glycemic index. True there are some out there trying to capitalize on the diet, but there's plenty of free information if a person wants to follow the diet.
...It is about good carbs and bad carbs. Atkins said all carbs are bad. But the diet was researched by Dr Jennifer Brand-Miller at the university of Sidney. She's a professor of Nutrition there and was seeing that diabetics were having problems controlling their blood sugar following the Simple-complex carbohydrate rule that we've been brainwashed with for ages. Simple carbs digest fast, complex carbs digest slowly.
...So she started to study the effects of the different carbs on the metabolism of normal subjects. The study was very simple: A group of healthy subject were give a presiely measure amount of a particular carbohydrate and then their blood sugar and insulin levels were measured at different intervals for the next several hours.
...For a baseline they chose glucose which is metabolised the fastest and is, of course, the sugar that is used by our bodies. In fact, one thing to keep in mind, is that all carbohydrates are converted to glucose by our metabolism. So they made a list (glycemic index) of how all the foods(carbs) rated. They found that whether a carb is simple or not had no effect on the rate of metabolism.
...Their results showed that milk products (lactose) and fruit(fructose) were the lowest/slowest and the white starches were the fastest(potatoes, rice, and white bread). In fact potatoes metabolize at a rate that is 80% that of glucose and table sugar(sucrose) is only 65%.
...While this helps diabetics tremendously to regulate their insulin, there's a lot of us who have a condition similar to type 2 diabetes called metabolic syndrome. All this means is that our metabolism reacts very strongly to carbs that are digested quickly and produces way too much insulin than is needed. The insulin controls the blood sugar, so there's no problems like diabetes people, but the excess insulin is what causes the triglycerides to shoot up and can cause conditions like PCOS, hypertention, and reactive hypoglycemia.
...To answer the question about what I eat on a normal day. All I really did was reduce the amount of potatoes and rice I was eating. I didn't elimiate them just reduced the amounts. I stay away from things that are sweetened with corn syrup. Corn syrup is chemically identical to glucose. I don't eat gluten but if I wanted to eat a cookie, I would choose and oatmeal cookie anstead of a sugar cookie. Ice cream would be better than a piece of pecan pie. Fruits are excellant and most vegetables are excellant to ok but that's what the lists are for
...It's also a function of the index and the amount and that's where the glycemic load comes in. And that's the goal is to get the glycemic load of a meal down to a level that is well tolerated. Another way of cutiing the glycemic load in half without changing the diet at all is to eat smaller meals more frequently.
Rick
...It is about good carbs and bad carbs. Atkins said all carbs are bad. But the diet was researched by Dr Jennifer Brand-Miller at the university of Sidney. She's a professor of Nutrition there and was seeing that diabetics were having problems controlling their blood sugar following the Simple-complex carbohydrate rule that we've been brainwashed with for ages. Simple carbs digest fast, complex carbs digest slowly.
...So she started to study the effects of the different carbs on the metabolism of normal subjects. The study was very simple: A group of healthy subject were give a presiely measure amount of a particular carbohydrate and then their blood sugar and insulin levels were measured at different intervals for the next several hours.
...For a baseline they chose glucose which is metabolised the fastest and is, of course, the sugar that is used by our bodies. In fact, one thing to keep in mind, is that all carbohydrates are converted to glucose by our metabolism. So they made a list (glycemic index) of how all the foods(carbs) rated. They found that whether a carb is simple or not had no effect on the rate of metabolism.
...Their results showed that milk products (lactose) and fruit(fructose) were the lowest/slowest and the white starches were the fastest(potatoes, rice, and white bread). In fact potatoes metabolize at a rate that is 80% that of glucose and table sugar(sucrose) is only 65%.
...While this helps diabetics tremendously to regulate their insulin, there's a lot of us who have a condition similar to type 2 diabetes called metabolic syndrome. All this means is that our metabolism reacts very strongly to carbs that are digested quickly and produces way too much insulin than is needed. The insulin controls the blood sugar, so there's no problems like diabetes people, but the excess insulin is what causes the triglycerides to shoot up and can cause conditions like PCOS, hypertention, and reactive hypoglycemia.
...To answer the question about what I eat on a normal day. All I really did was reduce the amount of potatoes and rice I was eating. I didn't elimiate them just reduced the amounts. I stay away from things that are sweetened with corn syrup. Corn syrup is chemically identical to glucose. I don't eat gluten but if I wanted to eat a cookie, I would choose and oatmeal cookie anstead of a sugar cookie. Ice cream would be better than a piece of pecan pie. Fruits are excellant and most vegetables are excellant to ok but that's what the lists are for
...It's also a function of the index and the amount and that's where the glycemic load comes in. And that's the goal is to get the glycemic load of a meal down to a level that is well tolerated. Another way of cutiing the glycemic load in half without changing the diet at all is to eat smaller meals more frequently.
Rick
Lenin
03-11-2006, 11:38 AM
Your logic would make sense if we were able to determine beforehand who will, and who will not develop heart disease. But we still cannot reliably make that determination based on cholesterol numbers. \
If you honestly believe that, then of course it would be silly to use any methods to control cholesterol.
I believe precisely the opposite, that we CAN determine who is likely to develop heart disease based on cholesterol and liipid levels and thus I think tight control is a a good idea for everyone seeking to avoid the #1 Killer regardless of whether or not they are death's door yet.
I feel that those who think their high cholesterol is best ignored and who seek out rationalizations from others to make them feel better about the approach are really quite analogous to ostriches burying their heads in the sand...they are ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence.
There is and always will be quite a gulf in our views of coronary heart disease. And the beat goes on. :D
If you honestly believe that, then of course it would be silly to use any methods to control cholesterol.
I believe precisely the opposite, that we CAN determine who is likely to develop heart disease based on cholesterol and liipid levels and thus I think tight control is a a good idea for everyone seeking to avoid the #1 Killer regardless of whether or not they are death's door yet.
I feel that those who think their high cholesterol is best ignored and who seek out rationalizations from others to make them feel better about the approach are really quite analogous to ostriches burying their heads in the sand...they are ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence.
There is and always will be quite a gulf in our views of coronary heart disease. And the beat goes on. :D
JaneM
03-11-2006, 01:34 PM
Jane, a large recent Italian study indicates that mortality risk drops with increasing LDL in elderly women. I realize you're too young to be thought of as elderly, but there still may be some relevance. Participants in the study were 65 or older. A few keywords in a search engine should bring up links.
Lou212
03-11-2006, 10:58 PM
A few years ago my cholesterol was 239. After reading so many forums about the standard drugs such as Lipitor, I decided to go a more natural route. I started taking RED YEAST RICE, which is a natural statin and sold in the health food stores. After 6 months my cholesterol was 169 with no side effects. My wife took the same and it didn't help her, so she takes Zocor. I'm sure all drugs will vary some with the individual. I've recommended the red yeast rice to others and it's helped them too..with no side effects. I hope this is of some help.
Good luck,
Lou
Good luck,
Lou
NHone
03-13-2006, 07:28 PM
Jane,
That will be decision you will have to make. Personally I would take the Statin but only take 1/2 of what they tell you, and adjust the rest through diet.
I have a book here that states that nearly ALL cardiologists past the age of 40 are now ELECTIVELY taking statins due to all the plugged arteries they see in their profession. They see statins as a true deterrent.
Oh great,,, Not only do we have to deal with arrogant doctors, who are also uninformed, and overpaid...but odds are some of those are going to be suffering from dementia (or cognitive problems).... Also with you posted ratio...(i still don[t believe in cholesterol numbers) I would just keep doing what i was doing. Remember , i don't know your age...but for 20 years you have been doing the same thing, and your arteries are clean??? what's wrong with that. You might keep in mind too, that people could be completely wrong about statins, and they could cause the arteries to clog. (infact their is evidence that statins can cause an increase in calciuim buildup in the arteries)
That will be decision you will have to make. Personally I would take the Statin but only take 1/2 of what they tell you, and adjust the rest through diet.
I have a book here that states that nearly ALL cardiologists past the age of 40 are now ELECTIVELY taking statins due to all the plugged arteries they see in their profession. They see statins as a true deterrent.
Oh great,,, Not only do we have to deal with arrogant doctors, who are also uninformed, and overpaid...but odds are some of those are going to be suffering from dementia (or cognitive problems).... Also with you posted ratio...(i still don[t believe in cholesterol numbers) I would just keep doing what i was doing. Remember , i don't know your age...but for 20 years you have been doing the same thing, and your arteries are clean??? what's wrong with that. You might keep in mind too, that people could be completely wrong about statins, and they could cause the arteries to clog. (infact their is evidence that statins can cause an increase in calciuim buildup in the arteries)
NHone
03-13-2006, 11:05 PM
[QUOTE=Melvi]Statins also have potent effects on inflammation, both locally within the plaque and systemically. Statins reduce the macrophage content of atherosclerotic plaques and the activity of the residual macrophage populations, and some statins also reduce serum C reactive protein and interleukin-6 in patients, independent of lipid lowering.59-61 In addition, statins reduce activity of natural killer cells62 and inhibit antibody production.63 Statins also inhibit MMP-9 expression of both mouse and human macrophages,64 and have variable effects on matrix proteins and collagen.65 Oxidised LDL induced growth of macrophages and foam cell formation is also inhibited by statins.66 67[/Q
Where did you get that information?
Where did you get that information?
JJ
03-15-2006, 12:39 AM
Thanks JJ for your kind words. Should I ever get side effects or sick from the statins I will definately stop taking them regardless of my TC numbers. In the meantime I will definately stay on the lowest dosage (lower than what the doc prescribes). Docs don't always have to know everything we do, ;) after all they are not always honest with us. :nono:
Barb :wave:
That is all U can do, wait and see how it goes. Many folks do just fine on statins, others like myself don't, just like anything, no one thing fits everyone.
I'm not against statins, especially for folks who really need them, but I do think many drs. prescribe them too willy nilly, when most times diet, exercise and suppliments may do the trick. It just frustrates me when a person complains about having side effects and the drs. blow it off as something else. I had no computer when hubby was on them, or when I was, and had no idea what was happening to both of us, so noone can say I heard about the side effects and imagined them, as I didn't even know anyone on them at the time.
Thankfully my GI guy listened to me and got to the root of my problem, which was statins. When I went off, even though it took almost 6 months to get me well, as soon as I went back on them, BOOM, it started again. Now anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out if your on them and sick, but well when your off, it is the meds. End of arguements!! Hopefully U do well, get those numbers down and everyone will be happy. Just do what U feel is right, and if taking a lesser dose is good and helps with the numbers, go for it. My girlfriends dr. has her take her Lipitor every other day, and so far, so good.
Take care, and good luck..... :wave: Bed time for Bonzo..... :yawn: :yawn:
Barb :wave:
That is all U can do, wait and see how it goes. Many folks do just fine on statins, others like myself don't, just like anything, no one thing fits everyone.
I'm not against statins, especially for folks who really need them, but I do think many drs. prescribe them too willy nilly, when most times diet, exercise and suppliments may do the trick. It just frustrates me when a person complains about having side effects and the drs. blow it off as something else. I had no computer when hubby was on them, or when I was, and had no idea what was happening to both of us, so noone can say I heard about the side effects and imagined them, as I didn't even know anyone on them at the time.
Thankfully my GI guy listened to me and got to the root of my problem, which was statins. When I went off, even though it took almost 6 months to get me well, as soon as I went back on them, BOOM, it started again. Now anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out if your on them and sick, but well when your off, it is the meds. End of arguements!! Hopefully U do well, get those numbers down and everyone will be happy. Just do what U feel is right, and if taking a lesser dose is good and helps with the numbers, go for it. My girlfriends dr. has her take her Lipitor every other day, and so far, so good.
Take care, and good luck..... :wave: Bed time for Bonzo..... :yawn: :yawn:
JJ
03-15-2006, 11:40 AM
I have no idea, guess they feel they have done more good then harm??? God only knows how the system works for getting things pulled, and maybe U have to have solid proof a statin caused your illness. Even if a dr., like my GI guy says U can't take them due to side effects, but the majority of drs. claim they are working, they out number the other drs. Like anything, it will go on and on.
When they had me on Baycol I really felt horrid, and told the dr. I tossed them in the pail and refused to take them. Even though I said .."These fool things will be off the market if they cause this kind of reaction", all I got was OH NO, they are the best thing since sliced bread. Hmmm, 7 or 8 months after I tossed em they were off the market. As far as sueing, I don't even know if anyone has ever gotten a settlement from Baycol, and I know there were suites filed, but who knows if anyone ever got anything. Like I said, I just go by how I feel on any med and if it isn't agreeing with me, I don't take it, and hopefully my health will stay in tact.
Hope ya have a good one, and TTYL.... :wave:
When they had me on Baycol I really felt horrid, and told the dr. I tossed them in the pail and refused to take them. Even though I said .."These fool things will be off the market if they cause this kind of reaction", all I got was OH NO, they are the best thing since sliced bread. Hmmm, 7 or 8 months after I tossed em they were off the market. As far as sueing, I don't even know if anyone has ever gotten a settlement from Baycol, and I know there were suites filed, but who knows if anyone ever got anything. Like I said, I just go by how I feel on any med and if it isn't agreeing with me, I don't take it, and hopefully my health will stay in tact.
Hope ya have a good one, and TTYL.... :wave:
JJ
03-15-2006, 03:45 PM
JJ,
Baycol was also pulled in Europe I read. When I said "suing" I was not after the money (even though it would come in handy :D ) I was more thinking like "helping with the lawsuits to get that stuff off the market/shelves". As long as the lawsuits will get that stuff off the market, but people who got seriously ill from the statins should get some kind of settlement as in money. Not that the money will reverse their condition.
I forgot to mention when I was still refusing statins, and told my doctor about this woman who had the kidney failure, he right away shot back with "well, how long did she wait before she told her doctor that she felt sick, if patients don't tell us that they feel sick how are we suppose to know". And I thought to myself and "how about you doctors ignoring when people tell you that they feel sick from the statins or any drugs for that matter".
I guess it has been pulled everywhere. I hear ya about the suing thing, it isn't the money, just do something to get nasty things off the market.
Oh I hear ya about the complaining, it is the drs. who wait too long, as they tell U it is NOT statins. Most of the time it is arthritis, yet if a person gets off the stuff, the "arthritis" goes away. Yes, as we get older we are going to get aches and pains, anyone in their right mind knows that, but if U experience sudden pains and aches, the meds., whether statins or whatever should be looked into as a possible cause. Ever get the feeling it is a losing battle???
Look at hubby, he keeps getting upped on his Atenolol, and last bloodwork showed his sugar up and Trigs. have always been borderline high, but since taking Atenolol, have gotten higher. The dr. in the hospital told him for now to just keep with the same things till he gets squared away, but to definitely have a long talk with his dr. after things are settled. Like he said, your wife brought up a good point, and prehaps it is time for a change in some of your meds. Sheesh I feel like I could hang a shingle out my front door.
Have a good one, and TTYL... :wave:
Baycol was also pulled in Europe I read. When I said "suing" I was not after the money (even though it would come in handy :D ) I was more thinking like "helping with the lawsuits to get that stuff off the market/shelves". As long as the lawsuits will get that stuff off the market, but people who got seriously ill from the statins should get some kind of settlement as in money. Not that the money will reverse their condition.
I forgot to mention when I was still refusing statins, and told my doctor about this woman who had the kidney failure, he right away shot back with "well, how long did she wait before she told her doctor that she felt sick, if patients don't tell us that they feel sick how are we suppose to know". And I thought to myself and "how about you doctors ignoring when people tell you that they feel sick from the statins or any drugs for that matter".
I guess it has been pulled everywhere. I hear ya about the suing thing, it isn't the money, just do something to get nasty things off the market.
Oh I hear ya about the complaining, it is the drs. who wait too long, as they tell U it is NOT statins. Most of the time it is arthritis, yet if a person gets off the stuff, the "arthritis" goes away. Yes, as we get older we are going to get aches and pains, anyone in their right mind knows that, but if U experience sudden pains and aches, the meds., whether statins or whatever should be looked into as a possible cause. Ever get the feeling it is a losing battle???
Look at hubby, he keeps getting upped on his Atenolol, and last bloodwork showed his sugar up and Trigs. have always been borderline high, but since taking Atenolol, have gotten higher. The dr. in the hospital told him for now to just keep with the same things till he gets squared away, but to definitely have a long talk with his dr. after things are settled. Like he said, your wife brought up a good point, and prehaps it is time for a change in some of your meds. Sheesh I feel like I could hang a shingle out my front door.
Have a good one, and TTYL... :wave:
NHone
03-15-2006, 04:28 PM
JJ i wish you could hang a shingle out too. However you will have to obtain a couple of other skills first. You will have to specialize in arrogance. Inability to listen. Inability to read and follow up, ability to make people feel ignorant and 2 inches tall. Oh yes , most important, you will have to be able to feel deserving to take kick backs and percs from drug manufacturers.
JJ
03-15-2006, 05:03 PM
JJ i wish you could hang a shingle out too. However you will have to obtain a couple of other skills first. You will have to specialize in arrogance. Inability to listen. Inability to read and follow up, ability to make people feel ignorant and 2 inches tall. Oh yes , most important, you will have to be able to feel deserving to take kick backs and percs from drug manufacturers.
Well I'm not a good morning person, so arrogant I can be before 10 a.m. LOL Suppose I could get some ear plugs so I don't listen, just nod my head alot, the rest, oh well, sorry, I don't qualify....... :D
Shucks, and here I thought I was going to start a new line of work at age 64...NOT!!! Man, I could use those big bucks too............ ;)
Well I'm not a good morning person, so arrogant I can be before 10 a.m. LOL Suppose I could get some ear plugs so I don't listen, just nod my head alot, the rest, oh well, sorry, I don't qualify....... :D
Shucks, and here I thought I was going to start a new line of work at age 64...NOT!!! Man, I could use those big bucks too............ ;)
JJ
03-15-2006, 07:35 PM
Oh I hear you about sugar up etc. My Cholesterol NEVER went over 240 mostly between 200-210 until I started to take Lasix, within 3 months my TC shut up to over 300. No life style changes, no diet changes. My glucose was always around 90 or less, 3 months after the Lasix glucose is between 110-116 back and forth and that after 14 hrs of fasting. Looked up side effects of Lasix and yes indeed it can raise your glucose and cholesterol level in "some" people and I happen to be one of the "some". Doctor denies it strongly, when I showed him the print out from the Internet he said "you need to stay away from stuff like that". Don't you know that only THEY are right? :rolleyes: and everything besides THEM we should stay away from? :rolleyes:
Talk to you later :wave:
Barb
Hubbys cardio guy is always asking me what I found new on the web, he is a hoot. Like he tells me, he seldom gets on he is so busy, so he is glad to hear of anything new so he can research it himself. My dr. is like yours, stay off the net, the info. is stupid. Ya can't win sometimes....... :rolleyes:
Talk to you later :wave:
Barb
Hubbys cardio guy is always asking me what I found new on the web, he is a hoot. Like he tells me, he seldom gets on he is so busy, so he is glad to hear of anything new so he can research it himself. My dr. is like yours, stay off the net, the info. is stupid. Ya can't win sometimes....... :rolleyes:

