Statins and Cramps

[V12man]

Just as an alternative/objective view on the cardiovascular topic, the second video is more specific to cholesterol.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDVf-00w5gk

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAKaM330xzg

 

I don't know if that is really an alternate view - mostly what we are interested in is the size of the protein particle attached to the cholesterol molecule - and the relative fractions of those to the larger sized particles.

 

Here is a good slide set to read on the mechanisms - there is a video you can watch too on uboob - actually you can watch the whole debate and Prof Noakes presentation too...

 

http://www.health.uct.ac.za/usr/health/centenary/downloads/Presentation_Jacques_Rossouw.pdf

[johannrissik]

I am not a medical doctor, which is why I am asking questions and not making pronouncements and not advising people what to do (in terms of taking statins or not)

 

The fact that there are so many eminent local and international experts who have come out strongly against the use of statins has caught my attention.

 

To the layman, it would appear that the case for statins is not entirely clear, which should raise alarm bells to anyone on them.

 

Finally, I am always suspicious when people attack the messenger (as is happening to Tim Noakes and others) because it begs the question "why are they (the pro-statin lobby) so sensitive? ".

[dillon]

I am not a medical doctor, which is why I am asking questions and not making pronouncements and not advising people what to do (in terms of taking statins or not)

 

The fact that there are so many eminent local and international experts who have come out strongly against the use of statins has caught my attention.

 

To the layman, it would appear that the case for statins is not entirely clear, which should raise alarm bells to anyone on them.

 

Finally, I am always suspicious when people attack the messenger (as is happening to Tim Noakes and others) because it begs the question "why are they (the pro-statin lobby) so sensitive? ".

 

$140 billion worth of statins sold since launch

[V12man]

 

To the layman, it would appear that the case for statins is not entirely clear, which should raise alarm bells to anyone on them.

 

Finally, I am always suspicious when people attack the messenger (as is happening to Tim Noakes and others) because it begs the question "why are they (the pro-statin lobby) so sensitive? ".

 

I think the case for Statins IS quite clear - they have a place in reducing cholesterol levels for high risk groups - but you should understand that it is a treatment, and not a cure.

 

I don't think that the pro-statin lobby are as sensitive as you think - there is no debate about their efficacy - there is another (much hyped in the media) debate about whether and how diet influences the incidence of heard disease - and the jury is still out on that - although I suspect there is much merit in looking at and challenging accepted concepts.

 

You should really look through the slide set I put up (sorry it is complicated) , and watch the full debate (Tim is - if nothing else - a VERY entertaining speaker, and he will hold your attention) - personally I don't think the conclusions they reached are incompatible at all - the bottom line is that reducing total cholesterol levels is GOOD, and reducing the LDL cholesterol fraction is GOOD.

 

The question is - what is the best way to achieve that? Statins are one way.... diet is another... exercise is another - and picking your parents better is a good way to go as well... probably the best way to go...

 

Bottom line - if you have high cholesterol levels you are in a high risk group, and you should do everything possible to reduce those levels, both via lifestyle changes and medication if indicated.

[johannrissik]

I think the case for Statins IS quite clear - they have a place in reducing cholesterol levels for high risk groups - but you should understand that it is a treatment, and not a cure.

 

I don't think that the pro-statin lobby are as sensitive as you think - there is no debate about their efficacy - there is another (much hyped in the media) debate about whether and how diet influences the incidence of heard disease - and the jury is still out on that - although I suspect there is much merit in looking at and challenging accepted concepts.

 

You should really look through the slide set I put up (sorry it is complicated) , and watch the full debate (Tim is - if nothing else - a VERY entertaining speaker, and he will hold your attention) - personally I don't think the conclusions they reached are incompatible at all - the bottom line is that reducing total cholesterol levels is GOOD, and reducing the LDL cholesterol fraction is GOOD.

 

The question is - what is the best way to achieve that? Statins are one way.... diet is another... exercise is another - and picking your parents better is a good way to go as well... probably the best way to go...

 

Bottom line - if you have high cholesterol levels you are in a high risk group, and you should do everything possible to reduce those levels, both via lifestyle changes and medication if indicated.

Thanks for the reply. We are coming at this from different angles, but I respect your viewpoint.

I guess it's just that I am very wary of anything that mainstream media punts.

This is all purely academic for me because I:

1. Chose my parents carefully,

2. Eat carefully,

3. Exercise, and

4. Am as maergat as I am hardegat

[Helpmytrap]

I don't know if that is really an alternate view - mostly what we are interested in is the size of the protein particle attached to the cholesterol molecule - and the relative fractions of those to the larger sized particles.

 

Here is a good slide set to read on the mechanisms - there is a video you can watch too on uboob - actually you can watch the whole debate and Prof Noakes presentation too...

 

http://www.health.uc...ues_Rossouw.pdf

Very aware of the LDL particle size story and keeping the triglycerides low.

 

In a lot of the talks between pro and anti cholesterol, that seems to be where they get lost in translation. Pro-cholesterol will focus on increasing the amount of fluffy LDL particles while anti-cholesterol will focus on decreasing the particle count. But because they are so focussed on there views, they are blind to the fact that both their ideas actually overlap. Lowering particle count can be a sign of an increase in the fluffy LDL particles. (This happened in the Noakes, Rossouw debate not to long ago.)

 

I actually think that the above link is from that exact debate.

 

edit: PS, I edited my previous post to include part 2, I forgot the http in the url.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Helpmytrap

[johannrissik]

http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/reconsider-statins-urges-former-ama-boss#.UnNRHrN6GEw.twitter

[Goodbadugly]

http://www.australia...HrN6GEw.twitter

I see that you say you come from a different angle than V12man.

Yours a layman and him as a medical professional(as far as I can gather).

There will always be professors world wide questioning others(the article you quoted) That is what professors do. Unfortunately conspiracy theorists (media) very often 'misquote' knowledgeable people. Sells more newspapers.

I would think very carefully before I just stopped 'my' statin (I am one of the fortunate ones with low cholesterol, so I am not on pills)

Studies have shown a dramatic incidence in cardiovascular events in the peri-operative period if a statin is stopped abruptly (pre operatively). This study was not performed or sponsored by a drug company. It was a retrospective study.

 

Another effect of Statins is that it stabilize plaques that are already formed in the arteries. It is not just a cholesterol lowering drug. (Plaque rupture causes a sudden heart attack in a seemingly healthy person. Even a small 20-25% lesion can rupture and start the cascade that completely clots up your coronary artery.)

 

BUT you are right in one way. Drug companies make BILLIONS of $$$ by selling medicines. And where money comes into play, there will always be some form of dishonesty.

[Goodbadugly]

$140 billion worth of statins sold since launch

How many $$$ went into the motorcar business since Carl Benz built the first car? And still we buy them. The motor car business will still be making trillions of $$$ before the oil reserves run out. That is how big business works.

[Helpmytrap]

How many $$$ went into the motorcar business since Carl Benz built the first car? And still we buy them. The motor car business will still be making trillions of $$$ before the oil reserves run out. That is how big business works.

Apples and pears. But I get what you are saying.

 

Do yourself a favour and watch that 2 part documentary that I posted one page back.

[Goodbadugly]

Apples and pears. But I get what you are saying.

 

Do yourself a favour and watch that 2 part documentary that I posted one page back.

Apples and pears?

Business is business. The big drug companies are not in it because the are 'Mother Theresa'. They are in it for the money. Not for humanitarian reasons. If they cannot make money selling drugs, they will put their money somewhere else.

[Helpmytrap]

Apples and pears?

Business is business. The big drug companies are not in it because the are 'Mother Theresa'. They are in it for the money. Not for humanitarian reasons. If they cannot make money selling drugs, they will put their money somewhere else.

The transportation companies aren't exploiting the public by playing on nerves in order to boost sales (edit: okay maybe they are by portraying certain idealistic/dream scenarios.) They merely advertise their product and if it is appealing to you, you go and buy it. On the other hand, drug companies (specifically statin) try and dictate what is healthy and what it not by misrepresenting/shifting the norm, the healthy level of total cholesterol being lowered is a good example of this.

Yes they are all in it for the money but the means are definitely not the same!

 

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a higher than average cholesterol with good HDL:LDL ratios and Low triglycerides and a low HbA1c than being diagnosed with a "healthy" level of cholesterol.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Helpmytrap

[Helpmytrap]

Statins do have their place, especially for those with Hypercholesterolaemia. So don't get me wrong, I just feel that it is an over prescribed drug that shouldn't be taken willy nilly.

[V12man]

 

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a higher than average cholesterol with good HDL:LDL ratios and Low triglycerides and a low HbA1c than being diagnosed with a "healthy" level of cholesterol.

 

You got it - spot on - just replace "low hba1c" with "low normal hba1c" - assuming by higher you don't mean more than about 20% higher than normal cholesterol levels...

 

EXCEPT - if you are a diabetic - then low Hba1c numbers are potentially lethal - any diabetic with an hba1c number below 6 is most likely having glucose low's that are even worse than having an hba1c number slightly over normal - collapsing because you are low can be fatal... I can't post patient pics without their permission (and I am not planning to ask) but a fractured skull is definitely a possibility - had one of those earlier this year - Fit, healthy diabetic, with an hba1c of 5.5 (so according to a lot of people, well controlled) - collapsed at the gym.. clipped his head on something... small fracture and some bleeding... NOT GOOD - 4 days in ICU, 4 more in high care...

 

And of course - the reminder that smoking is a MUCH bigger risk factor than slightly elevated cholesterol numbers - anyone who smokes is fooling themselves about several things.

[F111]

I have stop taking statins 3 weeks before the 94.7, started taking Coenzyme Q10 and Slow-K. Use Slowmag the same as before. I had no cramps during the race my hydration was less than the previous races (no camelbak) Only had 500 Ml per hour. I shows that the statins are the problem. I also found this article "Can Statins Cut the Benefits of Exercise?" in the New York Times. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/can-statins-curb-the-benefits-of-exercise/

[F111]

I have stop taking statins 3 weeks before the 94.7, started taking Coenzyme Q10 and Slow-K. Use Slowmag the same as before. I had no cramps during the race my hydration was less than the previous races (no camelbak) Only had 500 Ml per hour. I shows that the statins are the problem. I also found this article "Can Statins Cut the Benefits of Exercise?" in the New York Times. http://well.blogs.ny...ts-of-exercise/

I am now of statins for 6 months. I am recovering faster and have dropped 6kgs without changing my diet, My race times are also better than last year. I want to go for blood tests to see what my cholesterol numbers is. Plan is to go LCHF for 2 Months then go for the tests. Edited March 26, 2014 by F111