[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, the consensus is that if my LDL is 431 I should… ?
lol[/quote]
eat more bacon
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, the consensus is that if my LDL is 431 I should… ?
lol[/quote]
eat more bacon[/quote]
per these observational studies Framingham, Nurses Health (recent eggs and red meat side studies)- the more cholesterol/sat fat one eats the lower their total cholesterol
so, rehanb you may not be far off, that or it could be DD’s last meal 
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, the consensus is that if my LDL is 431 I should… ?
lol[/quote]
eat more bacon[/quote]
per these observational studies Framingham, Nurses Health (recent eggs and red meat side studies)- the more cholesterol/sat fat one eats the lower their total cholesterol
so, rehanb you may not be far off, that or it could be DD’s last meal
[/quote]
Well, his last meal could be soybeans and wheatgrass.
That would just be embarrassing.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, the consensus is that if my LDL is 431 I should… ?
lol[/quote]
eat more bacon[/quote]
per these observational studies Framingham, Nurses Health (recent eggs and red meat side studies)- the more cholesterol/sat fat one eats the lower their total cholesterol
so, rehanb you may not be far off, that or it could be DD’s last meal
[/quote]
Well, his last meal could be soybeans and wheatgrass.
That would just be embarrassing. [/quote]
Ala Clark Duncan
Jim Fixx, baby, Jim Fixx.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, the consensus is that if my LDL is 431 I should… ?
lol[/quote]
eat more bacon[/quote]
per these observational studies Framingham, Nurses Health (recent eggs and red meat side studies)- the more cholesterol/sat fat one eats the lower their total cholesterol
so, rehanb you may not be far off, that or it could be DD’s last meal
[/quote]
Well, his last meal could be soybeans and wheatgrass.
That would just be embarrassing. [/quote]
Ala Clark Duncan[/quote]
too soon? 
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
From the current research it seems people under the age of 80 with history of CVD benefit.
[/quote]
I can’t find many big studies on people over 80. Of course they will be less effective the closer you are to dying.
It seems to depend on inclusion criteria. The biggest meta-analysis showed reduced all cause mortality in women too, but it’s interesting. Meta-analysis of statin effects in women versus men - PubMed
[quote]
What is being debated here?
Statin trials where they used a low dose vs higher dose, which resulted in 20% TC drop (may be off a little here) compared to a 50% drop in TC, showed no significant improvement on reduction in heart attacks. Top this with the fact we know high cholesterol does not cause HD, it should be evident that if a high dose statin reduces TC more than a low-dose we should expect a bigger reduction in incidences, but we do not.[/quote]
Sigh. Just because one pill is good, it doesn’t necessarily mean that two pills are better. We don’t lower blood pressure as low as we can or strive to make patients underweight either.
Less cholesterol, less effect of the inflammation.
I’m sure they are overprescribed, and that there are idiots out there staring themselves blind at a cholesterol value taken out of context. That doesn’t mean they’re “purely an immoral money grab” as someone said in another of these threads. If more patients could eat real food and exercise a few hours a week I’d be thrilled, but I really don’t see that happening any time soon. Statins help us help those who won’t help themselves.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Just ran across this today
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/confirmed-again-statin-drugs-calcify-coronary-arteries1[/quote]
From the Discussion:
“Finally, most importantly, given the greater prevalence of obstructive CAD in statin-treated individuals, the present study findings may be confounded by a treatment bias towards preferential statin therapy inpatients with higher lipid values when they were statin naïve or â??sickerâ?? individuals.”
The statin group had a lot more risk factors for CVD. Of course there’s an association, that’s why they were put on statins. If they randomized treatment and followed two homogenous groups, it could have meant something.
Thanks Kakno, interesting meta on the benefit in those w/just risk factors.
Then again, and this isn’t me trying to stretch things, but rather in light of recent metas coming out that obvioulsy had flaws (organic for example), but how about more than just 10 trials.
Though from what I’ve read, the Cochrane group seems to be a legit one w/o bias.
Also, any thoughts on why more doctors don’t recommend CoQ10 w/statins?
I actually train a cardiologist, AFAIK no risk factors (normal weight, waist is good, BP is good, though he takes a BP pill, but from what I’ve gathered more as a preventative, eats vegetarian, TC is good, HDL ok) takes a statin and does not take CoQ10 himself.
Though, he doesn’t take any supplements to begin with.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Also, any thoughts on why more doctors don’t recommend CoQ10 w/statins?
I actually train a cardiologist, AFAIK no risk factors (normal weight, waist is good, BP is good, though he takes a BP pill, but from what I’ve gathered more as a preventative, eats vegetarian, TC is good, HDL ok) takes a statin and does not take CoQ10 himself.
Though, he doesn’t take any supplements to begin with.[/quote]
Why have you not asked him?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Also, any thoughts on why more doctors don’t recommend CoQ10 w/statins?
I actually train a cardiologist, AFAIK no risk factors (normal weight, waist is good, BP is good, though he takes a BP pill, but from what I’ve gathered more as a preventative, eats vegetarian, TC is good, HDL ok) takes a statin and does not take CoQ10 himself.
Though, he doesn’t take any supplements to begin with.[/quote]
Why have you not asked him?[/quote]
to which part?
I have asked if he takes CoQ10, his response is he doesn’t want to worry about taking more pills than needed. I’ve sent him a few studies on CoQ10 depletion, but have not pressed the issue. When dealing with clients you have to take a soft approach.
As for asking him why more doctors don’t recommend them, it hasn’t come up as I was feeling him out on if he took them, and since he didn’t I felt no need to press the matter further., for now anyways.
I have asked him if he thinks doctors should be taught more nutrition in college, answer was not what I expected, but not bad.
kakno- I can’t make out the source
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
kakno- I can’t make out the source[/quote]
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416105
IMO, all-cause mortality is a stupid measure to determine the effectiveness of treatments to prevent specific diseases. Similar to using the intent-to-treat principal, it dilutes the actual effectiveness of treatments and widens confidence intervals. There is no wonder why so many interventions have been shown to be better than placebo (or no-intervention) yet we can’t tell which of the effective treatments is best.
[quote]OzyNut wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
kakno- I can’t make out the source[/quote]
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416105
IMO, all-cause mortality is a stupid measure to determine the effectiveness of treatments to prevent specific diseases. Similar to using the intent-to-treat principal, it dilutes the actual effectiveness of treatments and widens confidence intervals. There is no wonder why so many interventions have been shown to be better than placebo (or no-intervention) yet we can’t tell which of the effective treatments is best.[/quote]
thanks… I hear ya on the “all-cause mortality” part. Is there a reason they can’t keep it to diseases, rather than lumping stuff like auto-accidents in?
[quote]OzyNut wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
kakno- I can’t make out the source[/quote]
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416105
IMO, all-cause mortality is a stupid measure to determine the effectiveness of treatments to prevent specific diseases. Similar to using the intent-to-treat principal, it dilutes the actual effectiveness of treatments and widens confidence intervals. There is no wonder why so many interventions have been shown to be better than placebo (or no-intervention) yet we can’t tell which of the effective treatments is best.[/quote]
Sure, but decreasing mortality is ultimately what really matters. It doesn’t matter if I can prevent a death from a stroke if the patient dies of a hemorrhage instead. All cause mortality isn’t very precise, but accounts for all the negative or useless effects as well, and in really big studies you can see effects of a treatment anyway.
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]OzyNut wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
kakno- I can’t make out the source[/quote]
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416105
IMO, all-cause mortality is a stupid measure to determine the effectiveness of treatments to prevent specific diseases. Similar to using the intent-to-treat principal, it dilutes the actual effectiveness of treatments and widens confidence intervals. There is no wonder why so many interventions have been shown to be better than placebo (or no-intervention) yet we can’t tell which of the effective treatments is best.[/quote]
Sure, but decreasing mortality is ultimately what really matters. It doesn’t matter if I can prevent a death from a stroke if the patient dies of a hemorrhage instead. All cause mortality isn’t very precise, but accounts for all the negative or useless effects as well, and in really big studies you can see effects of a treatment anyway.[/quote]
It’s also important for patients to look at the bigger picture when making a decision. If you learn that taking this drug ultimately reduces the risk of death .02% overall, you might be less likely to do it, even if it reduces a specific risk substantially. Car accidents and all matter in that decision because its part of the odds as to how much a given treatment actually matters. If you take it for a month then die in a car wreck, that treatment didn’t make your life any longer or better.
I think it’s one of the things that’s missed by most people today. We are so concentrated on specific modes and statistics, we forget about the big picture.
FWIW, I have Mr. Jewbacca on Crestor MWF, 5mgs.
I am a doctor and do believe there is a direct causitive link between at least certain kinds of cholesterol and heart disease. I also tend to believe the anti-inflamatory effect of a low dose statin is very beneficial, both as to the heart, but other diseases.
I do recommend coupling Crestor or any statin with CoEnzyme Q10 because the mechanism of the statins also intereferes with COQ10 production.
I prefer Crestor because it can be dosed every-other-day. Most doctors do not know this. It also requires a much lower dose to have clinical effect than generally prescribed (10 mgs/ED), and there is a very direct linkage between dosage and the various bad side effects noted here.
Crestor is, however, expensive so insurance companies prefer the generic Lipitor, even when the dosage is EOD and small. (We cut 20mg pills in 1/4s.)
As a further aside, there is a theory that low-dose statins make anabolic steroids dramatically more effective if the goal is larger muscles because statins interfere with muscle repair and force the body to build new muscle to compensate — if the subject is supplimenting with anabolic steroids and actively weight training — if not, the statins can cause muscle wasting. I don’t have an opinion, one way or the other, if this is true. Just noting the theory due to the nature of this site.
— Mrs. (Dr.) Jewbacca, who is also a mathematician and understands causation and correlation very well, thank you.
would Mrs. Jewbacca take them?
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
would Mrs. Jewbacca take them?[/quote]
No, but my HDL is very high compared to my LDL – a .71 ratio if I remeber correctly.
– Mrs. J
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
would Mrs. Jewbacca take them?[/quote]
No, but my HDL is very high compared to my LDL – a .71 ratio if I remeber correctly.
– Mrs. J[/quote]
Cool, and this isn’t trying to create an argument. You seem rather educated on the matter (obviously), what if your lipid profile was not so good? Of course I’ll have to add the caveat let’s take lifestyle changes out of it. Essentially, in your opinion does the evidence support the use for women.