Statin drugs reduce the enzyme pathways that make cholesterol in the liver. CoQ10 production also depends on that same enzyme pathway and that can reduce CoQ10 levels. More so in some individuals.
Reduced CoQ10 can reduce mitochondrial metabolism, reducing ATP and energy levels. Reduced mitochondrial metabolism then, drum roll please, decreased metabolism of cholesterol as well as reduced insulin sensitivity.
One can then take Ubiquinol form of CoQ10 to compensate.
Reduced CoQ10 levels can also weaken muscles and the left ventricle of the heart can weaken and then the blood flow from the lungs is impeded and pressure builds up there and fluid leaks into the lungs. There can be a persistent cough and the is exactly the mechanism of congestive heart failure, but drug induced. Have seen Ubiquinol eliminate that.
@KSman dude, I did mention that I’m completely new to this I apologize. I didn’t even know what a “sticky” meant. I understand now how things work around here I’m sorry
Very sorry. Was never much of a chemist. That means it lowers T? I don’t take it often anymore, but it would be good to know if it was going to mess up my T levels.
Any ideas on licorice? I actually really like licorice tea, but again, not interested if it is going to lower my performance. It looks as though there are two schools of thought on it. one says it lower T, the other seems to indicate it actually helps.
I have been working hard in the gym and do not want to sabotage my efforts.
Some drugs like this load up the same liver enzyme pathways that clear estrogens from your blood. So less estrogens get removed and estrogens levels increase. That causes the hypothalamus and pituitary to produce less LH and that reduces T levels. The E:T ratio gets damaged on both side and one can get estrogen dominance, low libido, sometimes gyno.
Some truth here, a lot of pseudo science. Long-standing infection is never a good thing. Some are real, some are imagined. Periodontal disease and abscesses should raise the flag of concern. The focal infection theory as it relates to root canals has been long disproved. If this is truly a board where science is valued, that theory must be rejected.
Of course, it is based on a "subclinical"level, which are impossible to detect or prove: very convenient. The only practitioners that ascribe to it are those that stand to make a lot of money off the patient.
“Drawing severe criticism in the 1930s, focal infection theory—whose popularity zealously exceeded consensus evidence—was discredited in the 1940s by research attacks that drew overwhelming consensus of this sweeping theory’s falsity.”