Even without noticable symptoms, statins are damaging your muscles. : Cholesterol, Heart Disease Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#1 ^

Tue, Feb-08-11, 10:35

Nancy LC

Experimenter

Posts: 25,866

Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 72%

Location: San Diego, CA

Even without noticable symptoms, statins are damaging your muscles.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....es-and-statins/

Quote:

The paper’s authors are from Austria and examined case histories of Austrian professional athletes who attempted to go on statin therapy to treat genetically high cholesterol. Out of 22 athletes, only three were able to tolerate the first statin they were prescribed. Three more were able to eventually tolerate a statin other than the first one prescribed. The remaining 16 — 72% of the total — ended up refusing statin therapy. You can probably guess what it was about statins that most of the athletes couldn’t tolerate: muscle pain and muscle weakness.

The authors noted that in reviews of multiple clinical trials, muscle problems were reported in 5% of those taking statins on average. They also noted that in a study of statin-takers who engage in strenuous exercise, muscle problems affected closer to 25%. Now in this study we’ve got 72% of professional athletes (in an admittedly small sample size) saying they can’t tolerate statins because of muscle problems.

Why do athletes notice the side-effects more than the general population?

Quote:

Draeger’s group did skeletal muscle biopsies from statin treated and non-statin treated patients and examined them using electron microscopy and biochemical approaches. They reported clear evidence of skeletal muscle damage in statin treated patients despite their being asymptomatic. Although the degree of overall damage was minimal, it was the characteristic pattern of damage, including rupture of critical structures that caught the attention of the investigators.

The more you depend on your muscles, the more likely you are to notice minor damage. Most people who sit for a living and aren’t dedicated to exercising could probably become a bit weaker without ever noticing, which would explain why only 5% percent of all statin-takers report muscle problems. But if you limit the study to people who engage in strenuous exercise — and are therefore more likely to track their speed or strength — the number goes up to 25%. Limit the study to professional athletes, and now you’re looking at 72% reporting muscle problems.

Let's remember, your heart is a muscle. So if statins are damaging the muscles in your legs and arms, aren't they also damaging your heart?

Sponsored Links

#2 ^

Wed, Feb-09-11, 22:27

bellaa

Registered Member

Posts: 33

Plan: ZC/VLC/carb cycling
Stats: 185/150/120 Female 5'5

BF:
Progress: 54%

Location: CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy LC

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....es-and-statins/

Why do athletes notice the side-effects more than the general population?

Let's remember, your heart is a muscle. So if statins are damaging the muscles in your legs and arms, aren't they also damaging your heart?

Can the same argument or analysis be said for Red Yeast Rice as well? I decided to take 2 pills for 6 weeks to see if it helps my Dr's concerns. I am not concerned

Here are my lab results:

Total Chol: 286

Trig: 53

HDL: 115

#3 ^

Thu, Feb-10-11, 11:15

NewRuth

Senior Member

Posts: 2,685

Plan: LC gut healing
Stats: 302/285/165 Female 5'3"

BF:Irrelevant
Progress: 12%

Location: Heartland of the USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellaa

Total Chol: 286

Trig: 53

HDL: 115

Why would you want to mess with those numbers??

With those tri's and that HDL, I'd bet your LDL is fluffy, Pattern A. I wouldn't even think about worrying about it unless I had a VAP test.

Statins have no proven benefit for women. They only have been proven to help middle aged men with existing heart disease. Even then, you need to treat 100 men to avoid 1 heart attack, and we haven't even started talking about the dementia, muscle destruction, etc.

ETA:
http://www.spacedoc.net/cheerios_fda

Quote:

...Hypercholesterolemia is a made up condition now said to mean that total serum cholesterol is above 200 mg/dL or LDL-C is over 125 mg/dL. This was done to advance the sales of cholesterol-lowering drugs, and Cheerios® incidentally benefited.

A 2004 observational study from the University of Innsbruck, Austria, on 150,000 subjects showed that low cholesterol levels predict premature death in men of all ages, and in women over the age of 50.

In the 1990 Quebec Cardiovascular Study on 4576 men aged 35-64 years to start, serum total cholesterol levels were not associated with either cardiovascular disease or all-cause mortality.

Even in dialysis patients, all-cause mortality was highest at the lowest total cholesterol levels, being 30% lower when total cholesterol was approximately 240 mg/dL compared with TC <160. Also, mortality was 17% lower at low-density-lipoprotein (LDL-C) approximately 190 mg/dL compared with LDL-C <130 in a 2004 study.

Among the elderly the effects of low serum total cholesterol and low LDL-C were found to be deadly. In a study on residents of northern Manhattan, NY, 2,277 subjects were followed for 10 years with results reported in 2005. Two-thirds were female and 1/3 of the total were Hispanic, African American and white. Subjects were 65-98 years old at baseline, mean age 76. The chance of dying was twice as great in the lowest quartile of total cholesterol or LDL-C levels, while HDL-C and triglyceride levels were not related to all-cause mortality in this age group.

Women had higher baseline total cholesterol and LDL-C levels (206 and 124) than men (191 and 117), yet the women lived longer. Men with the same total cholesterol and LDL-C levels as women lived as long. Of the subjects, 1/5 were taking statin drugs to lower total cholesterol and LDL-C, which would have pushed them into the lowest quartile.

This is an excellent confirmation that high total cholesterol and LDL-C ( low density lipoprotein cholesterol ) levels are beneficial, certainly in the elderly who are most likely to be prescribed a statin drug. The emphasis on the value of lowering LDL-C, rather than lowering total cholesterol, taken by Big Pharma in the last few years, is invalidated by this study. LDL-C is not bad cholesterol; it is an essential form!

Dr. Bernard Forette and a team of French researchers from Paris reported in 1989 that women of mean age 82 with high cholesterol and followed for 5 years lived the longest. When the data of Forette are graphed, the age-adjusted data show a minimal risk of dying out to total cholesterol = 320 mg/dL for elderly women. The minimum death rate occurred with a total cholesterol level of 272 mg/dL, far higher than the current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendations of approximately 200 mg/dL for everyone....

Last edited by NewRuth : Thu, Feb-10-11 at 11:40.

#4 ^

Thu, Feb-10-11, 12:26

Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69

BF:
Progress: 118%

I Have High Cholesterol, and I Don't Care (Part I) by The Healthy Skeptic

2. I Have High Cholesterol, and I Don't Care (Part II)

#5 ^

Fri, Feb-11-11, 22:50

bellaa

Registered Member

Posts: 33

Plan: ZC/VLC/carb cycling
Stats: 185/150/120 Female 5'5

BF:
Progress: 54%

Location: CA

What is fluffy pattern A?

#6 ^

Sat, Feb-12-11, 03:57

Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69

BF:
Progress: 118%

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellaa

What is fluffy pattern A?

Ned Kock has a reasonable blog on the topic

It's also worth having a look at the photo's here so you can see what the differences are.
Health Correlator has a series of cholesterol posts that may help.

#7 ^

Sat, Feb-12-11, 08:00

amergin

Senior Member

Posts: 277

Plan: Low carb, suff. protein
Stats: 115/103/95 Male 191cm

BF:
Progress: 60%

Location: dublin

Good link Hutch. The pics do enlighten me greatly, but there's some more questions I'd like to know the answers to.
If VLDL's are one of the bad guys. In the photos they're way bigger than the LDLs.
So they lose cholesterol and Trigs and eventually become Intermediate(ILDL), then Small LDL. These small LDL are just plain 'ordinary' LDL?
Though they are further sub-divided into what gets referred to around these parts as "harmless fluffy LDL", that is LDL (pattern A), and Small dense LDL(pattern B).
Now here's the frst question; why call it small "fluffy" LDL if they look a lot less fuffy than the VLDL's.
Even more puzzling, the really bad LDL in Koch article is the smallest LDL(pattern B).
Is this produced by the same progression from VLDL > ILDL > LDL? That is, does it go VLDL > ILDL > LDL(pattern A) > LDL (pattern B)?
This seems to suggest that VLDL (bad) and small LDL (badder) are entirely distinct articles. But at opposite ends of the LDL line. Do they vary together because they both seem to be produced by the same hi-sugar diet.

In summary why does LDL get good going from VLDL to "ordinary" LDL pattern A. Then get bad again going from Pattern "A" to LDL Pattern "B".
I know I've got something wrong here but how am I wrong?

#8 ^

Sat, Feb-12-11, 09:36

Nancy LC

Experimenter

Posts: 25,866

Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 72%

Location: San Diego, CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellaa

It contains a statin. It's natural yes, but does the same thing the commercial ones do.
http://www.spacedoc.net/red_yeast_rice.htm

Quote:

Red yeast rice is readily available in the United States as a food supplement and as such it does not fall under FDA guidelines although the FDA has felt obliged to curtail marketing from two manufacturers.

The prevailing opinion about this substance is that since it is natural and uncontrolled it is generally safe to use. This is wrong. The first thing one must understand about red yeast rice is that it is another statin and must be used with understanding.

#9 ^

Sun, Feb-13-11, 05:00

Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69

BF:
Progress: 118%

Mercola has a long interview with Graveline here
For someone with his health problems and age 80 Graveline comes over very well. I think he was tiring a bit towards the end but I think Mercola handled the interview quite sympathetically.
I'm not at all convinced by the "anti inflammatory" justification for the use of statins. It's not that I think NSAID's should be issued in place but rather we should address the NATURAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY deficiency states first.

Why don't we ensure everyone has a natural 25(OH)D status of 60ng/ml that provides naturally vitamin D replete breast milk for babies and built in anti oxidant anti inflammatory reserves in tissue cells?

Why don't we spend more time and effort educating people that our body has a circadian rhythm that requires the natural anti inflammatory anti oxidant melatonin to flood every part from 8pm to 8am and you disrupt that, with late nights/shift work/night lights at your peril.

or that our DNA evolved with an omega 3 omega 6 ratio of 1<>1 and anything above a ratio of 5 omega 6 one omega 3 leads to chronic inflammation.

We know the RDA for the anti inflammatory magnesium intake is not being met by more than 60% of the population and many people think the current RDA is far too low for safety.

Rather than suggest it MAY be justifiable to continue with statins because of their anti inflammatory role may be useful even if we acknowledge the cholesterol lowering is at best useless and at worst damaging we should be correcting basic deficiencies in natural anti inflammatory status and showing people how to eat and live in a less inflammatory manner.

#10 ^

Sun, Feb-13-11, 14:08

NewRuth

Senior Member

Posts: 2,685

Plan: LC gut healing
Stats: 302/285/165 Female 5'3"

BF:Irrelevant
Progress: 12%

Location: Heartland of the USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellaa

HDL: 115

From page 187 of Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat

Quote:

For women, HDL levels are so good at predicting future heart disease that they are, effectively, the only predictors of risk that matter. (When researchers look for genes that predispose individuals to living an exceedingly lengthy life - more than ninety-five or a hundred years - one of the few genes that stand out is a gene for a naturally high HDL cholesterol level.)

#11 ^

Sun, Feb-13-11, 15:46

Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69

BF:
Progress: 118%

Cholesterol-lowering therapy and cell membranes. Stable plaque at the expense of unstable membranes?
This is a nice paper explaining the benefits of keeping your cholesterol.
The whole paper is not that long to read

Quote:

Conclusions
We are now realizing that the intricate connection between endocytosis and exocytosis, cholesterol-rich lipid membranes and the trafficking of lipoproteins within and between cells is the key to understanding the benefits and detriments of cholesterol lowering therapies.
Current guidelines encourage aggressive and long-term cholesterol lowering with statins, in order to decrease cardiovascular disease events [1].
The main benefits of this therapy are thought to be due to plaque stabilization in the arterial wall [83]. However, cholesterol lowering alters cell membranes from head to toe, the implication of which may be good, bad or neither. Most importantly, more research is needed in this field, as wider segments of the population are exposed to aggressive cholesterol lowering. This research should answer the question: Is it possible, with aggressive cholesterol lowering, to achieve long-term plaque stability and simultaneously maintain cellular membrane integrity and function?
It has recently been shown that high LDL cholesterol is not a major cause of death at the population level [84]. Changing our current practice pattern could take many years, but we may one day prescribe cholesterol-raising medications to certain patients [85].

#12 ^

Mon, Feb-14-11, 09:19

bellaa

Registered Member

Posts: 33

Plan: ZC/VLC/carb cycling
Stats: 185/150/120 Female 5'5

BF:
Progress: 54%

Location: CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy LC

It contains a statin. It's natural yes, but does the same thing the commercial ones do.
http://www.spacedoc.net/red_yeast_rice.htm

Wow, just wow. Thank you for pointing this out!

I took the Red Yeast Rice for 1 month and ran out. I am done with it.

I wanted to share 2 things about statins in General that I have observed...

This may or may not be factual. My Mother who has Alzheimer's was put on a statin and I noticed increased confusion (which is one of the Statin side effects).

Now it could have been from the Alzheimer's as well.

That Red Yeast Rice caused confusion about 2 weeks into taking it for ME! Not suggesting anything, just my 2 observations!

#13 ^

Mon, Feb-14-11, 11:34

Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69

BF:
Progress: 118%

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellaa

Now it could have been from the Alzheimer's as well.

That Red Yeast Rice caused confusion about 2 weeks into taking it for ME! Not suggesting anything, just my 2 observations!

APOE-4: The Clue to Why Low Fat Diet and Statins may Cause Alzheimer's by Stephanie Seneff this fairly detailed article explains why you need an alternative fuel supply.