Quantcast

Statins

Help Support ValveReplacement.org:

Nocturne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
485
Location
Rhode Island
Consider a "heart event" to be akin to a house fire.

Amount of LDL (or more accurately poorness of LDL/HDL ratio) is like frequency of lighting a match inside the house and throwing it in a random direction. The more often you do this, the more likely you are to have a house fire.

Amount of CAC is like the amount of tinder lying around in the house. Of course, the more tinder, the more likely you are to have a house fire.

The two are not the same, and not even all that associated with each other. But they are both independently predictive of house fires.

Cholesterol (for most people) can be lowered effectively by various means.

CAC... Weeeeeellll... There is the Ornish/Esselstyn option, which will leave you envious of the dietary freedoms of diabetics who also have Celiac disease. That MIGHT help. Or it might not.

Doctor Davis (of Wheat Belly fame) has an alternate method, which may or may not work as well. He also claims to have patients who have reversed aortic stenosis via aged garlic extract. None of this is talked about by the standard cardio docs.

As near as I can tell, CRP is all but irrelevant. Mine was below 1 a few months before diagnosis with degenerative calcific (ie "senile") AS and CAD, at the age of 42.
 

Nocturne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
485
Location
Rhode Island
Paleowoman;n872121 said:
"Unfortunately CAC has less to do with cholesterol levels than you'd expect," - I know, I quote my choesterol numbers knowing, happily, that they have nothing to do with CAC, or even to do with heart disease. The cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease is being contradicte/overturned frequently. The causes of heart disease still not completely identified - but I have no risk factors apart from age.

"your HDL seems almost mutation level high." - no they're not high through mutation. Up to ten years ago my HDL was absolutley like most peoples', ie 77 (I keep a graph). Then I adopted a 'paleo' diet, ie, cut out all grain foods, all starchy foods, legumes, all sugars, I ate organically reared meat, which includes fatty cuts of beef, lamb, chicken, fish, but especially oily, wild fish, eggs, nuts, especially almonds and walnuts, lots of veggies (veggies with every meal inclucing breakfast, meat, fish or eggs with every meal including breakfast) and fats such as coconut oil, and a glass of red wine every supper :). Year on year my HDL has risen steadily. Also do exercise !
77 is very high for a man, but then you are not a man. ;^)

I did a lite shift compared to yours, as I still eat some sugars, processed foods, and (whole) grains, but also lost 25% of my body mass. Went from zero exercise to brisk walking about 45 minutes per day (which is about what Esselstyn recommends for CAC reversal). I eat a handful or two of nuts every day, an almond/walnut/pistachio/cashew mix I make myself, as well as that glass of red wine. Salmon was always a favorite but wild caught is difficult on my kids as there are a lot of bones in it. I cook salmon or trout a couple times a week -- they love it, thankfully. My five year old daughter was unsure about salmon until we started calling it "pink fish" -- then she got on board. :)

My HDL went from 35 to 30, then clawed its way up to 40. But if you say that over years of time it can go up more, then that is good.

Edit: Paleowoman, I thought you were diabetic. That is actually a very big risk factor.

More Edit: Legumes are off the paleo diet? I had not known that. What is the real paleo limitation on grains? There are a lot of grains besides wheat; I see some folks saying some of those are OK and others railing against them. Either way, Esselstyn etc. would seem to frown on paleo because of all the meat -- but I always have it in the back of my mind that vegetarianism is an ideology for some, and wonder if this could be the case with him.
 

cldlhd

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
1,279
Location
Levittown ,Pa 19054
Nocturne;n872133 said:
Consider a "heart event" to be akin to a house fire.

Amount of LDL (or more accurately poorness of LDL/HDL ratio) is like frequency of lighting a match inside the house and throwing it in a random direction. The more often you do this, the more likely you are to have a house fire.

Amount of CAC is like the amount of tinder lying around in the house. Of course, the more tinder, the more likely you are to have a house fire.

The two are not the same, and not even all that associated with each other. But they are both independently predictive of house fires.

Cholesterol (for most people) can be lowered effectively by various means.

CAC... Weeeeeellll... There is the Ornish/Esselstyn option, which will leave you envious of the dietary freedoms of diabetics who also have Celiac disease. That MIGHT help. Or it might not.

Doctor Davis (of Wheat Belly fame) has an alternate method, which may or may not work as well. He also claims to have patients who have reversed aortic stenosis via aged garlic extract. None of this is talked about by the standard cardio docs.

As near as I can tell, CRP is all but irrelevant. Mine was below 1 a few months before diagnosis with degenerative calcific (ie "senile") AS and CAD, at the age of 42.
I wouldn't necessarily say that means CRP is irrelevant to CAC. All that proves is that someone can have a low CRP and still have CAC. The percentage of people with high CRP who also have high levels of CAC might be a lot higher than the percentage who have low CRP but high CAC. Which could still be correlation without causation but gets us closer to something,maybe.
 

Nocturne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
485
Location
Rhode Island
cldlhd;n872141 said:
I wouldn't necessarily say that means CRP is irrelevant to CAC. All that proves is that someone can have a low CRP and still have CAC. The percentage of people with high CRP who also have high levels of CAC might be a lot higher than the percentage who have low CRP but high CAC. Which could still be correlation without causation but gets us closer to something,maybe.
Yah, but from my POV as someone with fairly low CRP (anything below a 1 is "low risk") and ungodly high CAC... CRP looks like a non-starter.

It also just doesn't correlate all that well to actual cardiac events. Certainly not when compared to CAC. Which makes sense, you know, because CRP is a marker at best, while CAC is actually (part of) coronary plaque -- the disease itself.

But it was fun, for a while, when I was worried about my low T being connected to heart issues, to hear the docs saying, "With a CRP score like yours? At YOUR age? Fuhgeddaboudit! Ya FINE!"

They thought I worried too much.
 

Agian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
2,343
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Paleowoman, read this statement carefully: "Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit,"
 

Agian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
2,343
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Paleowoman;n872129 said:
People with abnormally low levels of cholesterol die from other things such as infections and cancer.
Well, of course they do. If you don't die from heart disease, you'll die from something else. I know what you mean though.

Fish out the recent GLAGOV study.
 

Paleowoman

VR.org Supporter
VR.org Supporter
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
2,802
Location
Surrey, UK
Agian;n872144 said:
Paleowoman, read this statement carefully: "Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit,"
Hi Aglan - you did not read what I wrote preceeding that quote - I wrote: "I will not get links for those studies (except metaanalysis from BMJ lower down) because the supporters of the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease call those studies unreputable and also add that LDL should therefore be lower,:" Go back and look.That is why I quoted that passage to illustrate exactly what you just pointed out - I'd already pointed out what you subsequently did ! Here: http://www.valvereplacement.org/forums/forum/heart-talk/871677-statins?p=872129#post872129
 

Agian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
2,343
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Paleowoman;n872146 said:
Hi Aglan - you did not read what I wrote preceeding that quote - I wrote: "I will not get links for those studies (except metaanalysis from BMJ lower down) because the supporters of the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease call those studies unreputable and also add that LDL should therefore be lower,:" Go back and look.That is why I quoted that passage to illustrate exactly what you just pointed out - I'd already pointed out what you subsequently did ! Here: http://www.valvereplacement.org/foru...129#post872129
No biggie. They looked at coronary artery plaques under the electron microscope and discovered they were actually deposits of polystyrene.
 

dornole

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
713
Location
Minnesota, US
Well yay! I achieved a 70% reduction in my cholesterol by . . . . waiting 5 days and going in for another test. The diet and exercise are still on though!
 

OldManEmu

Well-known member
VR.org Supporter
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
959
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I had very low cholesterol at the time of my first surgery when I was 41, when I had my second surgery just before my 48 birthday it was much higher. I was concerned about this given that my diet hadn't changed and nor had my weight, so I queried the cardio and the response was about 25% of the population has an increase in cholesterol at around 50 and the current thinking is that this is genetic issue rather than a life style issue. I have taken statins now for almost 6 years since my second surgery with no side effects. My cholesterol has been below the level recommended for patients with heart issues since I started on statins and I want it to stay there.
I also had no coronary artery blockages it the time of both my pre surgery angios. I will need another VR in the future however I hope to continue to avoid blocked coronary artery's and CABG surgery.
 

slipkid

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
186
Location
Schwenksville, PA, USA
My father in law tried all the statins and finally had to stop due to significant side effects. He now takes Red Rice Yeast and his cholesterol is controlled with no side effects.
Tthe reason Red Rice Yeast can lower cholesterol is BECAUSE it contains the same active ingredient as a statin (lovastatin). It is actually more dangerous to take than that statin itself since you don't even know HOW MUCH of the statin that it contains. I'm surprised no one mentioned this above already.

Red yeast rice might contain compounds that appear to lower cholesterol levels. One of the compounds is monacolin K, the same ingredient that is in the prescription cholesterol-lowering drug lovastatin (Altoprev).

Some red yeast rice products contain substantial amounts of monacolin K, which is chemically identical to the active ingredient in the cholesterol-lowering drug lovastatin. These products may lower blood cholesterol levels and can cause the same types of side effects and drug interactions as lovastatin.


It's true that red yeast rice, which contains monacolin K, a chemical that's identical to the active ingredient in the cholesterol-lowering drug lovastatin (Mevacor), may reduce your LDL (bad) cholesterol and lower your total cholesterol. However, an independent analysis of a dozen 600-milligram (mg) capsules of red yeast rice products conducted a few years ago found that the actual monacolin K content varied widely — from 0.1 mg to 10.9 mg. (The lowest dose of lovastatin is 20 mg.) In addition, one-third of the products were contaminated with a potentially toxic compound called citrinin, which can damage the kidneys. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has blocked the sale of red yeast rice supplements that contain enough of the active ingredient to make them as effective as lovastatin because they haven't undergone the drug approval process. Unlike FDA-approved drugs, supplements can be sold without proof of effectiveness and purity.

We can't see any benefit to taking a red yeast rice supplement instead of a statin. There is no guarantee that the supplement will contain enough of the active ingredient to be effective or that it will be free of citrinin or other impurities. There are several types — and several different dosages — of statins. You should consider talking to your doctor about finding one that suits you.
 

Latest posts

Top