Statins and T2D

[douglas99]

As the man said, "there are lies, **** lies and statistics!".

But, touching your guru!
What does statistics matter then?

 

[macabee]

Unfortunately not everyone has the choice of not taking statins. I have a condition called FH, whereby my liver produces too much cholesterol, it would not matter what I did not, or did eat that for me is a fact, I have been on statins now since 1994.

Without this diagnosis and the introduction of statins 27 years ago, I was told that the chances of me living to 60 was 50%, whilst I have been a diagnosed with T2 [5 years] I manage my condition, my HbA1c has been stable, I am now 71 and intend to be around for awhile yet.

Some of us can come of statins, some can not.

 

[GrannyAnnie]

Many thanks to everyone who responded. I think you are right. There is also reputable medical research that backs this up. Researchers in Finland found that statins were associated with an almost 50% higher risk of developing T2D - even after adjusting the results for all other factors. Statins increase insulin resistance. I no longer take statins. My cholesterol levels went up a little from 2.5 to 3.4 after I stopped, but are now stable and never exceed 4.

I read a report a while ago that stated that cholesterol levels under 4 are as dangerous as those over 6! My cholesterol went DOWN (to 5.01) when I stopped the statins as did my HbA1c.(which is now 34 and I'm chuffed, as my worst was 82).

 

[Bluetit1802]

I read a report a while ago that stated that cholesterol levels under 4 are as dangerous as those over 6! My cholesterol went DOWN (to 5.01) when I stopped the statins as did my HbA1c.(which is now 34 and I'm chuffed, as my worst was 82).

It all depends what your lipid breakdown was. The total is fairly meaningless. It is the HDL/LDL/Triglycerides and ratios that matter. Well done on that HbA1c! Brilliant.

 

[ringi]

Ideally you need the LDL broken down into the sizes of the different particles and/or a particle count done, but both of these tests are costly and I don’t know if GPs can access them. It is now being question if the basic liquid test results are of any use for people on a low curb, but don't expect a GP to know that. (Remember what the G stands for!)

For more details read the "living low curb" book.

 

[librarising]

Ideally you need the LDL broken down into the sizes of the different particles and/or a particle count done, but both of these tests are costly and I don’t know if GPs can access them.

"Many studies have found that the triglyceride/HDL cholesterol ratio (TG/HDL-C ratio) correlates strongly with the incidence and extent of coronary artery disease. This relationship is true both for men and women.
One study found that a TG/HDL-C ratio above 4 was the most powerful independent predictor of developing coronary artery disease."
http://www.docsopinion.com/2014/07/17/triglyceride-hdl-ratio/

Triglycerides are usually tested as part of a full lipid panel test. They can be useful to determine whether your LDL is largely harmless or largely harmful. A fasting test is essential for an accurate trigs result. Perhaps next 'bloods' test try to get an early appointment, so any morning food can be taken afterwards.
Geoff

 

[Bluetit1802]

NICE brought out new recommendations for calculating CVD risk, advising GPs to look at the Non-HDL levels rather than just the LDL. The supposed ideal level for Non-HDL is under 3.4. The updated 2017 Qrisk2 formula now asks for the Non-HDL level and does not ask for any of the other bits of the breakdown. This is the tool that all GPs have to use when calculating CVD risk. . https://qrisk.org/2017/

 

[bkr]

This is an interesting one.

I tried to chat with the NHS optometrist about, as they say there is a small bit of cholesterol in my eye, near the retina (as I recall, although I have great vision near & far, as I always had). They said if I'd taken the statins this would maybe not have happened (I was fearful of them so tried to give them a wide berth), I had a really high hba1c on diagnosis & now its in almost normal range - this has caused issue with some blood vessels in my eyes because of significant drop in levels, seemed strange to me. Does anyone have any experience of this statin / cholesterol conversation with their NHS/Nurse folks?

 

[keitjones]

I refused to take statins. And lowered my bad cholesterol with plant sterol and exercise. There is some research saying statins can cause spikes in blood sugars.

 

[prancer53]

I have been type 1 for 56 years (no complications). 15 years ago I had my 1st cholesterol test. This was just fine. Doc quoted HDL & LDL numbers & stated that taking low away from high gave reading (mine was 2. something) which was low. This was repeated a year later with same/ good reading. A year after that I had a health check at GP's. They told me I needed statins. When I questioned this I was told that my TOTAL cholesterol was above 4. TOTAL meant they had added LDL & HDL--------in other words the goal posts had been changed------- on which premise I was prescribed statins "because you are diabetic so it is even more important to have lower than normal cholesterol." When I researched it, I discovered that my "good" reading was extremely good and that I should not be taking statins. Added to this I took statins (wonderfully compliant, I am) but by the 7th day I became physically weak and felt depressed. No good to be weak (teaching BTEC, A Level & GCSE dance) as my physical state is extremely important in order to be able to do a good job. I came off statins. When I next saw GP she reinforced importance of taking statins because of diabetes--even if I just took 1/2 tab daily...tried that... same thing happened but this time after only 3 days. Came off them again and have not taken a statin since. Apparently for good health and heart protection as one ages, a higher cholesterol reading is beneficial anyway. Was also told BP was high and put on medication for that--it nearly killed me. Fortunately I was at my sons at the time--he is a paramedic so took BM (within range) and BP. He found BP was dangerously low & said he was going to take me to hospital because it posed a particular danger to my heart, not to mention to my life. On this occasion I was non-compliant and refused. Years later he told me that my heart must have been stronger than normal, for a female of my age, otherwise I could easily have died. I spent the rest of that day on son's sofa with feet above my head.......!!!!!

 

[prancer53]

There have been very large scale trails that show taking Statins increase length of life and quality of like even if someone’s Cholesterol is “normal”. I think Statins make a high BG less harmful and the benefits are a lot more than the harm from a small increase in BG.

Personally I going to keep taking the Statins and reduce my BG with low (or mid) curb food, a walk after most meals (10 minutes is shown to be of a lot of benefit) and increased exercise to improve insulin sensitivity. I am about to start to strength exercise as well as the current power walking, so as to get more muscle in the rest of my body, as they can burn fat for me, and take up the BG more quickly. (I should lose 4 stone, but care more about increasing muscle mass and keeping BG low.)

Remember the BG monitoring is a tool, and the BG level is a way to help you see how you are doing, having a low BG is of no value if you die due to something else, or have a low quality of life….. (Since my GP have decided I have Diabetes (just over two weeks ago) I have gone from a BG of 35 to mostly under 6, most of this due to reducing curb, including no longer drinking a carton of orange juice each day.)

Most people get on well with Statins, most people who post to a forum do not. That does not mean that most people reading the forum will not get on well with Statins! (The same can be said about Metformin, the only diabetes med I am happy to take.)

It's not that you live longer on statins---that is only what it feels like........!!!!