• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

More Cholesterol nonsense

britishpub

britishpub

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,722
Location
Richmond
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Not strictly about Diabetes so forgive me......

My wife, who is 55 5ft 2 tall and barely 6st 10 (94 lbs) and with a blood pressure reading that is so low it’s barely measurable, had a Blood Test recently and was asked to make an appointment “as a matter of urgency”

Anyway her total Cholesterol came back as 6.8 so of course going on Statins is the only way to head off impending doom.

Her refusal was met with disbelief and a threat that she would have to go through all this “stress” every year until she did as she was told !!!

Her breakdown is interesting and probably quite unusual, and certainly not understood or even looked at by the Doctor.

Total Cholesterol 6.8
Serum non HDL Cholesterol 3.1
Serum triglycerides 1.0
Serum LDL Cholesterol 2.65
Serum HDL Cholesterol 3.70
Serum Cholesterol/HDL 1.8

Doctors are idiots !!!
 
When next I see my doctor I am in for an argument as when I picked up my last repeat prescription at the pharmacy I said to them don't tick the box for statins I no longer wish to take them and please to remove them from the bag of meds they were about to hand me.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
NICE recommendations changed. Doctors should now look at the non-HDL level, which is why labs now include this in the reports. They didn't used to.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181/chapter/2-Implementation-getting-started

Non-HDL should be under 4 (3.4 for diabetics)

Your wife's is 3.1. In other words, perfect.

Her doctor needs updating.
Click to expand...
Also if you are a well-controlled diabetic I'd like to see the science that justifies a different level between diabetics and non-diabetics. I suspect NICE just made it up?
 
Daibell said:
Also if you are a well-controlled diabetic I'd like to see the science that justifies a different level between diabetics and non-diabetics. I suspect NICE just made it up?
Click to expand...

Yes, like a lot of other standards are made up.
I am not agreeing with the non-HDL level being the right thing to look for, but it is a step forward from Total
 
britishpub said:
so of course going on Statins is the only way to head off impending doom.
Click to expand...

There's other ways. When I started a low carb diet by cutting out bread/potato/rice/pasta my total cholesterol dropped dramatically. Enough for me to stop taking statins which had caused me grief for 17 years. Presently TC is 4, but has been 5.7.

What I don't understand is that GPs are very quick to tell you to take statins to prevent your arteries from clogging up, but won't check to see what the state of your arteries are. There is some evidence, mainly in animals, less so in humans, that diet can reverse the effects of artery plaque build up.

britishpub said:
a threat that she would have to go through all this “stress” every year until she did as she was told !!!
Click to expand...

GPs threatening? Unethical!

I've asked GPs in the past to explain why the level they expect is the number it is. They don't have clue. I've then asked if the people making the decision have any conflict of interest, like where does their research funding come from, wouldn't be the pharmaceutical company would it? Could also ask how they intend to overcome the impending muscle pain referred to in the Merck Pharmaceutical patent application of 1990, to add CoQ10 to the statin. It doesn't affect everyone the same way.
 
britishpub said:
Not strictly about Diabetes so forgive me......

My wife, who is 55 5ft 2 tall and barely 6st 10 (94 lbs) and with a blood pressure reading that is so low it’s barely measurable, had a Blood Test recently and was asked to make an appointment “as a matter of urgency”

Anyway her total Cholesterol came back as 6.8 so of course going on Statins is the only way to head off impending doom.

Her refusal was met with disbelief and a threat that she would have to go through all this “stress” every year until she did as she was told !!!

Her breakdown is interesting and probably quite unusual, and certainly not understood or even looked at by the Doctor.

Total Cholesterol 6.8
Serum non HDL Cholesterol 3.1
Serum triglycerides 1.0
Serum LDL Cholesterol 2.65
Serum HDL Cholesterol 3.70
Serum Cholesterol/HDL 1.8

Doctors are idiots !!!
Click to expand...
My husband was prescribed atrostatin 20mg which he refused to take so they reduced it to 10 mg which he also refused to take - he’s on other meds which can interact with statins has also seen the side effects first hand when I was on them. I have the statins talk at every appt but just listen, smile and refuse their kind offer!!
 
Daibell said:
Also if you are a well-controlled diabetic I'd like to see the science that justifies a different level between diabetics and non-diabetics. I suspect NICE just made it up?
Click to expand...
When I asked this question as my hba1c has been between 38 and 35 for the last 4 years I was told once a ‘diabetic always a diabetic’ - still refused their prescription though.
 
Daibell said:
Also if you are a well-controlled diabetic I'd like to see the science that justifies a different level between diabetics and non-diabetics. I suspect NICE just made it up?
Click to expand...
Always something that struck me as strange too.
 
lindisfel said:
Associational study and rather restricted. I would look across spectrum before coming to a conclusion on narrow basis.
regards
Derek
Click to expand...

Maybe u know more about research methods.

I see it as if statin is used to supress cholesterol, ldl to very low it is no good. On the other hand, as in the article, hdl although it is good, but too high it inhibits new vessels formation. The key is about balance.
 
I have heard many studies refer to too low being associated with greater all cause mortality in the elderly so it always surprises me that the older clients I see are still taking statins past the age of 60 and with no diagnosed heart disease. The ldl are analagous to boats ferrying the much needed cholesterol to somewhere it is needed for repair in the body. As we age our bodies are more in need of repair yet statins cut off or reduce that metabolic pathway along with the one that produces ubiquinol (co enzyme q10) hence Merck's ideas to incorporate this with a statin (I guess it may also give them a new patent). Too high LDL in combination with low HDL and high triglcerides indicates inflammatory damage with those LDL being the wrong type of LDL (small and dense vs. large and fluffy). As for well controlled diabetics perhaps needing a 'normal' risk indicator for ld that doesn't take into account damage caused by having abnormal glycation in the past. I have had it for 36 years so damage has occurred even if have perfect HBA1cs from now on but I won't take a statin because it won't solve the problem but that doesn't mean there isn't some collateral damage depending the duration of the diabetes and how frequent the highs were.
 
DavidGrahamJones said:
There's other ways. When I started a low carb diet by cutting out bread/potato/rice/pasta my total cholesterol dropped dramatically. Enough for me to stop taking statins which had caused me grief for 17 years. Presently TC is 4, but has been 5.7.

What I don't understand is that GPs are very quick to tell you to take statins to prevent your arteries from clogging up, but won't check to see what the state of your arteries are. There is some evidence, mainly in animals, less so in humans, that diet can reverse the effects of artery plaque build up.



GPs threatening? Unethical!

I've asked GPs in the past to explain why the level they expect is the number it is. They don't have clue. I've then asked if the people making the decision have any conflict of interest, like where does their research funding come from, wouldn't be the pharmaceutical company would it? Could also ask how they intend to overcome the impending muscle pain referred to in the Merck Pharmaceutical patent application of 1990, to add CoQ10 to the statin. It doesn't affect everyone the same way.
Click to expand...
I so agree with the bit about why don't they first check the state of your arteries before prescribing statins? Same with blood pressure, mine has always gone up at the clinic or Doctors (and whenever it was checked through three pregnancies), I just KNEW it was white coat syndrome even though it must have been subconscious stress because I always thought I remained calm. The GP mentioned statins (or BP drugs, not sure what) but kept saying we'll leave it for now etc mainly I think because I was slim and a runner etc so didn't fit HIS idea of a person with BP issues - they really are swayed by the look of a person!. Anyway I had a private BP ambulatory check done and over a period of 24 hours my BP was actually perfect and in fact dropped quite low during the night. What would have happened if I had simply been put on BP lowering drugs with NO testing?
 
KK123 said:
I so agree with the bit about why don't they first check the state of your arteries before prescribing statins? Same with blood pressure, mine has always gone up at the clinic or Doctors (and whenever it was checked through three pregnancies), I just KNEW it was white coat syndrome even though it must have been subconscious stress because I always thought I remained calm. The GP mentioned statins (or BP drugs, not sure what) but kept saying we'll leave it for now etc mainly I think because I was slim and a runner etc so didn't fit HIS idea of a person with BP issues - they really are swayed by the look of a person!. Anyway I had a private BP ambulatory check done and over a period of 24 hours my BP was actually perfect and in fact dropped quite low during the night. What would have happened if I had simply been put on BP lowering drugs with NO testing?
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
millenium said:
Maybe u know more about research methods.

I see it as if statin is used to supress cholesterol, ldl to very low it is no good. On the other hand, as in the article, hdl although it is good, but too high it inhibits new vessels formation. The key is about balance.
Click to expand...
Hi Millennium,
I would be happy if my HDL was 1.9, it was 1.6 last time and my Trigs were 1.0. Total was about 5.9.
They prescribed statins for me ages ago but I won't take them, they had my older sister walking round holding the furniture because of the muscle pains. And I think it was statins that put me over the bar into the T2D trap!

I have to take too many powerful meds that I have to take without trying to modify cholesterol with dubious benefits.
Best wishes
Derek
ps Interesting name you've got! Are u pre, post or A? Of course you could be just 18! :)
 
Last edited:
Bluetit1802 said:
NICE recommendations changed. Doctors should now look at the non-HDL level, which is why labs now include this in the reports. They didn't used to.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181/chapter/2-Implementation-getting-started

Non-HDL should be under 4 (3.4 for diabetics)

Your wife's is 3.1. In other words, perfect.

Her doctor needs updating.
Click to expand...
BUMP!
Just bookmarked this link, and it seems we should all consider doing this for when we have those frank discussions with HCP on lipid results. My sugery and lab are now changed for the new way, so I am confused. GP says results this year were satisfactory. Will know tomorrow at my annual checkup.
 
lindisfel said:
Hi Millennium,
I would be happy if my HDL was 1.9, it was 1.6 last time and my Trigs were 1.0. Total was about 5.9.
They prescribed statins for me ages ago but I won't take them, they had my older sister walking round holding the furniture because of the muscle pains. And I think it was statins that put me over the bar into the T2D trap!

I have to take too many powerful meds that I have to take without trying to modify cholesterol with dubious benefits.
Best wishes
Derek
ps Interesting name you've got! Are u pre, post or A? Of course you could be just 18! :)
Click to expand...

I have drawn those conclusions based on observing the cholesterols and glucose readings of my 80 yo father every year from 2015-2018. The literature review supported my observations.

My father experience statin side effect similar to what you experience. He went from pre diabetic to type two within two weeks after taking atorvastatin 40mg a day. He also get muscle pain and insomia that prevent him from exercising properly.

As his cholesterol levels were just slightly into borderline elevation, i tapered the statin off and concentrate on proper exercise and carb control. All the side effects went off within a month. Within three months, his fbg return to prediabete level. After less then a year, he now has fbg of 5.8 and hba1c 4.7.

His hdl gone up from 1.0 to 1.6. His ldl is 2.52. Total cholesterol is 4.38. His tg is just 0.59. I considered that as optimum based on his total cholesterol level.
 
Back
Top