Cholesterol and older women

Personally, I will never take statin drugs again and no doctor will be able to convince me otherwise. I had horrendous side effects. I've also done my own research and found that they are not useful for women anyway. Here's just some of the research I've found on the subject:

http://www.whp-apsf.ca/pdf/statinsEvidenceCaution.pdf
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/statinswomen.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1973295,00.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303886/

Note in the conclusions of the last study:

"If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial."

This is a slight diversion from your question @Pinkorchid but I feel Indy has given brilliant info already on that.

I have been wondering about diabetes and the recommended cholesterol levels during the past few days. I recently had an HbA1c and was told I had excellent control, yet 'they' still want my total cholesterol level to be below 4 because I am diabetic. Surely if as T2s we run permanently normal BG's then the lower limit recommended for diabetics is irrelevant to us anyway?

Pinkorchid said:

Can anyone tell me where I can find the information that says higher cholesterol is beneficial to older women and does this apply to those with diabetes. I have Googled it but I can't find anything about it

Click to expand...

I read somewhere that it is better when being older , maybe over 70 years of age to have a little higher cholesterol....

but I personally think that the level of cholesterol is a picture of how much constant repair that is going on in our body , and that raised cholesterol is an expression of the body trying to repair a lot...
/ that a lot of repair is needed...

sometimes the noting that something is raised at the same time is not the same as it being the cause to each other....I don´t think that even the doctors know for sure...

if cholesterol lowering medicin was known to repair something in our body and not only lower the cholesterol it would seem more logical to jump into taking those statins...but who actually KNOWS that ?

another thing is being diabetic and not being able to get ones blood glucose numbers down to a normal range like non diabetic beings, then it is known that there is a lot of oxidation going on all the time , the higher your numbers the worse... and oxidation is damaging your body more and more over time... and then maybe if one can not get ones numbers down to normal... maybe everything you can do to normalize your cholesterol levels is good.. cause cholesterol makes cloths in the blood vessels when these are inflamated/ cronially inflamated... and there the amount of free cholesterol in the blood is of some importance...

here s what the American diabetes association says on the matter : http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/suppl_2/S384
"""
Both in primary prevention and in the very-high-risk patients, it seems that statins reduce major cardiovascular events irrespective (at least in part) of the baseline and post-therapy LDL levels achieved. Should statins be generally prescribed in a fixed-dose manner? We would not go so far as to suggest that, but indeed, in the diabetic individual whose LDL cholesterol is seemingly within normal limits, this should be considered. The indication for statin therapy in diabetic individuals should not rely solely on LDL levels but on the inherent cardiovascular risk that accompanies this disease (even if goal LDL levels are met).

We believe that the standards of care for individuals with diabetes should mirror the evidence. Replacing a fixed-dose statin trial scheme with a treat-to-target LDL guideline is controversial. This inherent problem of the current guidelines should be amended. Evidence based on “hard” outcome trials of statin use should guide our treatment goals and considerations, not epidemiologic or extrapolated LDL-based data."""

Whilst I respect everyone having the right to their own opinion, I would throw into the mix that I have always struggled to find studies where the subjects have been primarily female, or even of equal proportions. It would see that as, historically, more males than females experienced CVD, that studies would follow the majority. I understand that, but I don't find it to be helpful to me as a person of the female persuasion.

For now, for me, I'll pass on statins. My lipids return an inconveniently high Total number, but the components are good. I see no reason why I would want to reduce good numbers in order to match a target total I am not satisfied has been reached in any way other than random, or "surely lower is better" finger in the air.

Zoe Harcombe, Trudi Deakin, Assem Malhotra aren't NHS target chasers, and their arguments have been formed in recent years, not when I was a girl which is some time ago now (although, obviously, you'd never believe it. OK, I lie on that last bit!).

AndBreathe said:

Whilst I respect everyone having the right to their own opinion, I would throw into the mix that I have always struggled to find studies where the subjects have been primarily female, or even of equal proportions. It would see that as, historically, more males than females experienced CVD, that studies would follow the majority. I understand that, but I don't find it to be helpful to me as a person of the female persuasion.

For now, for me, I'll pass on statins. My lipids return an inconveniently high Total number, but the components are good. I see no reason why I would want to reduce good numbers in order to match a target total I am not satisfied has been reached in any way other than random, or "surely lower is better" finger in the air.

Zoe Harcombe, Trudi Deakin, Assem Malhotra aren't NHS target chasers, and their arguments have been formed in recent years, not when I was a girl which is some time ago now (although, obviously, you'd never believe it. OK, I lie on that last bit!).

Click to expand...

among diabetics there is a huge raise in the numbers of CVD

the women especially compared to other women
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2015/914057/fig1/
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2015/914057/
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/124/19/2145



https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/dhd/atrisk
http://www.texasheart.org/HIC/Topics/HSmart/women.cfm
and writing :
"""
Cholesterol levels are also related to a person's risk of heart disease. Doctors look at how your levels of LDL, HDL, and fats called triglycerides relate to each other and to your total cholesterol level. Before menopause, women in general have higher cholesterol levels than men because estrogen increases HDL levels in the blood. A study reported in the American Journal of Cardiology found that HDL levels were the most important predictor of cardiovascular health. That is, the higher a woman's HDL level, the less likely she is to have a cardiovascular event such as heart attack or stroke. But after menopause, HDL levels tend to drop, increasing the risk of heart disease. HDL and LDL cholesterol levels can be improved by diet, exercise, and, in serious cases, statins or other cholesterol-lowering medicines.

Obesity is a strong predictor for heart disease, especially among women. A person is considered obese if body weight exceeds the "desirable" weight for height and gender by 20 percent or more. Where fat settles on the body is also an important predictor. Women who have a lot of fat around the waist are at greater risk than those who have fat around the hips. In the United States, about one third of women are classified as obese. A plan of diet and exercise approved by your doctor is the best way to safely lose weight.

Diabetes is more common in overweight, less active women and poses a greater risk because it cancels the protective effects of estrogen in premenopausal women. Results of one study showed that women with diabetes have a higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than men with diabetes have. The increased risk may also be explained by the fact that most diabetic patients tend to be overweight and physically inactive, have high cholesterol levels, and are more likely to have high blood pressure. Proper management of diabetes is important for cardiovascular Health. """

I appreciate that CVD is rising in women in particular, but that doesn't prove, to me at least, that the historic research is valid for women, or indeed that the target levels are appropriate in any way to me or anyone else.

There are a number of YouTube videos by Aseem Malhotra, a practicing UK Cardiologist, that you might find interesting.

http://doctoraseem.com/biography/

I will reiterate that statins are a personal choice, and I have made mine. I have no expectation that everyone would follow my lead, and indeed, if they did, without doing their own research, I would be horrified.

If you are taking statins, and are happy and healthy doing so, I would do nothing to persuade you to do anything different.

zand said:

This is a slight diversion from your question @Pinkorchid but I feel Indy has given brilliant info already on that.

I have been wondering about diabetes and the recommended cholesterol levels during the past few days. I recently had an HbA1c and was told I had excellent control, yet 'they' still want my total cholesterol level to be below 4 because I am diabetic. Surely if as T2s we run permanently normal BG's then the lower limit recommended for diabetics is irrelevant to us anyway?

Click to expand...

Like @zand at each diabetic review I have the 'statins' discussion/argument. My hba1c has been within normal levels for the last 2.5 years but when I suggest that my cholesterol levels should be equal to non-diabetic the response is 'once a diabetic always a diabetic'. I also point out that it was being on statins that pushed my bs up from 48 to 54 in the first place hence my refusal to take them!

The latest standard of care is statins for all diabetics, regardless of cholesterol levels. It's quite insane.

Because my thyroid is not working properly (long story) my cholesterol is now 7.9, trigs 1.6, HDL 2.1 and LDL 5.1, my Doctor told me not to be worried - and I don't take statins.

Completely off topic, but when I read "Cholesterol and Older Women" I sighed and thought "My two greatest weaknesses."

As Malcolm Kendrick puts it (this is not a direct quotation, I don't have his book with me) Statins will not change the date I write on your death certificate, they may change the cause of death!

Even the earliest statin trials (where the full data, despite repeated requests from other researchers, have never been released) the hard end point (death) is not improved. Fewer people die of CVD but more die of cancer, even accidents (something to do with 'brain fog'? and suicides ?depression? For men who have had a previous CVD problem there is a small but statistically significant improved outcome to 'statination' - for women there has never been a study that has demonstrated benefit in real, hard outcomes. Reduction in total cholesterol that does not translate to improved life expectancy or reduced number of Cardio Vascular events is meaningless.

There are no circumstance where I would take a statin. There is a presumption that statins are universally beneficial for diabetics, because diabetics have a higher incidence of Cardio-vascular disease. But what if the cardio vascular disease is driven by high blood glucose (causing generalised inflammation including in the arteries) and statins, it is accepted, are likely to raise blood glucose. For me, it's a no brainier, no statins, get blood glucose down to normal levels, have a half hour brisk walk every day.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryhealthiermedica172.htm

http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/27/myth-9/

http://www.naturalnews.com/033975_high_cholesterol_heart_attacks.html

I dont take statins either , But luckily have gotten my Numbers down by fasting for 19 untill 12 next morning And loosing a lot of pounds. http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/30/the-benefits-of-high-cholesterol/

Everyone is talking about cholesterol and statins but very high levels of circulating insulin in type 2 diabetics is now emerging as the real culprit. So those that are avoiding LCHF for fear of cholesterol may be working against themselves. It is also becoming more and more clear that cholesterol levels have a lot less to do with dietary fat and a lot more to do with the liver manufacturing cholesterol out of carbohydrates. @Indy51 's thread of videos by Tim Noakes might be of interest here as he talks about this quite a bit.

Pinkorchid said:

I don't eat after my meal at 5pm until my breakfast at 8am and most of us do not eat overnight so we are in fasting mode but not heard of that to get cholesterol down

Click to expand...

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-lowers-cholesterol-fasting-16/

Pinkorchid said:

I should have said no discussion about statins as that was not the subject of my thread. All I wanted to know was if someone could tell me where it said that a higher level of cholesterol was of benefit to older women and did it refer to older women with diabetes. People have quoted it as being so on this forum but it seems no one knows where it came from in the first place or if it was said at all

Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/women-cholesterol-medication_b_1219496.html
one such study is mentioned in this article...I googled "higher cholesterol benefits and older women"