Cholesterol and Statins

Possibly, but the marketing will bolster the myth and if we are honest if a bread or cake is more expensive because it lowers cholesterol some people will choose to take the statin and eat the cheaper types. And some people may even choose to ingest both.

 

I agree entirely. We already have the cholesterol busting Benecol and such like. Imagine a slice of bread made with cholesterol reducing wheat flour, spread with Benecol pretend butter. We could end up with zero levels of cholesterol..... and die.

 

Zackly.

The scariest thing is that as statins are now advocated for very young people (and I have even heard mention of statins for pets!) so what happens if pregnant women are prescribed them? This is very, very dark.

 

Sometimes I wish I’d taken the blue pill.

 

FULL Ep27: Dave Feldman on LDL and All Cause Mortality - Does Cholesterol Kill You?

 

So there's a possibility that LDL tracks A1c, interesting stuff.

 

My understanding is that the primary benefit of statins for most people is reduction in inflation (e.g. hs-CRP) and stabilization of any soft plaque (i.e. so it doesn’t get inflamed and break off and generate a clot causing a heart attack or stroke). That can sometimes be achieved at very low doses which haven’t shown significant negative effect on blood sugar. There is too much focus on LDL cholesterol as the reason for taking statins.

 

But even if that were true, who is to say any of us has even got any inflammation? I could almost understand their approach if they offered statins following a proper check of one's arteries or whatever but it is all based on numbers and guesswork. Why should millions be on this drug just because a few might fit the inflammation criteria?

 

I’m of the opinion that the most sensible way to reduce inflammation is not to not eat a pro-inflammatory diet and then try to paper over the cracks with pharmaceuticals. Of course for many that may be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has already bolted, but nevertheless I take the view that dietary measures should always be the first angle of attack.

I think it’s probably reasonable to say that a sizeable percentage of those with metabolic syndrome - of which type 2 diabetes is a part of - have some level of elevated arterial inflammation, but I believe that in most cases it’s probably best treated with an anti-inflammatory diet, not drugs that seek to remove the very agent that is attempting to heal the problem.

 

Less than five mins of Dave talking about possible inversion of metrics to be found in other long term studies as well as NHANES.

 

Hi bulkbiker (I feel as though I am stalking you today), I put my figures in (HDL 2.45, trigs 0.5, LDL 4.25) and it all came back as low risk (phew). When you click onto the link below AIP - the 'tinyurl.com' one (that gives you more individual info) it starts going on about the dangers of saturated fat and lists food to avoid as most meat, cheese etc! Surely this is the opposite of what Dave Feldman says...I wonder if he is aware of the links attached to each 'study'??

 

These tests show inflammation: MPO, hs-CRP and micro albumin creatinine ratio, also homocysteine and lp-PLA2. Also, as Ivor Cummings points out frequently it is helpful to know your cardiac calcium score.



This doc is on a low carb diet and believes insulin resistance and inflammation is at the root cause of heart disease but he also takes a very low dose of rosuvastatin due to his own risk factors. He takes it not for cholesterol lowering but for its effect on reducing inflammation.



Dr Brewer believes that the most important info to be found in the standard lipid panel is the triglyceride/HDL ratio which should be below 2.0 and ideally below 1.0. He considers it a surrogate measure of insulin resistance / metabolic syndrome.

 

Sapien, thank you for that. My point is though that although there are MANY tests available including those you mention, NONE of us get them. We are just told 'you have diabetes so you must go on statins'.

 

Not quite “none” of us. I just recently had a hs-CRP. Precisely because I wanted some kind of rough measure of my inflammation status. Result in my signature. But granted I imagine I’m in the minority, and I had to pay for it myself.

 

I agree that taking statins just because you have diabetes or somewhat elevated LDL doesn’t make sense based on everything I have seen. There are many studies which show statins can increase the risk for diabetes.

At the same time, it seems dangerous to believe that statins are only bad. It is probably also dangerous to assume that since excess carbs, especially processed foods, are probably more important in driving insulin resistance than saturated fat, that saturated fat is good if any quantity.

Just because many studies that showed saturated fat is bad were flawed doesn’t make saturated fat a health food. We need real studies that actually show that saturated fat is good (and in relation to what quantity of other fats and carbs) Where are those studies? Can someone post a reputable study that shows saturated fat is good in large quantity (not just less bad than sugar and refined grains)?

 

Zackly.