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

cholestorol and diabetes

I just Said I wouldn't take statins and my GP got angry with me and she said it would totally be on my own responsibillity...

Then 3 month later my cholesterol had lowered down to the "ideal" level just by not eating much carb and by going 1000 calories those 3 months for daily callorie amount, triglycerides also lowered very very much that way .

All without taking any statins
 
Last edited:
Again, Type 1's are prone to "microvasular" complications (eyes, kidneys) whereas Type 2's are prone to "macrovascular" complications (coronary arteries, etc.) so I'm not aware of any scientific data says Type 1's do better with routine statins. The group that FOR SURE does better are people who have know coronary disease (heart attack, prior stent or bypass). People on this forum probably don't have that. Probably anyone with a really high cholesterol should benefit to some degree.
 
Hi @SHROPSHIRE_LADY


The way I understand it, the very fact of having diabetes puts one at a higher risk of various other health issues - so diabetics need to be especially careful to reduce any other risk factors they may have (such as cholesterol).

Your cholesterol is just one of many individual health risk factors, which when combined with other factors, have an impact on your overall health risk; so, what may be the upper end of an acceptable cholesterol range for non-diabetics, probably needs to be reduced a little for diabetics. Statins seem to be the default way of doing that, and as I understand it from others, they work very well - but as in your husband's case, there can also be side effects.

Before deciding to just not take the statins, I wonder if a general chat with your doctor about your other risk factors might be appropriate? It's very easy for the doctor to reach for the prescription pad when it comes to cholesterol and diabetes - but the pros and cons should be made known to you before you make any decisions, and it's not unreasonable to want to understand the logic in a particular prescription. If need be, perhaps your doctor could explore the possibility of lowering your cholesterol in other ways.
 


I think the statistic evidence that elderly women with high cholesterol lives longer than those with lower colesterol should be taken into consideration also.

And that the reasons why people are in a higher risk of heart disease should be targeted before just adding another very invasive medication.

There are lots of ways to lower cholesterol like doing exercise, like changing the fatty acids one eat towards f.x. olives and olive oil, like eating much more fibres (and they can be added to foods in the form of a kind of fibre powder or Phylissium Husk... Cinnamon can also lower cholesterol by eating it almost daily :
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/cinnamon-and-benefits-for-diabetes it seems to be able to lower cholesterol by as much as 18% and blood glucose by 24% ... really worth a try and also worth to make an effort by combining all these above ways to lower cholesterol

Why don´t they fokus on that too ?

I think it is because these strategies are not promoted big time by medical companies and that GPs are generally ignorant to natuaral ways of healing our bodies

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/features/exercise-to-lower-cholesterol#1
 
Last edited:
I think if someone is worried about strokes and or heart attacks, it is an idea to reduce the risks as naturally as possible. Apart from statins, diet, exercise, stress reduction and good sleep are for me a better solution; if not all of these can be achieved then as many as possible will reduce risks.
 

I understand - this is from conversations with someone in another country who primarily accesses his countries medical info rather than anything written in English that the health benefits of cinnamon are ascribed to a certain type which is quite expensive and definitely not the sort we buy in the spice jars for day to day cooking. We came to the conclusion that it was another of those "superfoods" so beloved of the product placement experts of the PR industry. I am not saying it will not work just saying make sure you get the right type of cinnamon if you give it a try.

I put my faith in turmeric and olives (not together) but who knows what to believe? I remember how the food placement marketing trolls behaved if anyone suggested we should use butter instead of margarine and am overly cynical of any claims made.

I have taken 2 statins and had muscle pain the next day although it was on the right side which has a sort of random paralysis -undiagnosed. My mother always did what her very nice doctor told her and took her statins. She has alzeimers. I am going to take my mother in laws attitude as my life model - she was very forthright about "twaddle and weedle". She lived to 100 and only needed "intensive" help with meals and hygiene for her last 9 months. We are all different caveat does apply of course.
 
We are not medically qualified here so can't give advice on medication You must do what you think is best for you not what's right for others
 
I just found this; there is virtually no positive evidence as to the use of statins for type 1 diabetics (i.e. studies looking directly at Type 1's and statins) and what there is is of a very low quality:

http://www.practicaldiabetes.com/article/statins-people-type-1-diabetes-treatment-start/

Essentially that article is saying that the statination of all diabetics is not based on evidence but rather based on the consensus view of experts (i.e. everybody knows that diabetics need to be on statins so that is our advice; we don't need to prove it as everyone knows it's true).
 
Unfortunately there is no real evidence that statins increase life expectancy. By taking statins for 10 years you may increase your life expectance by a few hours should you die of a heart attack, but you also run an increased risk of dying of cancer, which negates any slight benefit of statins.

Statin reduce CoQ10 which is needed by heart and other muscles, so you run an increased risk of dying of heart failure if you take statins. Overall, the benefits of taking stains as a preventive measure are slim and has a lot of downsides if you are one of the people who get side effects from statins such as Alzheimer like loss of memory and severe muscle pain.
 
To those who doubt that serum cholesterol levels are not a risk factor for getting coronary disease I got some swamp land in Florida to sell you. Simvistatin was shown to reduce coronary events compared with placebo in people with higher cholesterol levels. Pretty old primary prevention trial. But as I said before statins' largest role is in secondary prevention (used in people already shown to have CAD). And it doesn't matter what the patients' cholesterol was/is either. Think about it: if you have a blocked coronary there's something going on in there, and it's not good. And it's going to keep happening. You can diet all you want, take cinnamon and CoQ-10 (what a crock that stuff is lol), but know this: it would be unethical to do another study using statins vs placebo in secondary prevention in patients with CAD. In one trial they took people who had a >75% blockage and who were referred for a balloon/stent procedure. Half got Lipitor 80/d and the other half got the procedure. After about 3 years only 15% of the Lipitor people needed a procedure.
 
As a T1 years ago I was informed to take statins and ramipril!!
Statins half killed me. Ramipril... well, absolutely no reason for that at all..I've always had low blood pressure!! I got told then it was recommended....

Cinammon does absolutely nothing for my cholesterol.. I have a teaspoon a day with ginger and turmeric in my teas (with black pepper) and its made no difference.

There was suggestiins of cinammon being good for diabetics blood levels though..
 
I put my faith in turmeric and ground black pepper too.
Despite being neutropenic, lymphdemic, anaemic my hubby who didnt have my tea solution got an exceptionally bad (1st time sick for two weeks) viral chest infection. Despite having a very low immune system from cancer tablets Indidnt get ill. Before my tea with turmeric I would catch every cold, virus he had. He now drinks my tea!!
(Off cancer tablets too as they were making my immune system and bloods chronically low)...
 
TheBigNewt said:
To those who doubt that serum cholesterol levels are not a risk factor for getting coronary disease I got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
Click to expand...
You could do worse than start here :
https://www.thincs.org/members.php
It's not 'informed' pro-statin medics vs the ignorant deniers. Personally, I've probably read hundreds of articles. Statins do work, but not by lowering cholesterol. It's their other mechanisms/effects I reject. Each to their own.
I think you meant ARE, and not ARE NOT
Geoff
 
librarising said:
You could do worse than start here :
https://www.thincs.org/members.php
. Statins do work, but not by lowering cholesterol. It's their other mechanisms/effects I reject. Each to their own.
Geoff
Click to expand...
Which is why we say take em no matter what your cholesterol is, and why the American College of Cardiology came out against "meeting goal" wrt cholesterol which we used to do religiously with blood tests. Just give 'em a moderate of high dose of Lipitor and call it done! Last guy I saw today has 4 coronary stents, 1 carotid artery stent, and stents in got legs. Think he needs a little Lipitor perhaps? And he's NOT a diabetic.
 
The articles linked from the news tab on that link are a very interesting collection. Thank you for posting
 
And possibly stents are a pointless intervention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/h...tra-benefits-for-coronary-artery-disease.html

Good money earner for the doctors though.
 
Indy51 said:
And possibly stents are a pointless intervention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/h...tra-benefits-for-coronary-artery-disease.html

Good money earner for the doctors though.
Click to expand...
the researchers found that prescribing beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins and daily aspirin — now standard for treatment of stable coronary artery disease — was just as effective as stent implantation for prevention of chest pain, heart attack, the need for a future P.C.I. and death.
That's what I said before, Lipitor is as good as stenting in most patients who are STABLE, and a lot cheaper. Stenting's biggest advantage is relieving chest pain and treating heart attacks (chest pain too). Maybe I didn't use them enough that's why I'm still working lol.
 
After becoming T1 my healthcare team have tried to gently persuade me to take statins. I'm a great believer in less is more so have held out. Last week I had my GP review and saw my husband's doctor as mine was on sick leave. He was the first doctor who went into it in depth with me. He said he hated statins! Under normal circumstances he wouldn't prescribe them for me but the diabetes has now put me at a greater risk of heart problems and or strokes. He said he was not convinced of a connection between cholesterol and these problems as the patients on other cholesterol lowering drugs seemed at just as much risk as before. However the patients who received the statins had a markedly lowered occurrence of both heart probs and stroke. They have no idea why. Even the smallest dosage seems to offer this protection. So I'm now leaning towards taking the lowest dose of Lipitor.
 
"in primary prevention, statins not only have zero effect on overall mortality, they also have zero effect on reducing heart disease IN WOMEN. So you get absolutely no benefits at all. I suppose this may all seem almost unbelievable, given the ludicrous levals of HYPE surrounding statins, but it's true." (emphasis mine)
(Dr Malcolm Kendrick in his must-read The Great Cholesterol Con)
Perhaps your husband's GP's patients benefitting are men. Dr M recommends them ONLY for men with pre-existing heart disease.
I will never see a GP as an independent voice in this argument. Getting paid for meeting NICE targets doesn't cut it for me.
Geoff
p.s. Lipitor has been dubbed the stealer of memory, due to it's potentially adverse effect on the brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…