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

Safety of statins

D

Dax1973

Member
Messages
17
I have been put on statins and tried to lose weight with orlistat and tried 3 times to use and my throat swelled possibly lymph nodes and both rosuvastatine and orlistat can cause that. Unsure which did!

Please can anyone tell me if it is more lkely the statin or the orlistat as the doctor doesn't know?

I can do without the orlistat but my cholesterol is high 3.9 total but 3.2 ldl and only 0.7 HDL and triglycerides are high (too hig to calculate ratio apparently). HDL should ideally be 1.4 or at least 1.2
 
I think personally that I would stop one of them and see if the throat problem resolves. However you also need to consider whether a statin is really required, 3.9 isn’t high from what I know about cholesterol. I’m also wondering if you took the triglyceride test when you had fasted? Triglyceride levels can be falsely elevated by testing after you have eaten.
 
3.9 cholesterol isn't high , mine has never dropped below 5 .
 
I was diagnosed in 2013. In all the times I have had my cholesterol tested, my total cholesterol (and I am aware there's much more to consider than that), I have only had one single test with a total cholesterol under 6. It was 5.6

In June, I took part in a research programme, looking at cardiac disease in those with T2 (I don't have cardiac disease). My pilipds were tested as part of that (along with various tests including MRI, CT and ultrasound scans, and importantly, to me anyway, a coronary artery calcification scan). I was dreading the discussion on cholesterol, but the cardiologist handling my participation was clear he saw no reason I should be taking statins.

To be clear, that statement was based on the results of a major cardiac MOT, not just on total cholesterol, but it demonstrates that a high total cholesterol is no reason to fast forward to statins.

I hope you get to the bottom of your throat problems.
 
Wow! Whoever told you THAT was high? Mine was 7.3 for years and, with diet, dropped to 6. Then I took a statin substitute from a health food shop and got it to 5.3 but it's never been lower than that!
 
Dax1973 said:
I can do without the orlistat but my cholesterol is high 3.9 total but 3.2 ldl and only 0.7 HDL and triglycerides are high (too hig to calculate ratio apparently). HDL should ideally be 1.4 or at least 1.2
Click to expand...

I would agree with others that a total of '3.9' isn't high, or even if you took the LDL on its own, then in my opinion 3.2 isn't high as such (my own LDL is 4.8). But, having said that I wonder why they can't seem to tell you what your trigs are and how high they are. It's not until you have all the numbers and can then at least calculate the ratios that you know whether or not there is an issue or whether the levels are way off the radar. Even then, you have to decide whether this puts you at a risk or not. My LDL as I say above causes the GPs to take an indrawn breath, but my HDL is 2.5 and my trigs are 0.5 so my ratio is overall very good. I would just be a tad careful when comparing your cholesterol with others because yes, this 3.9 may not be high but you currently only have a little of the story.
 
They testing me again in 3 months with a fasting blood test as my cholestrol is alot higher than yours but i am doing a carnivore diet to keep my T2 sugar levels in check. There are a few people here with a lot of knowledge about cholestrol that will help you out
 
Hi. NICE says diabetics should aim to be a total of 4 or below so 3.9 is fine. Going lower can be just as harmful as being too high. The body needs cholesterol for repairs. Try to get the HDL/LDL/Trigs ratios to be good. A low carb diet usually helps. You might want to read 'The Great Cholesterol Con' by Malcolm Kendrick. I think you are worrying too much about cholesterol.
 
They said it was high at 4.4 and the hdl was 0.6 the ldl 3.8. has improved its the hdl/ldl ratio that was high and the triglycerides were high too high to calculate the ratio (as it no longer applies above a certain number - as would be innacurate).

And out of interest they no longer require fasting results as it has minimal difference they are the current guidelines
 
 
The swelling stopped and am unsure whether the statins or orlistat caused it. Need the statins to improve HDL which should be above 1.0 and the triglycerides were 7 point something
 
Dax1973 said:
The swelling stopped and am unsure whether the statins or orlistat caused it. Need the statins to improve HDL which should be above 1.0 and the triglycerides were 7 point something
Click to expand...
You can improve HDL by having 5 mls of fish oil a day. Not pleasant but no horrid side effects plus there's positive side effects on joints etc. I use Eskimo fish oil with lemon. My HDL has gone up from 0.8 to 1.4.
 
Dax1973 said:
The swelling stopped and am unsure whether the statins or orlistat caused it. Need the statins to improve HDL which should be above 1.0 and the triglycerides were 7 point something
Click to expand...
Statins do not improve HDL. When pharma tried, they had adverse outcomes, whereas there is no doubt stating reduce LDL.

Some how our ancestors survived into old age with multiple times less heart disease / events when statins did not exist - simple point but accurate.

I would be careful outsourcing health choices to third parties, here's an example why:

https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2015/09/16/over-2400-lipitor-diabetes-lawsuits-filed/

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...gest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
 
it says statins "marginally improve HDL" but I am already on fish oil and other supplements which increased HDL from 0.6 to 0.7 and reduced LDL from 3.8 to 3.2 (but anything lower than 3.0 is ideal) and hdl of over 1.4 has no additional benefit and it should be over 1.0 at least,) fish oil can be taken without taste like mine and vegan options are also available ie algal oil (but not so good). The 3.8 was while on statins so is entirely due to the supplements as is the HDL increase they also lowered my HbA1c to 42.3 (126.1 mg/dl converted using the usual formula the doctors figure was 42 so presumably the same and was done 8 days later.
(cerascreen do HbA1c tests cheaply I recommend them for those with needlephobia as only uses 4 bloodspots or who wish more regular updates on their plans and how well they are working - send mondays and get result by the following wednesday ie 9 days later).
 
Dax1973 said:
And out of interest they no longer require fasting results as it has minimal difference they are the current guidelines
Click to expand...

Which conveniently makes the results completely meaningless.
Bit like looking at "total cholesterol".
 
Mbaker said:
Some how our ancestors survived into old age with multiple times less heart disease / events when statins did not exist - simple point but accurate.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's a valid argument. Our ancestors mostly didn't reach old age (by our standards). They were too busy dying of broken bones, infections (no vaccines or antibiotics) and childbirth (if female). Whether or not you agree with statins modern medicine has drastically increased average lifespans from a couple of hundred years ago. And of course, the T1s on these forums would all be dead anyway.

Life expectancy - Wikipedia
Not necessarily very accurate, but interesting anyway.
 
What he probably meant is that cavemen ate a better diet and had less heart attacks,
There are people who deliberately return to this diet to treat T2 and it appears quite sucessful (if a bit boring).
The modern diet causes heart attacks and other factors such as heating meaning we use less cholesterol to heat ourselves as technology does it for us and it reduces the amount of natural exercise too.
There are some negatives with technology too!
 
More, if somewhat ancient, fuel to add to thoughts about safety of statins, from a poll I saw early on after I joined the forum :

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/poll-side-effects-from-statins.58409/

As far as I'm concerned, all statins did for me was probably help me on my way to T2. Eventually refusing them slightly reduced my glucose levels but made no apparent difference to cholesterol levels. And my feelings are that unless there's a very good reason for me to take them, other than "just because...", I shall continue to refrain.
 
Dax1973 said:
Need the statins to improve HDL
Click to expand...
Might using exercise to raise HDL be a possibility for you? Don't forget, statins do seem to raise bg, and the more potent, the greater may be the effect - on cholesterol AND on bg. Personally, I take great trouble to keep my bg as low as I can by my low carb diet, I'm not about to raise it by taking statins. To discuss with your GP?
 
zand said:
You can improve HDL by having 5 mls of fish oil a day. Not pleasant but no horrid side effects plus there's positive side effects on joints etc. I use Eskimo fish oil with lemon. My HDL has gone up from 0.8 to 1.4.
Click to expand...
@zand are you sure you changed nothing else since you started taking fish oil? I used to take fish oil, but nowadays, having read lots of sceptical research articles on it, I prefer to eat 3 portions of wild salmon weekly.
 
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.…