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

Statins, advised to start 20 mg Atorvastatin

GuidingSenses

Well-Known Member
Messages
117
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
Hi there,

NEWLY DIAGNOSED LADA T1 on Humulin M3 (4 weeks after diagnosis)

My specialist nurse said today it would be recommended to start with low dose statin.
I said I’d been worried about going on them as I’d heard so many people saying side effects.
She replied saying the old meds used to give muscle aches and bad dreams but not the new drug, she’s only had one person not getting on with them.
My cholesterol level I think she said 5.3, not sure if that is very bad?
 

Your body your choice... but if you want a deep dive into whether you should then....

here's one I prepared earlier...

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/cholesterol-and-statins.156985/
 
I was on atorvastatin 80mg and it made my bg more difficult to control apart from that I had no issues
 
Do read the thread @bulkbiker posted above.

Your total cholesterol of 5.3 is not high. It is fine, but meaningless on its own. What you need is the breakdown - the HDL, LDL and triglycerides. That will tell you much more. The total is just that - a total of the good and the not so good. You may have a lot of the good stuff within that 5.3. Ask your nurse for a print out of the blood test results, or apply to have your test results on-line (if you are in England)
 
The only rationale for taking a statin is either if you believe it would prevent a possible cardio vascular incident or if someone had for example suffered a stroke and a statin was recommended after the event, it would then extend life by about 5 days over 3 years.

If you are concerned, then a private CAC scan can let you know with the most accessible degree of certainty what your heart health risk is. Just out is a documentary called Extra Time at https://www.extratimemovie.com/ - Ivor Cummins is the name associated with promoting CAC scans. Try to find out your triglyceride and hdl numbers (you want low trigs and high hdl).

At your young stage of life, cholesterol is more protective. Sorry for not referencing things @bulkbiker 's blog is bound to have loads; but it is worth YouTubing Dave Feldman and Nina Teicholz (her book the Big Fat Surprise is eye opening, especially for women). 5.3 is not high in any event, as it is only 0.3 above what "they" want. In 2015 the cut off was 6.5, then for an unexplained reason the number was dropped to 5. It is like saying that everyone should drink a litre and half of water, when some would need 2 and others 3, cholesterol generally settles where it needs to be, it is not like body temperature. Relying on an unproven discredited hypothesis to drug people is ridiculous, why would your body create molecules in every cell, that are needed for female / male hormones, repair, utilising vitamin D, immune response (very important now with COVID) if this were bad for you. As many people die with "perfect" cholesterol as do with high. For cholesterol to be bad it has to be triggered to be so (oxidised). 2 oxidising agents are carbs / sugar and vegetable oils.
 
I wouldn't bother, personally. Cholesterol is about the worst predictor of mortality known to mankind. The diet heart hypothesis is nothing more than a bad joke at this stage but, like a zombie, it refuses to die. My doctor knows best never to mention statins to me ever again.

That is my take on it. Everyone must make their own choices.
 

BRAVO.
 
I took Atorvastatin and Metformin for a few weeks and thought that I would have to go into a care home. I have had to relearn all the songs I collected.
This morning I was waiting in the queue for the Post Office and sang 'Tam Linn' from memory - only confused one line. Tam Linn is one of the big ballads. It has taken over three years to recover from losing the car in the supermarket type problems.
Our brains are cholesterol based, so there is no wonder that interfering with the amounts we naturally contain can cause problems for some people. I am usually the worst case scenario when it comes to medication, so you might be fine with the statin, but I'd far rather keep my brain working than go ga-ga. I wonder how many people who are in homes are carefully medicated into being there by the diligent doling out of the tablets.
 
I was prescribed Pravostatin when first diagnosed as T2 and my hba1c rose from 48 to 54 - when I came off them due to other side effects my hba1c reduced and is now at non-diabetic levels. I have refused to take them and my GP has annotated my notes as ‘statin intolerant’ as we don’t want to take the risk of it happening again.
 
There are pros and cons for taking any drug. People may disagree as to whether the pros outweigh the cons but beware of any sources which only discuss the pros or, conversely, only discuss the cons.

This is advice from NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence). https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-recommends-wider-use-of-statins-for-prevention-of-cvd

Note that is says:-
'However, before offering statins for primary prevention, GPs should discuss the benefits of lifestyle modification, and optimise all other modifiable CVD factors if possible.

Patients who may need support to change their lifestyle should be referred to programmes such as exercise referral schemes.

They should then be offered the chance to have their risk of CVD assessed again after they have tried to change their lifestyle. Lifestyle adjustments recommended by NICE include being more active, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol intake, eating more healthily and losing weight.'
​
 
NICE guidelines is a total cholesterol of 4 mmol/l for type 1 diabetics. I get told this every specialist and GP appointment I attend. I get to point out the my HbA1c is in the normal range so this doesn't apply to me. It keeps them off my back.
 
ert said:
NICE guidelines is a total cholesterol of 4 mmol/l for type 1 diabetics. I get told this every specialist and GP appointment I attend. I get to point out the my HbA1c is in the normal range so this doesn't apply to me. It keeps them off my back.
Click to expand...
Whenever I used to point out to my DN that my hba1c was in normal levels so cholesterol levels shouldn’t necessarily apply to me the stock answer was ‘but you’re still diabetic’
 
When my GP suggested I take statins because they “protect the heart if you’re diabetic” I asked her what about the fact that I have had non diabetic numbers for a year? She said honestly she didn’t know because she not many in her clinic have a normal A1C.
That was the same visit that she was amazed that I tested my BG so regularly and that not everyone “wants” to test that often.
I will not take stains because I remain unconvinced that lower cholesterol equals longer and better quality of life.
 
I read today that some scientists are now considering trialling statins as a treatment for Covid. Big Pharma behind it, no doubt.
 

...and that lifetsyle NICE advice is to follow the eatwell plate basically. My cholesterol is 'high' although the ratios are excellent. The 'lifestyle' chat was ridiculous and even they gave up halfway through the conversation. For context I am slim, fit, good hb1ac, well controlled, don't drink, etc, etc. I do agree with you in that any individual should be aware of the pro's and cons of statins pertaining to them but I dislike the way NICE thinks one size fits all and that if someone's cholesterol is higher than 4 (!!!) then it must be down to 'lifestyle', ie all the fat they eat (sigh). x
 
NICE say:-
Use the QRISK2 risk assessment tool to assess CVD risk for the primary prevention of CVD in people up to and including age 84 years https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181/chapter/Key-priorities-for-implementation
​
The tool takes into account cholesterol/HDL ratio plus a number of other factors, rather than an arbitrary total cholesterol. QRISK2 tool can be found here:- https://qrisk.org/2017/ (although there is a more up-to-date QRISK3 tool found here:- https://qrisk.org/three/
 

The problem with this is that once you put 'diabetes' into the QRISK, you automatically jump to above the 10% and onto statins you go. I know you didn't mention diabetes in your post but I do look at statins in the context of having diabetes because the concept is clearly 'never mind your ratios or lifestyle, diabetes on its own means you need statins' so in effect it takes NO account whatsoever of lifestyle if you have diabetes so that IS arbitrary, surely there can be massive differences in health notwithstanding sharing the same condition? Thank you for posting. x
 
Neither of which take any account of diabetic level of control and by what method. Massive assumptions being made there.

Postcode affecting individual health?? Whilst current smokers are differentiated by quantity none for ex smokers (5 a day 30 yrs ago or 60 a day til last month have to be quite significantly different ?)

edited to remove error
 
Last edited:
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.…