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

Still confused about statins

Sam72

Sam72

Well-Known Member
Messages
124
Location
Stafford
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
I've just been through the forum and read what others have posted about statins but I'm still confused. I've had my first 3 month blood tests today after T2 diagnosis in September. I feel fairly confident that my hba1c will have reduced from 13 as I've been doing LCHF and have lost over a stone and am testing around 6s most of the time. However, my cholesterol was 8 in sept and I noticed on the nurses screen today that it had a note to recommend statins when I see the doctor. I am hoping that it will have reduced but see on this forum that people have very different opinions about taking statins. Could someone summarise main arguments for and against statins? Any advice very welcome! Want to visit the doctor next week with some knowledge so I can make an informed decision if I need to.
 
Statins are not prescribed to reduce you blood sugar. They are prescribed to lower you cholesterol. Opinions differ as to whether they do that effectively.

The bigger issue is that the possible adverse side effects of statins can outweigh any good that they may do and what good they may do is not clearly defined.

Furthermore, a Dr Kendrick looked for research showing that high cholesterol was harmful and he couldn't find any.

If the adverse side effects give you a problem then I suggest you ask what the benefits are.
 
Erm,...... ......... Sam, I have whittled on, and on and on about lipids and statins. I've added links to three of my threads. I haven't sifted through, but I've had wonderful input over time on statins.

If you do nothing else, you simply must watch this video:

@jack412 posted the link a while ago, and it's extremely useful. Professor Sikaris talks through things and explains everything clearly - including how the make up of our cholesterol changes when we low carb. He's a low carber himself.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...fluffy-ldl-component.67385/page-2#post-679183

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/results-time-again.66852/page-2#post-670215

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/anything-else-update.63298/#post-617909

I hope you find something useful in that lot!
 
Been on them a couple of years now and can't say they have given me any problems. My dad had a heart attack leaving him severely brain damaged. Had my cholesterol checked and they put me straight on them.
 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Chole...18237811&sr=8-1&keywords=kendrick+cholesterol

From http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/a-new-low-carb-guide-for-beginners.68695/#post-700543

Diabetics are right to be fearful of the risks of heart disease, since rates are many times higher than those of non-diabetics, especially if your Body Mass Index (BMI) is elevated. GPs frequently use this to prescribe statins which, although they do reduce total cholesterol, come with their own baggage of controversy.

Actually only around 80% of the cholesterol in the body is manufactured by the liver and the cells, and relatively little comes directly from the diet. Furthermore, total cholesterol is now widely recognised as being a very poor indicator of heart disease risk.

Far more meaningful are the individual components (the lipid profile) of total cholesterol, especially the high density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglyceride levels. The triglyceride/HDL ratio is perhaps the single most significant measure of heart disease risk. The lower the triglycerides and the higher the HDL, the better. A triglyceride/HDL ratio of 2 or less is a good target, 1.3 even better.

Insulin and glucose combine to raise triglycerides and lower HDL, which is why a low fat, high carbohydrate diet may actually increase heart disease risk. It is commonly reported that those on low carb diets have better lipid profiles and certainly much improved triglyceride/HDL ratios, even though high carb diets can produce lower total cholesterol.
 
@AndBreathe it's a very good link and the guy knows his stuff..but I still chose to take a statin :)

http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/21/4/464.full.pdf
Results: Among 14 primary prevention trials (46,262 participants),
statin therapy increased diabetes by absolute risk of 0.5% (95% CI 0.1–1%, p¼0.012),
meanwhile reducing death by a similar extent: 0.5% (0.9 to 0.2%, p¼0.003).
In the 15 secondary prevention RCTs (37,618 participants), statins decreased death by 1.4% (2.1 to 0.7%, p<0.001).
There were no other statin-attributable symptoms,
although asymptomatic liver transaminase elevation was 0.4% more frequent with statins across all trials. Serious adverse events and withdrawals were similar in both arms.

Conclusions:
Only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins:
almost all would occur just as frequently on placebo.

Only development of new-onset diabetes mellitus was significantly higher on statins than placebo; nevertheless only 1 in 5 of new cases were actually caused by statins. Higher statin doses produce a detectable effect, but even still the proportion attributable to statins is variable: for asymptomatic liver enzyme elevation, the majority are attributable to the higher dose; in contrast for muscle aches, the majority are not.

this study looked at the history of 60,000 Diabetics after av. 2.7
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70173-1/abstract

retinopathy HR=0.6 [decrease of risk]
neuropathy HR=0.66
gangrene of the foot HR=0.88
diabetic nephropathy HR=0.97
[neutral..........HR=1.0 ]
diabetes HR=1·17 [increase of risk]

the way I look at it ..if nothing else take statin for neuropathy, retinopathy and gangrene of the foot
 
jack412 said:
@AndBreathe it's a very good link and the guy knows his stuff..but I still chose to take a statin :)

http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/21/4/464.full.pdf
Results: Among 14 primary prevention trials (46,262 participants),
statin therapy increased diabetes by absolute risk of 0.5% (95% CI 0.1–1%, p¼0.012),
meanwhile reducing death by a similar extent: 0.5% (0.9 to 0.2%, p¼0.003).
In the 15 secondary prevention RCTs (37,618 participants), statins decreased death by 1.4% (2.1 to 0.7%, p<0.001).
There were no other statin-attributable symptoms,
although asymptomatic liver transaminase elevation was 0.4% more frequent with statins across all trials. Serious adverse events and withdrawals were similar in both arms.

Conclusions:
Only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins:
almost all would occur just as frequently on placebo.

Only development of new-onset diabetes mellitus was significantly higher on statins than placebo; nevertheless only 1 in 5 of new cases were actually caused by statins. Higher statin doses produce a detectable effect, but even still the proportion attributable to statins is variable: for asymptomatic liver enzyme elevation, the majority are attributable to the higher dose; in contrast for muscle aches, the majority are not.

this study looked at the history of 60,000 Diabetics after av. 2.7
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70173-1/abstract

retinopathy HR=0.6 [decrease of risk]
neuropathy HR=0.66
gangrene of the foot HR=0.88
diabetic nephropathy HR=0.97
[neutral..........HR=1.0 ]
diabetes HR=1·17 [increase of risk]

the way I look at it ..if nothing else take statin for neuropathy, retinopathy and gangrene of the foot
Click to expand...

Jack - I completely respect your choices, and your decision to take a statin. But, in my view, for those of us with lady-bumps things are less clear. There is very little data from studies where a significant proportion of women have participated, and I'd like to be seeing more of that.

Overall, I remain passionately meds-free. When I'm back in UK, after my next spell in Paradise, I will see a lipid specialist and see where we go from there. I'd never say never, but I'm resistant to making important decisions based on an albeit highly educated person saying pretty much, "Trust me, I'm a Doctor".
 
Sam72 said:
I've just been through the forum and read what others have posted about statins but I'm still confused. I've had my first 3 month blood tests today after T2 diagnosis in September. I feel fairly confident that my hba1c will have reduced from 13 as I've been doing LCHF and have lost over a stone and am testing around 6s most of the time. However, my cholesterol was 8 in sept and I noticed on the nurses screen today that it had a note to recommend statins when I see the doctor. I am hoping that it will have reduced but see on this forum that people have very different opinions about taking statins. Could someone summarise main arguments for and against statins? Any advice very welcome! Want to visit the doctor next week with some knowledge so I can make an informed decision if I need to.
Click to expand...


If you google it, you can find studies showing they're good, or bad, they're a wonder drug, or they're in there with anthrax.
If you really want to, you can even find someone to sell you a book promoting why they're right, and why their interpretation is correct.
You'll even have to decide if you want high or low cholesterol in the first place, as you'll find 'proof' both are better, (or worse)

You really have to decide who you believe, who gets your vote on the internet, how much you trust your own doctor, and then, if you decide to give them a try, if they work they way you want them to.
 
You are a woman @Sam72 - most of the trials have been done on men. I don't want to get dementia when I'm old too (seems to be caused by too little cholesterol in the brain). You don't blame ambulances for accidents, so don't blame cholesterol for heart disease. There is a lot of information on the internet, so do some reading.
 
I've been on them for the last 20 odd years without any side effects.
 
@Sam72 You're probably now even more confused.
Your Doctor knows you, and will give very good advice. Best wait to hear what they say, then maybe take your own time to make your sensible decision.
 
I got prescribed Statins and Metformin 1 week after Diagnosis, did some Research and I've decided to Not take them for now, I will have bloods taken again in the new year and if my Cholesterol is down after being on Low Carb diet then I won't take them. If no change then I will reconsider. I'm also taking Vit B Complex high dose of Vit C, CoQ10 to get the cholesterol down.
 
clairemcg said:
I got prescribed Statins and Metformin 1 week after Diagnosis, did some Research and I've decided to Not take them for now, I will have bloods taken again in the new year and if my Cholesterol is down after being on Low Carb diet then I won't take them. If no change then I will reconsider. I'm also taking Vit B Complex high dose of Vit C, CoQ10 to get the cholesterol down.
Click to expand...
I was prescribed statins because (as my Dr told me) they help vein/artery healthy, so I went to the chemist and have a pack of 85 simvastin, still unopened as I am reluctant to take them, I am following LCHF have lost a stone in weight, feel better than I have in a long time and am extremely anti medication if there is no need for it, what turned me off the idea of statins is I keep reading how everyone over (insert whatever age here) should be on them. Do they work I don't know, but I do know the big pharma companies are making lots of money on their products, not too sure whether they have my best interests at heart though.

Allie
 
clairemcg said:
@merrdhyn, feel the same way, big pharma!
@AndBreathe, that professor Sikaris video was a Eye opener Thank you :)
Click to expand...

@clairemcg

From what I've understand there is a genotype that stations really help prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease. The ones that don't have the genotype the jury is still out.

My father had triple bypass surgery at 52 and lost 10% of his heart muscle. He has been taking statins and is now 85 low ldl and strong HDl

If your not getting adverse reactions I personally would take them in as small a dose that gets my blood work down.

Partly I'd do this because I believe that unless one can get ones BG levels down to low normal and eliminate most post meal spiking we are going to do damage to our cardiovascular system.

I must say that there are studies that tight BG control past a certain point then there is an increase in cardiovascular disease. I'm not so sure.
 
Thanks everyone. If only the answer was easy!!! I value all your opinions and will have a good think.
 
runner2009 said:
@clairemcg

From what I've understand there is a genotype that stations really help prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease. The ones that don't have the genotype the jury is still out.

My father had triple bypass surgery at 52 and lost 10% of his heart muscle. He has been taking statins and is now 85 low ldl and strong HDl

If your not getting adverse reactions I personally would take them in as small a dose that gets my blood work down.

Partly I'd do this because I believe that unless one can get ones BG levels down to low normal and eliminate most post meal spiking we are going to do damage to our cardiovascular system.

I must say that there are studies that tight BG control past a certain point then there is an increase in cardiovascular disease. I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

McKendrick states that anyone with heart disease should take statins. Read his book for more information but statins aren't beneficial for anyone without heart disease. Someone who states that he/she can take them without side effects shouldn't encourage someone else to take them?? Nobody has mentioned the amount of money the NHS receives from the statin manufacturers.
 
bobrobert said:
McKendrick states that anyone with heart disease should take statins. Read his book for more information but statins aren't beneficial for anyone without heart disease. Someone who states that he/she can take them without side effects shouldn't encourage someone else to take them?? Nobody has mentioned the amount of money the NHS receives from the statin manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken and at one point they were recommending that everyone would benefit from taking statins. But that I believe it has been shown not to be cost affective and in fact only 1 person in 50 would benefit from statins if they were given to everyone.

That being said there is a strong correlation between cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. A full 65% of all type 2 diabetics will die from strokes or some form of cardiovascular disease.

That to me is one good reason to take statins.

One bad side affect of taking statins is that many people's diets become worse when they are on statins because they feel protected from the Ill affects of a poor diet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
some people see conspiracy, some people wont even take an asprin..some don't have flu shots, some dont vaccinate their kids..some dont take statins when advised to..free will and all that
 
Back
Top