Fifty Plus (50+) - Cholesterol numbers

Does anyone know how much your cholesterol numbers need to drop to be of any significance?

Since last September, my overall number went from 207 to 190. Does that mean anything?

My good went up and my bad and triglycerides went down (130->122 and 215->190).

Or are these numbers like poll results, you know +/- 10%........just trying to get a gauge.

In general you want the LDL,VLDL and triglyceride numbers lower. HDL should be higher. Lp

Do you have heart disease? If you do, you want your LDL's under 70.

A couple months ago I had my doc run my cholesterol numbers. I don't have the numbers in front of me at the moment but my recollection is that the LDL and total cholesterol were borderline. The HDL was at 60 which I'm told is pretty good. FWIW, a few years back my numbers were similar and I had an angiogram due to a some sort of heart spasm. According to the cardiologist my heart was stronger than average, there was no narrowing of the arteries or blockage and my heart was getting all the blood it needs. I have heard cardiologists say that the whole cholesterol issue is overblown and doesn't mean what we have been led to believe. I'm at a loss to know what's real. I've made a really significant change in what I eat and have doubled my bike and general exercise routine without any effect on the numbers.

If understand your numbers, your LDL dropped from 130 to 122, which is better, but not good enough. It should be below 100 (or 70 if you have serious risk factors like diabetes).

You need to see a doctor and you need to be on a statin. Statins not only reduce the LDL numbers but they are widely believed to reduce the possiblity of heart problems even more than can be explained by LDL reductions alone (probably by reducing inflammation.)

Exercize can help reduce bad LDL cholesterol. But, in my personal experience it does more to raise good HDL cholesterol.

There are a number of generic statins available these days. Plus there are a few 'water based' ones that are more powerful and carry less risk of myopathies. I would recommend you start on one today to reduce the amount of plaque that will build up over the coming years that could result in a stroke or heart attack somewhere down the line....

[QUOTE=bruce19;14671006]I have heard cardiologists say that the whole cholesterol issue is overblown and doesn't mean what we have been led to believe. I'm at a loss to know what's real. QUOTE]

There are many types of heart disease: heart attack, fibrillations, heart failure and so on. There are also different types of treatments for each of those conditions.

One of the causes of heart attacks and strokes is arteries clogged with plaque -- and LDL cholesterol is one the ingredients that go into making the glop that creates that clog. As the plaques grow larger they can clog artieries and restrict the flow of blood. And, when the plaque that covers them and seals them breaks, the glop can trigger a blood clot which could result in a stroke or heart attack.

Reducing bad LDL cholesterol (or increasing the good) will not eliminate your chances of having blocked arteries or a clot form. But will improve the odds more to your favor... depending on the numbers, reducing bad cholesterol can reduce your chances of a heart attack from (say) 20% over the next 10 years down to (say) 10 or 15%. So, while it is still a substantial risk, it is also a LOT less than it was. (Your physician can give you the real numbers that relate to you.)

There are various ways to make that improvement: diet, exercise or (statin) medications. The best way that produces the least liklihood of heart attack or stroke is all three.... Each one will improve your chances a little and, combined, they improve your chances more than any single one by itself.

All you can do is do the things that will swing the odds more in your favor...

Statins are a liver toxin. My wife and I have several peers taking them All of them suffer significant side effects. In one case actual dementia until my wife persuaded him to cut back. While this man was suffering dementia, his daughter, a nurse, kept telling him "Dad you're doing great with those really low cholesterol numbers!"

The war on cholesterol has been a dismal failure at reducing heart disease and is a terrible mistake that has become entrenched. It doesn't help that the American heart Association is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Avoiding junk carbs can do wonders to reduce triglycerides, and raise HDL. A real picture of heart health involves not a total cholesterol reading, but HDL, CRP, triglycerides and Hgb A1c. Diet and exercise works for me. If I was a heart attack survivor with multiple risk factors I might consider a statin, but otherwise no way in hell.

Don in Austin

You need to see a doctor and you need to be on a statin.

Nonsense. Statins are very powerful drugs with a long list of potentially dangerous side effects. You can improve your lipid profile numbers through exercise and changes to your diet--it just depends upon how willing you are to make the necessary changes.

I've been able to maintain a good--but not great--lipid profile (see attached) solely through diet (I did not begin cycling until April of 2011). For most of this time, I have followed a diet similar to what is known as the Mediterranean diet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet ). I emphasize fruit, vegetables, and whole grains in my diet, limit my protein intake to lean fish and poultry, and try to avoid saturated fat wherever possible. My goal is to get my total cholesterol down to 150, because I read in Dean Ornish's book, Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease: The Only System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs or Surgery, that the famous Framingham Health Study found that no individual with a total cholesterol of 150 or lower ever suffered a heart attack.

My banner year was 2008 in which I was able to get my total cholesterol down to 157 solely through diet. That year, my cafeteria at work was running a special program during which they offered a fish entree four days a week. During that year I often ate fish three times a week, and I was really diligent about following a largely plant-based diet the rest of the time.

My numbers took a wrong turn in 2010. In that year, due to some family changes, I moved in with some other individuals who are not so dedicated to a healthy diet. I saw the results of this when I got my yearly physical and reviewed the results of my lipid profile. The feedback was obvious--as the frequency with which I strayed from a good diet went up, so did my "bad" numbers.

So, over the last year-and-a-half, I have worked to get my numbers back down. I took up cycling, and I have lost 10 pounds as a result. I got what I consider to be an "unofficial" cholesterol test in May during a special event at work, and my total cholesterol was down to 161.

You can do it if you are really serious. The way I look at it, why put yourself through the physical pain of all this hard cycling if you are just going to turn around and damage your cardiovascular system by eating a crappy (i.e., the typical American) diet?

Statins are a liver toxin.
Don in Austin

Contrary to what the FDA says (Who say they insure our drugs are "safe and effective", there is NO safe drug. Yes, statins carry a possible side affect of liver toxicity (as do many other drugs). But, the probability of developing such a condition from a statin is extremely low and the risk can be lowered to be effectively negligible when your physician orders, cheap and easy perioidic livery function tests.

A more common side effect is myopathy (muscle cell damage). But again the risk is quite low and can be lowered even further by using one of the newer water based statins.

Basically, as with EVERY drug, the question is: do the benefits outweigh the potential risks?

In the case of a person with high cholesterol and risk factors for heart disease and who is one of the 99.9% with no known bad reaction to statins, the case is clear. Statins carry far more benefits than risk.

[QUOTE=Banded Krait;14671231]Nonsense. Statins are very powerful drugs with a long list of potentially dangerous side effects. You can improve your lipid profile numbers through exercise and changes to your diet--it just depends upon how willing you are to make the necessary changes.

I've been able to maintain a good--but not great--lipid profile (see attached) solely through diet...... QUOTE]

I agree, statins do have long list of potential side effects -- as does EVERY drug. In the overall scheme of things, for most people, taking an aspirin a day is more dangerous than taking a statin.

And as with ALL drugs, if you can be healthy without taking them then do so. It is not only cheaper but healthier.

And, congratualtions on being able to manage your cholesterol through diet and exercise alone. That is great work and you have obviously worked hard at it. Good on you!

But, not everybody can do that. Aside from being limited in what life style they are able to live (its tough to exercise when you're a single mom working two jobs to pay the bills), some people simply have genes that makes them prone to having high cholesterol. So, for them while life style changes can and will help, they cannot alleviate the problem completely by themselves.

So, when you are fortunate enough to be able to avoid drugs, do so! But, when ya need 'em, ya need 'em.

Bicycling, Turkey Subs, veggies, and dark chocolate. My drug cocktail of choice! ;) Good luck on getting your cholesterol back down as well. Since mine was only marginally high, it was easier for me to get down without medical assistance, but even medical assistance will appreciate bicycling and dark chocolate!

Have you seen your doctor or if you have or suspect any heart related problems have you seen your cardiologist?
My cholesterol has always been good (165) so my primary care doc has always been happy.
A few years ago my wife suggested I have a cardiologist check me out because my dad had 3 heart attacks -- first one when he was 51. The cardiologist did lots of tests and determined that I had a hereditary condition from my dad. So he put me on a low dose of simvastatin to get my cholesterol even lower. He also has me taking 2000 mg of niacin each morning. Now my cholesterol is 104. He's happy with the LDL, HDL, and triglycerides. He's a cyclist and tells me to keep up the riding. On my last visit he told me I was his hero because I ride many many more than he does.

The results of my 2009 annual physical showed my blood pressure to be elevated, overall cholesterol at 210, my HDL, LDL and tri's were all in the crapper. I was 63, my weight was 180 pounds (I'm 5'7') and I couldn't see my feet without bending over. My doctor put me on Lisinopril for the blood pressure, told me I had to exercise and was going to put me on statins if my six month followup didn't change. The next month, my wife got me a comfort bike for my birthday, which started this crazy addiction to cycling.

At the six month followup the lipid numbers didn't change much but I convinced him to keep me off the statins and just leave me on the HBP medication. I stopped eating fast food and junk food, cut out soft drinks and cut my meal portions in half, but continued eating everything that I normally ate. In 2010, I was taken off the BP medication and my lipid numbers were much better. At last years physical, my overall cholesterol was 155, triglycerides 102, LDL 90 and HDL 45. My weight is currently between 145 and 150 and I can see my feet standing straight up.

I have my annual physical next month and I'm sure the numbers will be much better than last years as I am riding more and riding harder. Moral of the story is that, in many cases, you really don't need medications to make significant changes in your health. A change in lifestyle works wonders. The only health issue I have to worry about is my leukemia, which is doing just great with oral medication.

bruce19 wrote

"I have heard cardiologists say that the whole cholesterol issue is overblown"

Who are these cardiologists?

Here's my resource for cholesterol. It was actually part of the "prescription" from my doctor's office! :)

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/default.htm

Thanks everyone for the feedback. My company requires annual physicals so the numbers above are from my latest physical. My doctor mentioned statins at one time if the numbers got worse. I take fish oil for the tryglicerides. I tried a prescription niacin and have an adverse reaction (my skin started blistering, not hives, blisters!).

I do not think I have heart disease but who knows. I take medicine for high blood pressure but that is probably hereditary.

So far, this is step 1, the numbers came down since I started exercising. Steps 2 and 3 are eating better and....stopping smoking.

Don in Austin wrote: "The war on cholesterol has been a dismal failure at reducing heart disease"

What evidence do you have for that claim, Don?

RonH wrote:

"He also has me taking 2000 mg of niacin each morning."

Although niacin can change cholesterol numbers, a recent study showed that niacin doesn't reduce the chance of having a heart attack or stroke or other cardiac event.

bruce19 wrote

"I have heard cardiologists say that the whole cholesterol issue is overblown"

Who are these cardiologists?




Here's something you might find interesting. I have to check to see if he's a cardiologist. I will have to research some of my saved files to be more specific.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/10/making-sense-of-your-cholesterol-numbers.aspx

From the article:

"Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine[viii] found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel. The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, and found that the studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.

Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.

So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?

Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs.[ix]

The same drugs that the new guidelines suddenly created a huge new market for in the United States.

Coincidence? I think not.

Now, despite the finding that there is absolutely NO evidence to show that lowering your LDL cholesterol to 100 or below is good for you, what do you think the American Heart Association STILL recommends?

Lowering your LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100.[x]

And to make matters worse, the standard recommendation to get to that level almost always includes one or more cholesterol-lowering drugs."

Re: statins.....http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/20/the-truth-about-statin-drugs-revealed.aspx

Don in Austin wrote: "The war on cholesterol has been a dismal failure at reducing heart disease"

What evidence do you have for that claim, Don?

Here is a random sample. It only scratches the surface of what is out there if you look beyond the American heart Association and other front groups for big pharma companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/08/24/academic-takes-a-well-aimed-swipe-at-cholesterol-drug-ezetimibe/
http://www.cambridgemedscience.org/reports/CholMythCamb.pdf
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/08/15/another-industry-funded-statin-study-that-smacks-of-bad-science-and-bias/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/the-cholesterol-myth-that_b_676817.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/022960_medical_myths_cholesterol.html
http://www.wellnesstips.ca/high%20cholesterol.htm
http://www.thincs.org/WAPF2003.htm
http://dietheartpublishing.com/Cholesterol/10/09
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.aspx?Id=3318

Don in Austin

Here's something you might find interesting. I have to check to see if he's a cardiologist. I will have to research some of my saved files to be more specific.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/10/making-sense-of-your-cholesterol-numbers.aspx



Mercola has a well deserved reputation for promoting quackery.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/03/15-years-of-promoting-quackery/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/

Mercola has a well deserved reputation for promoting quackery.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/03/15-years-of-promoting-quackery/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/

FWIW, Dr. Oz has agreed with some of what he asserts. Both of the sites you posted are blogs and both, as far as I can tell, call naturopathic medicine and chiropractic treatment frauds. I happen to have experience that convinces me that they both have value. If you want to make a point about something Mercola says I'd suggest posting studies or some sort of evidence that he is off base on a particular subject. We are all well advised to deal in facts.

Here's my experience. 64, 5"11, 175ish +/-. Riding 150+ mi a week at a pretty good pace. Eating "right" according to the Drs. None the less, BP 140 - 150, Chol 200+ and creeping up. Got put on Lisinopril and Crestor. BP dropped, but started cramping on long rides. OK, I can handle that. Chol dropped to 160, BUT major muscle pain and tiredness. But the really scary thing was sudden and uncontrollable and unpredictable "twinges" in my shoulder muscle which made me feel like I was going to drop what was in my hand. I called the Dr and announce I was off Crestor. Tried Previstatin, same thing. Then the Dr suggested Choleast, a red yeast rice product he uses. No problems with the "dropsies" and only minor muscle pain. BUT my liver enzymes went though the roof! Got off of that stuff.

Heard about a LCHF (Low Carb, High Fat) diet. Read up on it, and medically it made a lot of sense. I took the plunge. That was in May. Eggs for breakfast every day, no more bread, sweets, potatoes, rice (sugars and starches) Only 50 carbs a day. Into ketosis, fat metabolism.

I'm now down to my HS weight, 162, and off all the meds. BP normal, Cholesterol still 200, but LDL below 100, HDL 80. Cholesterol particle size way up and count way down (Just above the high limit of 1000, but down from 1900!) Inflamation score way down. Saw the cardiologist 2 weeks ago. "No problems here." and I was cleared for my first Triathlon in September. Unfortunately I still can't run worth a darn.

Other advantages: ketosis requires less O2, so there is less oxidative stress on the body. I don't get as winded. Less lactose build up. I don't have to eat or suck gu on long rides. The body can only store about 2,000 cal of glucose, but even a very thin person has over 40,000 cals of fat.

If you want to know more, look up LCHF diets and/or get the book "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance."

I guess Atkins was right.

YMMV. Perhaps.

FWIW, Dr. Oz has agreed with some of what he asserts. Both of the sites you posted are blogs and both, as far as I can tell, call naturopathic medicine and chiropractic treatment frauds. I happen to have experience that convinces me that they both have value. If you want to make a point about something Mercola says I'd suggest posting studies or some sort of evidence that he is off base on a particular subject. We are all well advised to deal in facts.


It is Mercola that has the burden of proof to show his out of the mainstream claims are evidence based.

A few examples:

He is a noted anti-vaccine proponent. Some of his antivax claims are addressed here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/31/mercola-attacks-vaccinations-again/ Note the studies that are cited.

He opposes fluoridation without presenting evidence of harm.

He has promoted claims that cancer is caused by a fungus and baking soda is the cure. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/07/a-fungus-among-us-in-oncology/

He promotes homeopathy despite the fact that systematic reviews of the scientific evidence does not show effectiveness and the supposed mechanism for it to work is not scientifically possible.

He questions that HIV causes AIDS, stating "Dr. Al-Bayat provdes solid scientifi support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steriods and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes." Mercola.com newsletter, July 11, 2001 Issue 236

He makes unsubstantiated claims for supplements that he sells. Remember, if he is making a claim it is up to him to prove it.

The FDA, which is generally soft on altmed, has sent Mercola several demands to cease making false claims, for example:

http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2006/ucm076069.htm
http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2011/mercola.shtml

RonH wrote:

"He also has me taking 2000 mg of niacin each morning."

Although niacin can change cholesterol numbers, a recent study showed that niacin doesn't reduce the chance of having a heart attack or stroke or other cardiac event.

That is true. But the flip side of the study was that the participants were all taking a statin already and their LDL was already at low levels. Normally Niacin is given to increase the amout of good, HDL cholesterol because it helps indirectly by transporting the bad LDL out of the system.

One theory on that study is that since the HDL had very little LDL available to transport, it had little overall health benefit in that particular population.

So, I think the jury is still out on niacin.

One theory on that study is that since the HDL had very little LDL available to transport, it had little overall health benefit in that particular population.

So, I think the jury is still out on niacin.

I think the jury is in: statins seem to work at keeping people from having cardiovascular problems, and adding niacin does nothing to improve odds of survival.

13 years ago I had a heart attack due to blocked arteries. Cholesterol count was not that high but we use a different numbering system over here. It has become apparent that there is a history of heart problems in my family and so far I am the longest living male on my fathers side of the family but that is due to advanced medicine and knowledge.

My Count was 5.5 when I had the heart attack and is not that high. They like to see a number below 4 for anyone with a heart problem and Symvastatin was the drug used. It was down to below 3.5 till about 4 years ago when the dosage was raised to get the level lower. No problems so far with the drug but it is checked every 6 months along with bP- glucose- Psa and probably a few other tests done aswell.

But I never knew I had a problem till the heart attack. No sign whatsoever and I was fit.

Don't be complacent.

It is Mercola that has the burden of proof to show his out of the mainstream claims are evidence based.

A few examples: .........................................



Thank you for providing cites. I will check them out. I wonder why Dr. Oz has him on and supports some of his assertions.

I do not think I have heart disease but who knows. I take medicine for high blood pressure but that is probably hereditary.

So far, this is step 1, the numbers came down since I started exercising. Steps 2 and 3 are eating better and....stopping smoking.

Geez, gotta cut out that smoking. All the other improvements are moot if you're going to keep on smoking.

Geez, gotta cut out that smoking. All the other improvements are moot if you're going to keep on smoking.
+1 Amazing that stopping smoking isn't #1 on your list???

I went to the Dr. Oz show site out of curiosity and because it's been some time since I saw his shows with Dr. Mercola. Anyone who is interested can find a list of episodes with Oz and Mercola. I have to say Dr. Mercola doesn't seem like a "quack" to me and Dr. Oz seems to find value in discussions with him.


http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/radical-cures-your-doctor-thinks-are-crazy

RonH wrote:

"He also has me taking 2000 mg of niacin each morning."

Although niacin can change cholesterol numbers, a recent study showed that niacin doesn't reduce the chance of having a heart attack or stroke or other cardiac event.


I think the jury is in: statins seem to work at keeping people from having cardiovascular problems, and adding niacin does nothing to improve odds of survival.
The addition of niacin is to raise the HDL. I've been taking it for almost 2 years and my HDL has been good since. Before I added the niacin the HDL was the same as or lower than the LDL (not good).

I think the jury is in: statins seem to work at keeping people from having cardiovascular problems, and adding niacin does nothing to improve odds of survival.

Yes, you said it. ADDING Niacin [when LDL is already well controlled] does not seem to do a lot.

But, that makes sense: Niacin causes HDL to increase and the main benefit of high HDL numbers is to help clean up LDL. If LDL is already low, then it makes sense that raising HDL won't help a lot.

But, for a person who is 'intolerent' of statins Niacin can be a good option Niacin has been around a long time and there is a substantial body of research that says it helps.

Conversely, there is now a question raised by that study that asks if maybe we just don't understand how HDL works and how it benefits a person. But, i think it was simply a bad study. It only showed that there is no benefit to taking both a statin and Niacin. That's nice to know. But, the money to fund the study could have been spent more wisely.

It's really interesting, as a non-American with a background in the healthcare sector, to spectate on threads like these. Middle-aged Americans seem to know a fantastic amount about their "numbers" - cholesterol, etc. etc. etc. ... and to have great faith, both in the real-world relevance of these numbers and of the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions.

Personally I have no idea of my cholesterol numbers and no plans to find out. Reckless? I don't think so. In the first place, it is by no means clear to me that the relationship between high cholesterol and coronary artery disease is as straightforward as the drug companies would have you believe. Second, when last I looked the number of people who would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single death was remarkably high, which makes statins a very dubious therapy. Lots of people risking side effects while getting little if any benefit.

Take exercise. Eat properly. Lose weight, if you need to. Be more sceptical about the confident pronouncements of medical professionals and, especially, pharmaceutical companies.

Second, when last I looked the number of people who would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single death was remarkably high, which makes statins a very dubious therapy. Lots of people risking side effects while getting little if any benefit.


We used to have a regular poster, Alcanoe, who had done a remarkable amount of research on cholesterol/statins (and most everything else re training and health) who would totally agree with you. I would agree with Al and you, unless I find further evidence otherwise.

In these forums, and elsewhere, there is a terrific amount of anecdotal evidence - and I suppose research - about the tremendously negative effect of statin drugs on muscles, terrible pains from the drugs, etc.

It's really interesting, as a non-American with a background in the healthcare sector, to spectate on threads like these. Middle-aged Americans seem to know a fantastic amount about their "numbers" - cholesterol, etc. etc. etc. ... and to have great faith, both in the real-world relevance of these numbers and of the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions.

Personally I have no idea of my cholesterol numbers and no plans to find out. Reckless? I don't think so. In the first place, it is by no means clear to me that the relationship between high cholesterol and coronary artery disease is as straightforward as the drug companies would have you believe. Second, when last I looked the number of people who would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single death was remarkably high, which makes statins a very dubious therapy. Lots of people risking side effects while getting little if any benefit.

Take exercise. Eat properly. Lose weight, if you need to. Be more sceptical about the confident pronouncements of medical professionals and, especially, pharmaceutical companies.

By all means be sceptical. Look into who funds the American Heart Association. It is essentially a front group for statin producers. Ask your doctor how he/she fulfills the requirement for annual ongoing education. Almost inevitably its a vacation sponsored by a big pharma company "educating" your doctor about their latest drugs.

Don in Austin

The addition of niacin is to raise the HDL. I've been taking it for almost 2 years and my HDL has been good since. Before I added the niacin the HDL was the same as or lower than the LDL (not good).

Yes - however, raising HDLs doesn't help longevity or give protection from a heart attack, or so the latest study says. In fact, the Aim-High study
was stopped early, after 32 months when the group taking a statin and niacin, despite achieving higher HDL levels, did not have fewer heart attacks or other cardiovascular events than the statin-only group. Not only that, the niacin group had slightly more strokes.

So even though niacin is giving you higher HDL numbers, according to the latest study, it doesn't do anything more than just a statin, and it may slightly increase your risk of a stroke.

Yes - however, raising HDLs doesn't help longevity or give protection from a heart attack, or so the latest study says. In fact, the Aim-High study
was stopped early, after 32 months when the group taking a statin and niacin, despite achieving higher HDL levels, did not have fewer heart attacks or other cardiovascular events than the statin-only group. Not only that, the niacin group had slightly more strokes.

So even though niacin is giving you higher HDL numbers, according to the latest study, it doesn't do anything more than just a statin, and it may slightly increase your risk of a stroke.

The desired cholesterol numbers are an indicator of good health, but changing those numbers with pills does not promote health.

Don in Austin

We have lots of bike riders here, so what about "statins" and muscle fatigue?

number of people who would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single death was remarkably high, which makes statins a very dubious therapy.


THIS ^^. The terminology is NNT, which is short for Number Needed to Treat to produce desired result. Do your homework and you will find that, even by the pharmaceutical companies data, the NNT for statins shows the therapy to be ineffective at preventing heart disease. You will find a range of NNT figures for statins. The one here (http://www.thennt.com/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/) has the NNT for statins at 60. A NNT describing an effective therapy would be a little over 1 (one). Do some homework, especially if you ill-advisedly recommend statins without the knowledge of what NNT means or what the NNT needs to be for a particular therapy to be considered effective.

By all means be sceptical. Look into who funds the American Heart Association. It is essentially a front group for statin producers. Ask your doctor how he/she fulfills the requirement for annual ongoing education. Almost inevitably its a vacation sponsored by a big pharma company "educating" your doctor about their latest drugs.

Don in Austin

Yes, I agree: "By all means be skeptical" Especially of the impact of money and profits in American medicine. The practitioners do their best to provide good health care, but money always wins. And, money and "profit at any cost" drug companies profoundly influence the use of statins in the US and around the world.

But that does not mean that they do not help to save lives. They do. That is proven. Statins are among the most highly studied drugs in the world and the studies show conclusively that statins help save lives. Those studies prove that if your lipid counts are bad a statin will help. But, once you get past the drug company hype, you find that they do not save ALL lives... Today: NOTHING does that. NOTHING. That is:

60% of those who have heart attacks are in a "Low" or "Intermediate" risk level.

So, no, statins are definitely not a cure all. But, nothing is. Not diet, not execercize, not low bmi or waist circumference, not a lack of smoking or diabetes and not a statin pill. Nothing. But, each of them separately will improve your odds of escaping heart problems -- and the more you of them you do, the better your odds are.

But that's all they are: odds. Adhering to a health life-style may lower your chances of heart attack over the next 10 years from 20% to 15%. And adding a statin may lower it to a 10% risk. But, that is still a pretty high risk.

Some people make the mistake of thinking diet and exericise alone will be "enough".
Other people think taking a statin alone will be "enough".
The truth is: diet, exercise and a statin (if you have high cholesterol) will help more than any one of those things separately.
... But there are no guarantees. All we can do is improve the odds....

Do statins have side effects like muscle pain or muscle weakness? Yes, some more than others. But,if you have high cholesterol the risk of that, and the effects of that, is far lower than your risk of stroke or heart attack.

So, yes, if your physician tells you take a statin: be skeptical. Ask the questions. Educate yourself. It's YOU taking it, not the doctor-- just as it will be your stroke or your heart attack. But, in the end, you will probably find that it will improve the odds that you will have a longer, healthier life. Unfortunately, today, that is all we can do: improve the odds...

I am 74 and have type II diabetes. I have been on Lipitor for over 13 years. I get blood work done every 6 months, and I have had no side effects from the Lipitor at all. My C runs right around 125 for years now. Other than the diabetes, I am in almost perfect health.

And yes not all people can use statins. My wife cant, it makes her liver numbers go nuts.

In my case the Crestor lowered my cholesterol.. If lowering cholesterol decreases heart attacks and strokes it is a no brainier for me. My liver tests are good. I would rather live with some muscle pains than a heart attack or stroke but that's just me.

In my case the Crestor lowered my cholesterol.. If lowering cholesterol decreases heart attacks and strokes it is a no brainier for me. My liver tests are good. I would rather live with some muscle pains than a heart attack or stroke but that's just me.

THEORETICALLY Crestor, being water based does not tend to interact with muscle cells and is therefor unlikely to cause muscle problems. Unfortunately, many insurance plans will not pay for it -- If you want it, you have to buy it yourself and its expensive.

Take exercise. Eat properly. Lose weight, if you need to. Be more sceptical about the confident pronouncements of medical professionals and, especially, pharmaceutical companies.

So how does being in training for most of the year for one ride sound. That was a hard ride and I had been riding for 10 years before hand and doing this ride for 7 of them. Training was something like a metric every weekend-Couple of nights of Hard Cardio Vascular in the winter followed on by a couple of night rides of 20 to 30 miles as the training increased. After the event i used to keep in trim by doing 100 milers on the road and 65 mile Enduros and 30 milers at an average of 12 mph till the next years training had to start again. All of this was Offroad except for the road rides that were still on the MTB with only a change of tyres to slicks.

Diet was good with all the right stuff being eaten and NO Fast food. Weight was maintained at 140lbs of Muscle and When I say I was fit-I was fit.

Blocked arteries were my problem due to cholesterol. It should not have happened and the first Cholesterol check was after the heart attack. It was not that high and yet was not as low as the consultant would have liked for someone with a heart problem that I never knew existed. It turned out that there is a history of heart problems on my fathers side of the family that is hereditary.

Being fit is not a sure fire way to stop heart problems. In fact the fittest people I knew within cycling were not immune either. Several of them have died with heart problems that were not known about till the autopsy.

High cholesterol can be a killer. It blocks arteries that lead to heart attacks and not many are as lucky as I was in that my fitness saw me through mine. My mate who died a year later was not as lucky and he was fitter than me.

So Get the cholesterol checked. It's only a blood test and it will give an indication if problems are going to arise. You may be fine or you may be like me and have a problem without realising it.

Just wish I knew about Cholesterol before I found out the hard way

Avoiding junk carbs can do wonders to reduce triglycerides, and raise HDL. A real picture of heart health involves not a total cholesterol reading, but HDL, CRP, triglycerides and Hgb A1c. Diet and exercise works for me. If I was a heart attack survivor with multiple risk factors I might consider a statin, but otherwise no way in hell.

Don in Austin

I'll agree with that. Several years ago, I took Slo Niacin to lower my cholesterol, as well as beta blocker and diuretic to lower blood pressure. I lost 70 lb. through the South Beach Diet (which primarily gets rid of junk carbs) while doing virtually no exercise and all the bad numbers went into the normal range. I quit the Slo Niacin and BP meds and everything was good.

Fast forward several years, and my weight crept back up. Back on a beta blocker, but that's it as far as prescriptions go. I've gained almost all the weight back that I lost, but because I get exercise on the bike, and take my BP med, I'm.... almost okay even wit the weight gain (last cholesterol was 170 total, 34 HDL- a little low, 100 LDL - almost high, Triglycerides 175 a little high, but all those without fasting; I did an unexpected free health screen.)

I gained virtually all the weight back and decided to re-boot my South Beach Diet, so I expect all those borderline/slightly off numbers to come back into range.

So how does being in training for most of the year for one ride sound. That was a hard ride and I had been riding for 10 years before hand and doing this ride for 7 of them. Training was something like a metric every weekend-Couple of nights of Hard Cardio Vascular in the winter followed on by a couple of night rides of 20 to 30 miles as the training increased. After the event i used to keep in trim by doing 100 milers on the road and 65 mile Enduros and 30 milers at an average of 12 mph till the next years training had to start again. All of this was Offroad except for the road rides that were still on the MTB with only a change of tyres to slicks.

Diet was good with all the right stuff being eaten and NO Fast food. Weight was maintained at 140lbs of Muscle and When I say I was fit-I was fit.

Blocked arteries were my problem due to cholesterol.

It sounds odd, but having heard this story and other like it, I wonder whether there can be such a thing as being too fit? Maybe beyond a certain threshold, where you're really overstressing your heart (extreme endurance events and hard training), mechanisms kick in that produce results similar to being very unfit. The body's systems have feedback loops and maybe being overly fit triggers reactions that are not intended.

It sounds odd, but having heard this story and other like it, I wonder whether there can be such a thing as being too fit? Maybe beyond a certain threshold, where you're really overstressing your heart (extreme endurance events and hard training), mechanisms kick in that produce results similar to being very unfit. The body's systems have feedback loops and maybe being overly fit triggers reactions that are not intended.

Possible. http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20120604/can-too-much-exercise-be-harmful

Chronic extreme endurance efforts, like marathons, ultra-marathons, and long-distance triathlons, can cause cardiovascular damage over time," says researcher James H. O'Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at the Mid America Heart Institute at St. Luke's Health System, Kansas City.
"Healthier exercise patterns involve not such extreme duration or intensity," he tells WebMD.

However, we need to keep in mind that no matter how perfect you balance exercise and good eating habits you still are going to die. And it might be an early death from heart disease or cancer. We have a need for answers but often there is no clear answer.

I lost a lot of weight and there was absolutely no change in my lipid numbers or in my borderline BP. I also have sleep apnea, even though I weigh only 105 pounds. My doctor's spouse also has sleep apnea. He was never overweight and is a long time distance cyclist.

I guess I'm lucky in that when I lost the weight the first time (and hopefully it'll repeat), all the negative effects associated with poor health and excess weight pretty much went away. As I gained the weight back (but was more active), they returned but were not as severe.