reboot9911

am taking a generic statin drug (10mg, for cholesterol). Taking it for about a month. I've been feeling kind of lathargic over the last week and during my road ride today. I felt lousy. Does anyone else take statins? Do you feel any side affects? If so, what did you do about it? Please help.

djnzlab1

HI,
A few people who take statins over react to the medication and stop producing cq10 in the liver, this leads to other problems to many to list.
Some countries require a black label(Canada) warning on statins, most Dr's dont know about the dangers cause they only believe what the drug companies tell them.
I was having alot of problems taking statins I couldn't climb stairs had problems getting off the couch and was lossing muscle mass rather quickly this occured about 6 mos into the meds.
Bike ridders burn a lot of those liquid fats in your blood things like lipids . Take at least 50 mg of cq10 to help replace your depleted cq10.
I use niacin vit C/ and lysine and diet to control my cholestrol/hdl and it has worked well, just ridding the bike has helped even more. Processed foods have excess bad omega's this can have negative effect on your lipids things like fresh fruit,fiber whole grains are good.
Doug
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/nswltrmain.html

freeranger

You might ask your doctor to try a different statin. Not all of them will affect you the same. The one I am on now doesn't bother me. But I was on another, that after a couple weeks on it, a mtn.bike hill which I used to always climb, all of a sudden was a real struggle (this was some 10 years ago). I quit taking that statin, and after a couple of weeks off of it, was riding up that hill once more. Might have to try a couple before you find one that works for you. Consult your doctor.

kycycler

I had a friend who was started on a statin. Had the same reaction you seem to be having. His DR changed his meds and that helped.

djnzlab1

HI
read this,((
In fact, if you're taking any statin and experience the above symptoms of rhabdomyolysis -- particularly muscle pain and tenderness -call your DR- ))
https://www.cvshealthresources.com/topic/baycol


actual research into side effects,((According to experts, muscle pain and other side effects occur in up to 30 percent of statin patients))

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082401714.html

Wanderer

I was on Simvastatin, and almost lost all strength in my hands and feet. I would even drop a ketchup bottle moving it from the fridge to the table. Just couldn't hang on. Symptoms were basically muscle weakness and pain while exercising those muscles. At first, I thought it was joint pain, as I do have arthritis.

I also ran across two other people, friends, who were having the same problem. One gave up golf, because he couldn't hold on to the club handle.

Guess what - they were both taking the same drug!

Since quitting, against doctor advice, all three of us have gotten better. Two have completely recovered, but, I have never gotten the strength or flexibility back in my hands, or feet. Better, just not like they were (I used to have really strong hands.)

It should be noted, that improvement was noticeable within days of cessation of that foul drug......by al three of us. I was amazed at how much better I felt within a couple days, and gradual improvement continued for a long time. I just never got over it completely. My arthritis is now back where it was prior to the simvastatin.

The doctors (3 different ones) still don't believe the statin was the cause ----- butttttt, three people I know, and all got better since stopping********************

I believe US!

With good reason - I WILL NOT TAKE ANOTHER STATIN DRUG!!!!!!

wmodavis

I'm off all statins after 15 years of side effects including 5 heart attacks and two cancers! Check out this yahoo group called Stopped_Our_Statins (https://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...d_Our_Statins/)
I can find too much evidence that statin reducing drugs are a mis-guided treatment.
See also my blog called Credible Evidence at www.wmodavis.com. Lots of evidence based on my research.

stapfam

I have a high cholesterol count and as such have taken symvastain for 10 years. Last year and the count rose so double the dose of statin and it does take more effort to motivate myself- but not much. What is bothering me is a certain amount of muscular pain that takes a while to work off in the mornings.

But symvastatin or another bypass- I have a choice.

alcanoe

I took 10 mg of Pravachol (a weaker statin) for about 4 years. Zero side effects. Stopped when I discovered it was pretty much ineffective for primary intervention. It's a big con unless maybe you have extremely high cholesterol values.

The West Scotland trial cohort either smoked or had symptoms of cardiovascular issues before the trail began. It was more of a secondary intervention trial. The Framingham study results which were suppressed until a doctor dug them up recently showed that physical activity was had an order of magnitude better results than statins. There's no money to be made through exercise, so no one is that interested in those results.

My wife developed leg pain with hers. She stopped before I did.

By the time I reached the conclusion to stop, my doctor had reached the same conclusions on the research.

Al

wmodavis

Stepfam - the choice is not between taking a statin cholesterol reducing drug and another bypass. I had my bypass and 4 other MI's while on statins and my cholesterol was down where the cardiologists were really happy. High cholesterol does not cause heart attacks. If it did why do roughly half of the heart attacks occur in people with low cholesterol? It is not a cause!

wmodavis

Alcanoe - Your wife was wise, in fact there is NO clinical evidence that women have any benefit from taking statin drugs. See this link. And some clinical trials show those with highest cholesterol live longer.

stapfam

Cholesterol blocks arteries. Arteries that are 90% blocked cause problems. And cholesterol is not the only cause of Heart attacks but is just one of the causes.

And just a warning to everyone. I had been riding for 9 years before the bypass. I was probably at my fittest in 20 years and My diet was pretty good. Low cholesterol food- plenty of the "Correct" type of food and plenty of exercise. My cholesterol count when in hospital was around normal. Didn't help me much though.

And two years later my riding partner died of a Heart attack on a ride. Now he was fit and had no history of any heart problems. The post mortem showed Cholesterol build up internally within the heart. Then again- I can tell you of two other riders of a "mature" age that had no previous heart problems that died on bike rides. One of whom did have a heart defect that had gone undetected but the other had cholesterol build up which was the cause of his heart attack.

So anything I can do to stop Choilesterol build up and I am going to take it. Exercise- correct food or pills.

alcanoe

Not only that, but there is a lot of evidence that as you get older, lower cholesterol is just not beneficial. Things came to a head for me when my doctor thought I should double my dose to drive my LDL very low. I said I'd think about it, but I had to to research it. He gave me a copy of an article out of a medical journal explaining the rational for very low LDL

Six months later when I visited him again, I had concluded, that medical journals have no integrity. They are ruled by the dug manufactures. I had also developed a number of counter articles to low LDL and had also descovered that I'd been scammed by the West Scotland and Framingham (the mother of all statin studies) studies. So I wrote him a two page rational of why I had quit statins.

In the ensuing 6-months, he had reached the same conclusions.

Based on my studying of two exercise physiology books (mentioned in the heart rate thread), I've concluded that the real issue is insulin resistance and the subsequent fat accumulation due to lack of adequate physical activity and the over consuming of calories for the amount expended.

That's dramatically exemplified in a chart in Campbell's China Study. The rural Chinese suffer effectively no cardiovascular and cancer problems compared to Americans while consume over 500 calories more than Americans for the same normalized body weight (143 lbs). The Chinese are thin, we are obese. The reason is that their higher calorie consumption is equivalent to jogging 8 to 10 miles every day.

Bottom line, Lack of vigorous physical activity is unhealthy particularly concerning diabetes, cardiovascular issues and many cancers. Campbell missed that point and concludes that the better health of the rural Chinese is do solely to almost no animal protein consumption. His solution is pure veganism.

Al

Timtruro

[QUOTE His solution is pure veganism.

Al[/QUOTE]

Pure veganism, if that is what he is really doing, is not only unhealthy, it is downright dangerous. "Pure vegans" have to take multiple supplements of vitamins, usually with the needle,not just pills in order to make up for the many vitamins and minerals that their bodies lack. Don't do it.

Have we all forgotten the old adages "moderation in everything" and the simple " take in fewer calories than you burn in order to lose weight" and exercise 6 days a week.

Ed in GA

It should also be noted here that "Statins" not only lower LDL, most of them also lower the HDL.

Atherosclorosis appears in many people who have had an imbalance between the LDL and HDL.

For the bulk of my adult life, I have had a low number when it comes to LDL, but have also had a corresponding low number as regards HDL.

Because of the low overall number, I mistakenly thought I had nothing to fear from Plaque build up in the arteries. I could not have been further from the truth.

There's only one brand that make the claim of reducing LDL while maintaining, or increasing, HDL. I have taken this drug to no avail.

Exercise is "supposed" to help raise the HDL in your system. It doesn't work that way for everyone. This is why you see some people who seem to be physically fit with major heart/Artery problems.

alcanoe

Pure veganism, if that is what he is really doing, is not only unhealthy, it is downright dangerous. "Pure vegans" have to take multiple supplements of vitamins, usually with the needle,not just pills in order to make up for the many vitamins and minerals that their bodies lack. Don't do it.

Have we all forgotten the old adages "moderation in everything" and the simple " take in fewer calories than you burn in order to lose weight" and exercise 6 days a week.[/QUOTE]

Yes on the veganism. Exercising 6 days a week is on target. And too, since the understanding of nutrition is in it's infancy, who knows what you are missing with veganism. It's claimed that veganism is healthier and reduces cardio/cancer problems. I've never found any solid data. We are omnivores and you would think that meat is part of our natural food.

That said, we do consume way too much meat/dairy for good cardio and cancer health based on the existing science. My personal approach is to limit meat (including fish) consumption to less than about 3 oz/day. I eat no dairy as there's a strong association with prostate cancer (had it twice). My wife lost a lot of her allergies when she quit dairy.

We limit most of the red meat to grass fed as it's lower in Omega-6 and saturated fats not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones. Cows actually get sick on corn therefore the grass fed are healthier and don't need the antibiotics.

Chicken is not available grass fed. We eat the original chicken that was consumed here in the US decades ago. One small French company raises it. It's the last of the breeds that reach maturity in the normal chicken life span. All the others have been bred to reach maturity in half the time.

Is it healthier? Don't really know, but we had given up chicken decades ago when the meat got so full of fat that we couldn't stand the taste which also became very bland. These chickens are lean and taste so much better. They cost at least twice as much and the company has yet to turn a profit here in the US.

Al

Bud Bent

I'm on niacin (told my doctor I didn't want statins), but haven't had my first checkup since going on it, so I don't know how well it's working yet. What made you combine vitamin C and lysine with it?

djnzlab1

HI,
This regeme has prevented bypass surgery for some people, remember that bound LDL is harmless to the arteries, if you had a bypass don't take L-proline it seems a little too aggressive at removing Plaque and there's been problems with bypass surgery some plaque may help glue those transplanted arteries.
I take 2,000 L-lysine and 2,000 vit -c this can prevent arterial damage from daily stress and may improve blood flow to the small arteries in the heart I also take 500 mg of crystalin Niacin at bed time with fish oil. Avoid time release niacin it can and does cause liver damage. NO drug company will do trials on Vitamin therapy..

Below is a aggressive approach to reversing blocked arteries.

((Linus Pauling Therapy for the Reversal of Heart Disease

1. Vitamin C: to bowel tolerance - as much as you can take without diarrhea. For most people this will be in the range of five to ten grams (5,000-10,000 mg.) each day. Spread this amount into several equal doses 4 or more hours apart. Vitamin C salts, Linke in BalanCe, are more easily tolerated and less prone to cause diarrhea in high doses. Vitamin C prevents further cracking of the blood vessel wall.
2. L-Proline: 3 grams twice per day. Proline acts to release lipoprotein(a) from plaque formations and prevent further deposition of plaque in the arterial walls.
3. L-Lysine: 3 grams twice each day. Lysine acts to release lipoprotein(a) from plaque formations and prevent further deposition of of plaque in the arterial walls.
4. Co-enzyme Q10: 90-180 mg. twice per day. Co-enzyme Q10 strengthens the heart muscle.
5. L-Carnitine: 3 grams twice per day. L-Carnitine also strengthens the heart muscle and aids in metabolizing fat into energy.
6. Niacin: Decreases production of lipoprotein(a) in the liver. Inositol hexanicotinate is a form of niacin which gives less of a problem with flushing and therefore allows for larger therapeutic doses. Begin with 250 mg. at lunch, 500 mg. at dinner and 500 mg. at bedtime the first day; then increase gradually over a few days until you reach four grams per day, or the highest dose under four grams you can tolerate. Be sure to ask your doctor for liver enzyme level tests every two months or less to be sure your liver is able to handle the dose you are taking.
7. Vitamin E: 800-2400 IU per day. Vitamin E Inhibits proliferation of smooth muscle cells in the walls of arteries undergoing the atherosclerotic changes.))


Statins can increase heartfailure by reducing the production of co enzyme cq10 we normally make 300mg at around age 21 and it drops as we age. If you take statins you may stop making it all together the negative side of the drug hence neurological and cardiac function decline. Its so gradual many Dr's think its age related, he they have great deal on the electric wheel chairs if you can't walk any more.


remember DR's in the US Only know what the Drug companies tell them most data reviewed from clinical trials by the drug companies the FDA reviews the data provided and then it hit the streets, I believe that testing in this country is not done scientifically due to cost and data can be adjusted to appear safe most testing is only done by the drug companies DUH once a drug is approved there's considerable risk for many people it then takes 10-15 years of negative outcomes before they pull the drug.

alcanoe

I thought I would post this link per my previous comments on meat and also on Campbell's The China Study. The linked study is among many that have supported Campbell's conclusions about meat and cancer/cardio issues. The China Study is about the most extensive, rigorous and most thorough population study ever done and probably ever will be done. Unfortunately as in all nutrition studies, the physical activity component was ignored. You can't study nutrition independent of activity and get meaningful results except possibly for couch potatoes. That said, Campbell's data shows that if you keep your animal protein calories below 10% (5% is even better) of your total calories, you have a major reduction in risk of having cardiovascular and cancer issues.

Al

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

MTBLover

DIsclaimer- I swore up and down that I wasn't going to respond to this but I just couldn't resist...)

This is simply wrong and reflects a prevalent attitude toward veganism that generally comes from being uneducated about what a vegan diet actually looks like. A vegan diet may need to include some oral supplementation with some of the micronutrients of concern (B12, D, and long-chain O3s), but these are no big deal, and not required in everyone.

MTBLover

Do a PubMed search on "vegan" and you will see numerous review articles that, while not totally conclusive (and little in medicine is), they are highly suggestive that vegan and vegetarian diets are healthier than omnivorous diets in reducing risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain eye diseases, etc., etc., etc. Your claim that "we are omnnivores" is poorly substantiated by the available paleontologic and anthropologic evidence.

alcanoe

Suggest a reading Wade's Before the Dawn

https://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237918690&sr=1-34

One will discover that without meat, we could not support the brain power we developed. There is overwhelming evidence that we are Omnivores. However, there certainly are many efforts by the faith-based vegan community to cast humans as herbivores. It's just bunk.

Not that a vegan lifestyle can't be healthy. However, it needs to be followed with caution as one will run into nutrition deficiencies if not careful. I've run into folks who were protein deficient for two years before they figured it out. It's just that going vegan is not necessary or even desirable for most of us.

Al

MTBLover

I'm familiar with Wade and numerous others who've written on the subject. Note that I didn't say that humans aren't omnivores- just that your claim that we are is poorly substantiated, just as is the claim that we are completely herbivores, or carnivores, for that matter. In reality, we have the cognitive and emotional ability to choose what we want to eat, no? So, arguments about the length of the digestive tract, the fact that we have flat molars, etc., etc. are ultimately specious.

So now that we've settled that, the main thing on the table (as it were) is that regardless of whether or not one subscribes to a given philosophical school of eating or another, it is entirely possible to have a healthy diet regardless of whether one is a vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, or whatever. The issue is balance. I've known a few heavy junk food-consuming vegans who were committed to a pretty unhealthy diet, just as I've known a few omnivores who ate a lot of junk food. However, I would wager that on balance, there are proportionally more people in the latter category than the former.

alcanoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTBLover

I'm familiar with Wade and numerous others who've written on the subject. Note that I didn't say that humans aren't omnivores- just that your claim that we are is poorly substantiated, just as is the claim that we are completely herbivores, or carnivores, for that matter. In reality, we have the cognitive and emotional ability to choose what we want to eat, no? So, arguments about the length of the digestive tract, the fact that we have flat molars, etc., etc. are ultimately specious.

I take exception that the omnivore claim is poorly substantiated. There's a reason why human camps of prehistory always includes piles of animal bones. The study prehistoric societies indicates some significant non-animal consumption as well. The Australian Aborigines come to mind. It's about as proven as almost anything in nutrition.

I suspect that actual prehistoric diets were as varied as the natural resources of the location and were as extreme as necessary to survive. As recently as the early 1900's, the Inuit subsisted pretty much solely on meat and paid for it with undesirable side effects such as osteoporosis. However, they consumed so much fish that it was the first solid clue that DHA and EPA were beneficial in reducing cardiovascular and some cancer issues. They had so much of it in their blood that they would bleed from a cut for 8 minutes vice the more normal 4. Of course any nutrition benefit such as theses omega-3s are thought to have, one has to recognize that any primitive diet was accompanied by a very physically demanding life-style. The exercise was beneficial as well and possibly more so.

We have the luxury now to successfully pursue the eating style of choice. It's made possible by mass distribution and nutrition science.

I agree most vegetarians and vegans eat a more healthy diet than the vast majority of meat consumers. I don't personally subscribe to balance or even moderation. Too subjective and dependent solely on the practitioner's knowledge of nutrition and the knowledge of the effects of physical activity. That and the preponderance of bad science in the nutrition field is why I've study nutrition and exercised based physiology from textbooks as a hobby.

Al

djnzlab1

HI,
there's been considerable research done on why eskimoes who eat alot of animal fats have very little heart disease. The reason is simple wild animals eat better food than domestic many cows and meat producing domestic animals eat meals that are to rich in simple sugars and to many carbs where many of the wild animals of the north eat fish and sea life rich in good omega's. Farmers need to allow more grazing and less corn .
Nature has the answer to many health problems its man who mess it up trying to improve the growth rate of animals thru hormones and antibiotics and feed that rich in carbs.
Doug