Recently my doctor put me on Lipitor saying the studies were in, conclusions show it to be effective in preventing heart attacks. My cholesterol numbers are not high at all, pretty much where they were 25yrs ago. I've been reading about the side effects and now wondering if I really even want this stuff in my body when it isnt needed. I have been fit my whole life, heavy weight training since the 70's, sports and of course vigorous riding.

Are there members among us that have experienced the negative side effects of statins/Lipitor?

This is a small excerpt from minnpost.com concerning the controversy when patients with no previous history of coronary/heart problems are prescribed and ordered to take a statin:

"Are statins safe? Adverse effects with statin therapy are rare. Approximately 5% of patients will develop muscle-related complaints that are generally reversible after drug discontinuation."

There are some disturbing articles about the list of complications which include neuropathy, chronic extreme fatigue, loss of appetite, muscle pain and deterioration, etc etc. 5% is a bit steep in terms of liklihood for me.

I think diabetes is also a side effect ... particularly among women.

IMO if you can avoid this stuff, don't let your doctor start you on it. Don't forget to read about the effects on memory....

First off, I'd get a second opinion.

Meanwhile, does heart trouble and/or strokes run in your family and/or have you ever had any such problems? If not, I'd seriously question why any doctor would prescribe this class of drugs to an otherwise healthy individual.

But again, I'd get a second opinion from another doctor in another clinic/office (if at all possible).

Never again, for me..... Caused severe muscle damage, and never got it all back!

There are other alternatives out there, IF YOU REALLY NEED IT!

MHO Statins = bad drug

I was on Lipitor for years. I read a ton of literature on statins when my wife experienced muscle pain. I became convinced that the negative effects are under reported and the positive effects (on health, not numbers) are nearly non-existent. After that we both quit. Research shows that statins have no impact on overall mortality in people who have no prior heart disease. They may have benefits after a heart attack. When doctors say statins are one of the most effective drugs ever developed they are reacting to the fact that statins achieve their goal -- reducing cholesterol in the blood. The problem is that lower cholesterol numbers are only slightly associated with better health in some people and they are associated with slightly poorer health in others. Most doctors are not experts in this stuff -- they simply accept the general guidelines that are published. I followed a number of doctors who study lipids and are experts and followed their advice.

By the way, my cholesterol shot up after dropping statins but when I cut out virtually all sugar (and a fair amount of other carbs, particularly wheat), cholesterol dropped down (except supposedly heart healthy HDL which went up) and triglicerides went way down. I also lost 16% of body weight which will likely have a far greater impact on overall health than any pills I could take.

Didn't the Framingham study show that there was no relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease?

My MD focus is on inflammation. CRP high sensitivity testing is one of the tests we do; unfortunately, my insurance does not cover the testing.

Berkeley HeartLab

Does the reduction of COQ10 mess up the mitocondria? Myopathies?

Coenzyme Q10 and Statin-Induced Mitochondrial Dysfunction

I have been meaning to read about the cholesterol lies and get the facts.

The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It: Malcolm Kendrick: 9781844546107: Amazon.com: Books

I have been on Lipitor and now it generic form for more than a dozen years to good effect, and no side effects. Some people can take it and some cant.

My first experience with the "routine" was 14yrs ago when a resident doctor fresh out of school insisted (and I REsisted) I take BP meds when they were not needed. This now obsolete term of borderline is now "prehypertensive" or "prediabetic". The med care community is now an industry that feeds the pharmaceutical monster.

Congrats on the weight loss!

I have been on it since 2010 with no side effects that I know of. It may be killing me slowly but if so I can't feel it. I had a heart attack in Dec. 2010 and there is history and high cholesterol in my family. I feel I have no option.

If you have ever sat down to a meal and sipped the wine paid for by Big Pharma, it truly is reversed. Pharma directs and feeds most of the medical community from Med School all the way thru. Some Docs will fire their patients if they do not take statins.

Statins: The real info you need to grasp. | Jack Kruse Optimal Health Forum

I have been Type 1 diabetic since the age of 28. The doc said the studies are CONCLUSIVE that Lipitor will be beneficial in preventing a heart attack later in life.

There has been only my mother's dad who needed bypass surgery long ago. He smoked and drank (probably skyhigh BP) his entire life. My dad's side? None.

My LdL is 120. My BP is 120/75. I havent drank alcohol, smoked or any harmful substances since I received Christ in '81 at 23yrs of age. I am 56 and not overweight.

They are certainly in bed together. I foresee a day when left unchecked the taking of "preventative" meds will be mandatory.

I told my doc I am not your typical patient. Being we are all local, he respects my resenting being pigeon-holed, grouped in with these studies and maybe less than 1% are physically fit. He respects the price I pay to attempt being in good health.

The evidence clearly supports use of statins after a heart attack.

Statins come up on this forum from time to time. I can't take statins. My doc told me if I didn't go on statins I'd be dead in 10 years. I was on Lipitor and CoQ-10 for a year before I finally told the doctor I'd rather die, thank-you. Symptoms were numb arms, muscle soreness and weakness, dry skin, and memory loss. It would take a week to recover from a zone 2 ride, which left me progressively weaker throughout the season as I gradually LOST conditioning and strength; and by the end of the riding season I'd lost so much leg strength that I had to rest halfway up a flight of 15 stairs. Since stopping (over 10 years ago now) I got back most of my leg strength and memory, and the numb arms went away almost immediately. But my dry flaky skin persists and it seems I've permanently lost 15 bpm off my MHR.

My doc, not content to let it go at that, referred me to a cardiac specialist. (Who had been a GP before discovering there was more money in cardio.) He gave me a full slate of tests and couldn't find anything wrong with me other than my numbers being outside the recommended range. Then he tried me on Zocor with the same results, and then on Zetia, which immediately gave me open blisters on the bottoms of my feet.

I agree that based on posts here and various other forums, that side-effects are both more numerous and more severe than the medical community acknowledges. Muscle myopathy is particularly troublesome -- my doc sheepishly admitted a year or two ago that he'd seen studies that showed *some* degree of myopathy occurred in virtually all cases. Don't forget, the heart is a muscle! My advice, strictly as a layman, is to avoid statins at all costs.

For me, the fatique hit me quick typically the day after taking that night dose.

If I had a heart attack or other heart troubles....yes, I'd take them. But not in my case.

My apologies if another statin thread is irritating.

It cut my max lifts by about 10% in a month...
My cholesterol is SO low... Other then a BP that's a bit high no other risk factors... SO I quit it...

As a former PL (hoping to find a gym again)...10% is HUGE!

My first thought after reading the studies and cautions was, "I work too hard, winter is too long and there will be no risks of ruining my cycling!!!!!".

My questions would be:

A: who performed these "studies"?

B: who paid for these "studies"?

C: who's going to "benefit" the most from you taking this drug; you, or the doctor/pharmaceutical company?

Meanwhile, it's become all to common for "conclusively beneficial" drugs to later be found as being ineffective and/or far more dangerous than previously thought. I'll also mention that a relative of mine had a doctor who peddled an osteoporosis drug to her that was later found to cause cancer, which she subsequently was diagnosed with. Other doctors later indicated to her that "exposing yourself to cancer in order to possibly reduce the chances of bone fractures" was absolute nonsense in their opinion. Btw, IIRC, it was later found that so-called "conclusive" testing knowingly and willingly covered up the fact that this drug caused cancer at much higher rates than what the manufacturer admitted to.

However, only you and your doctors can decide what you should do. My main concern was that you should get a second opinion.

I had the rather bizarre experience recently in the waiting room of a clinic, while my Mother was getting a checkup. Not one, but TWO pharma sales reps giving spiels to two separate doctors. One took the medicalese gobbledygook approach, and the other took the personal relationship approach. It's creepy thinking that doctors are getting their drug information this way.

I'd rant further on my opinions, but if I keep up, I'll end up dragging this thread into A&E or something!

Edit: Having read the post that popped up just before mine, I think this thread is doomed to redistricting anyway, so here goes! (rant mode: ON)

1.) The Pharmaceutical Industry. These have gone wrong in so many ways due to the "for profit" nature of their business. Vaccine and Antibiotic research has gone by the wayside, since returns are too small to justify the investment in money and resources. Thus we are running out of antibiotics to throw at certain diseases. Meanwhile, pharma focuses on long term chronic conditions, where the name isn't "cure" or "prevent," but rather, is "control." They develop drugs that they know patients will take for long periods of time, or maybe the rest of their lives. Their research from that point on is to fund studies to expand the pool of people using these drugs. Honestly, sometimes I think Pharma resorts to the mindset of "we have this new drug, which seems to affect this, that, and the other symptom. Let's create a "This, that, and the other" syndrome, then say "if you have these symptoms, you may have This, That and The Other Syndrome! If so, we can help! Ask your Doctor about Wondorcillin, to control your TTtOS! warningwarningwarningwarning."

2.) Studies. Even without the funding, publishing, and methods questions. I don't place much trust in any study anymore. So much of what one study proves, another study disproves. Woody Allen's film, "Sleeper" came so hilariously close to the truth with it's "we now know these are good for you" scene. Coffee and Chocolate have indeed turned out to not be bad for one, with certain caveats. Also, it seems whole milk actually keeps one thinner than fat-removed milk. We all know how the whole butter thing turned out, with the replacements always being worse than the item they replace, while the item that was replaced turns out to have benefits that nobody knew about. I honestly now think that studies are just a way for people to go wrong with confidence.

I'd rant further, but I'm running out of steam, and losing my track of thought. Confusion and poor memory. Pharma probably has a drug for that. I should ask my Doctor...

The United States is one of only two countries, the other being New Zealand, that allows drugs to be advertised on TV

Huey Lewis....I want a new drug. That song sings today.

Hey doc, can you do something for my TT's and Strava's? And I'm suffering terribly getting dropped coming back from my metrics.

If there's a positive to my experience, it's that now I always have an excuse for poor memory.