Discussion
craig1912 said:
I did say my data was a few years old and your data shows declining use in France and increasing use in UK. Never the less there are still around six million French taking them and around 8 million in this country. Our criteria has changed and whilst there is the “French Paradox” of low cardio vascular disease (despite some “poor” choices of food) they tend to be slimmer and on average take more exercise.
I guess we can go round in circles but the UK and USA are far from the only western countries that “uses Statins by the skip-load” as the BMJ data confirms.
No worries! I wasn't trying to catch you out, just wondering about the data. I guess we can go round in circles but the UK and USA are far from the only western countries that “uses Statins by the skip-load” as the BMJ data confirms.
Looking at the absolute rather than the comparative, though, am I right in thinking that those figures show that basically a third of Brits over the age of 40 are taking a Statin???
I do think that the medical profession really needs to reconsider the way it assesses the human body on all levels, though.
I seem to have inherited most of my genetic traits from my mother. She is - and has been for a long time - massively overweight, but even as she approaches her eighties, basically the only thing she's ever suffered from has been biomechanical issues with her knees and back, which are a direct result of the weight she's carrying. Her cholesterol and every other indicator that can be measured has always been absolutely perfect as far as the medical world is concerned.
Likewise, I'm 5'10" and an overly well-insulated 21 stone. By any standard medical measure, you'd expect me to be charging full on towards a heart attack, type 2 diabetes and a stroke, with the only question being which one gets me first! The reality, however, is that I'm still reffing youth rugby matches for an hour on Sunday mornings without keeling over, could happily jump on a bike and ride 30+ miles, and like my mother, all my indicators are absolutely slap bang in the middle of healthy. It's always quite amusing watching doctors getting ready to give me the Statins speech, then looking at the test results and realising that my numbers are far, far "better" than theirs.
My father, on the other hand, has only ever been slightly overweight at worst, yet developed T2 diabetes in his 50s, and had a quadruple heart bypass in his early 70s, and guess what? His cholesterol was always "normal" too!
I'm not really sure what the answer is, but one thing that's crystal clear is that human bodies don't behave in a consistent, uniform manner, even when the indicators the medical profession can extract from them is suggesting that they should.
Kermit power said:
No worries! I wasn't trying to catch you out, just wondering about the data.
Looking at the absolute rather than the comparative, though, am I right in thinking that those figures show that basically a third of Brits over the age of 40 are taking a Statin???
I do think that the medical profession really needs to reconsider the way it assesses the human body on all levels, though.
I seem to have inherited most of my genetic traits from my mother. She is - and has been for a long time - massively overweight, but even as she approaches her eighties, basically the only thing she's ever suffered from has been biomechanical issues with her knees and back, which are a direct result of the weight she's carrying. Her cholesterol and every other indicator that can be measured has always been absolutely perfect as far as the medical world is concerned.
Likewise, I'm 5'10" and an overly well-insulated 21 stone. By any standard medical measure, you'd expect me to be charging full on towards a heart attack, type 2 diabetes and a stroke, with the only question being which one gets me first! The reality, however, is that I'm still reffing youth rugby matches for an hour on Sunday mornings without keeling over, could happily jump on a bike and ride 30+ miles, and like my mother, all my indicators are absolutely slap bang in the middle of healthy. It's always quite amusing watching doctors getting ready to give me the Statins speech, then looking at the test results and realising that my numbers are far, far "better" than theirs.
My father, on the other hand, has only ever been slightly overweight at worst, yet developed T2 diabetes in his 50s, and had a quadruple heart bypass in his early 70s, and guess what? His cholesterol was always "normal" too!
I'm not really sure what the answer is, but one thing that's crystal clear is that human bodies don't behave in a consistent, uniform manner, even when the indicators the medical profession can extract from them is suggesting that they should.
I'd assume the move to prescribe statins is prevention, rather than cure, which is the best model for any heathcare treatment. Longterm it's better for society, and a lot cheaper for the NHS. Looking at the absolute rather than the comparative, though, am I right in thinking that those figures show that basically a third of Brits over the age of 40 are taking a Statin???
I do think that the medical profession really needs to reconsider the way it assesses the human body on all levels, though.
I seem to have inherited most of my genetic traits from my mother. She is - and has been for a long time - massively overweight, but even as she approaches her eighties, basically the only thing she's ever suffered from has been biomechanical issues with her knees and back, which are a direct result of the weight she's carrying. Her cholesterol and every other indicator that can be measured has always been absolutely perfect as far as the medical world is concerned.
Likewise, I'm 5'10" and an overly well-insulated 21 stone. By any standard medical measure, you'd expect me to be charging full on towards a heart attack, type 2 diabetes and a stroke, with the only question being which one gets me first! The reality, however, is that I'm still reffing youth rugby matches for an hour on Sunday mornings without keeling over, could happily jump on a bike and ride 30+ miles, and like my mother, all my indicators are absolutely slap bang in the middle of healthy. It's always quite amusing watching doctors getting ready to give me the Statins speech, then looking at the test results and realising that my numbers are far, far "better" than theirs.
My father, on the other hand, has only ever been slightly overweight at worst, yet developed T2 diabetes in his 50s, and had a quadruple heart bypass in his early 70s, and guess what? His cholesterol was always "normal" too!
I'm not really sure what the answer is, but one thing that's crystal clear is that human bodies don't behave in a consistent, uniform manner, even when the indicators the medical profession can extract from them is suggesting that they should.
I was diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia about 30 years ago when in my early 20's, courtesy of my mother. I have been on and off statins since then >30 years. I also have managed blood pressure. When I was 1st diagnosed, I was very active, body fat in single digits, very controlled diet. My level was 14.6. My body is highly efficient at making the stuff.
My doctor was concerned about my ALT levels on a recent bloodtest, so I've just had a liver scan. Evidently it's doing fine, big, floppy no signs of scarring, so all is good.
Diet makes negligible difference from trials our family have taken part in, and from what I've seen with family members neither does weight, it's all to do with genetics. We have no cancer in the family, just heart disease of various types. Something is going to get you in the end.
I remember when Sir Steve Redgrave was still rowing at Olympic level he tested with high cholesterol levels, and at the time the perception was it was a fat person's condition.
At your weight, you will be doing damage to yourself, a bigger strain on heart, joints etc. If your happy as you are, then that's all that matters, but you need to be realistic there will be a future cost, but that could be a blessing. As Micky Flanagan mentions in one of his gigs, no one wants to be staring out of the sunny window not noing what's going on!
In my close group of mates, no one wants to be the 1st to go, but no one wants to be the last to go either!
pteron said:
DaveGrohl said:
Except statins don’t reduce oxLDL, they reduce healthy LDL…
HDL, Triglycerides, C-Reactive protein would something better than total cholesterol and basic LDL. Or you could do a full lipid panel.
My HDL, Trigs and CRP are all fine, that's why I'm looking further into it.HDL, Triglycerides, C-Reactive protein would something better than total cholesterol and basic LDL. Or you could do a full lipid panel.
What does a full lipid panel measure beyond those mentioned?
If your HDL, trigs and CRP are all fine then you’ve more than likely got a healthy LDL profile, they go in tandem generally. A simple LDL result reveals precisely nothing in comparison, other than fear. Fear = statin prescription and obedience.
bigdom said:
I'd assume the move to prescribe statins is prevention, rather than cure, which is the best model for any heathcare treatment. Longterm it's better for society, and a lot cheaper for the NHS.
I was diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia about 30 years ago when in my early 20's, courtesy of my mother. I have been on and off statins since then >30 years. I also have managed blood pressure. When I was 1st diagnosed, I was very active, body fat in single digits, very controlled diet. My level was 14.6. My body is highly efficient at making the stuff.
My doctor was concerned about my ALT levels on a recent bloodtest, so I've just had a liver scan. Evidently it's doing fine, big, floppy no signs of scarring, so all is good.
Diet makes negligible difference from trials our family have taken part in, and from what I've seen with family members neither does weight, it's all to do with genetics. We have no cancer in the family, just heart disease of various types. Something is going to get you in the end.
I remember when Sir Steve Redgrave was still rowing at Olympic level he tested with high cholesterol levels, and at the time the perception was it was a fat person's condition.
At your weight, you will be doing damage to yourself, a bigger strain on heart, joints etc. If your happy as you are, then that's all that matters, but you need to be realistic there will be a future cost, but that could be a blessing. As Micky Flanagan mentions in one of his gigs, no one wants to be staring out of the sunny window not noing what's going on!
In my close group of mates, no one wants to be the 1st to go, but no one wants to be the last to go either!
I'm certainly not oblivious to the potential damage that the excess weight can do. I've tried God knows how many ways to lose weight over the years, but all to no avail, although Interestingly having recently been diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed meds for that, the constant urge to stick my nose in the fridge just for something to occupy my mind has gone! I was diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia about 30 years ago when in my early 20's, courtesy of my mother. I have been on and off statins since then >30 years. I also have managed blood pressure. When I was 1st diagnosed, I was very active, body fat in single digits, very controlled diet. My level was 14.6. My body is highly efficient at making the stuff.
My doctor was concerned about my ALT levels on a recent bloodtest, so I've just had a liver scan. Evidently it's doing fine, big, floppy no signs of scarring, so all is good.
Diet makes negligible difference from trials our family have taken part in, and from what I've seen with family members neither does weight, it's all to do with genetics. We have no cancer in the family, just heart disease of various types. Something is going to get you in the end.
I remember when Sir Steve Redgrave was still rowing at Olympic level he tested with high cholesterol levels, and at the time the perception was it was a fat person's condition.
At your weight, you will be doing damage to yourself, a bigger strain on heart, joints etc. If your happy as you are, then that's all that matters, but you need to be realistic there will be a future cost, but that could be a blessing. As Micky Flanagan mentions in one of his gigs, no one wants to be staring out of the sunny window not noing what's going on!
In my close group of mates, no one wants to be the 1st to go, but no one wants to be the last to go either!
My issue was more that it's often not helpful to make assumptions based on weight, which people - including the medical profession - often do.
Evoluzione said:
Stan the Bat said:
I really wish there was definitive answer to this.
I was put on them last year, even though my cholesterol level has been highish for over 40 years.
Maybe you should ask Dr Statin and not Dr PH.I was put on them last year, even though my cholesterol level has been highish for over 40 years.
Just a thought
Why did you bother.
This is the recommendation from NICE
https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bh...
And this is what your GP is supposed to do to assess your risk of having a higher risk of a Cardiovascular life-threatening condition
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/you...
My guess is that in many instances, including my wife, this will be minimised to -
How high is the total Cholesterol? + How old is the patient? = Prescribe Statins
In the end, we all die of something.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bh...
And this is what your GP is supposed to do to assess your risk of having a higher risk of a Cardiovascular life-threatening condition
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/you...
My guess is that in many instances, including my wife, this will be minimised to -
How high is the total Cholesterol? + How old is the patient? = Prescribe Statins
In the end, we all die of something.
rdjohn said:
This is the recommendation from NICE
https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bh...
And this is what your GP is supposed to do to assess your risk of having a higher risk of a Cardiovascular life-threatening condition
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/you...
My guess is that in many instances, including my wife, this will be minimised to -
How high is the total Cholesterol? + How old is the patient? = Prescribe Statins
In the end, we all die of something.
This is true, but there's a lot of living to do before you get to dying, and it's a fairly certain bet that statins have substantially lowered my father's quality of life, and no certainty over whether they've extended it.https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bh...
And this is what your GP is supposed to do to assess your risk of having a higher risk of a Cardiovascular life-threatening condition
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/you...
My guess is that in many instances, including my wife, this will be minimised to -
How high is the total Cholesterol? + How old is the patient? = Prescribe Statins
In the end, we all die of something.
I never wanted to take any tablets 'for the rest of my life', but Mrs P pointed out that if it makes that life longer then what's the problem. So now I'm on blood pressure tablets too and some others and I just joyfully rattle when I pop my four tablets every morning. The alternative is to lose weight and we all know how easy that is in your sixties...
Pitre said:
I never wanted to take any tablets 'for the rest of my life', but Mrs P pointed out that if it makes that life longer then what's the problem. So now I'm on blood pressure tablets too and some others and I just joyfully rattle when I pop my four tablets every morning. The alternative is to lose weight and we all know how easy that is in your sixties...
Again, for me, it's quality of life over length.I take two meds daily.
One does prostate things that mean I'm not constantly up and down in the night. As far as I've been able to determine, there's no drug free way to achieve the same results, it significantly improves my quality of life, and seems to have zero side effects, so happy with that.
The other is for ADHD. That has a significantly greater impact on me, but it's essentially all positive! I feel more chilled, yet at the same time more energised, can focus much better, get more done and generally make more sense of the world around me.
Neither of these will extend my life, but both greatly enhance its quality, so I'm all up for those. Flip that equation on its head though, and I'd be seriously questioning the value.
For example, what is causing your high blood pressure? If it's stress-related, surely it's better to treat the cause rather than the symptom?
Pitre said:
I never wanted to take any tablets 'for the rest of my life', but Mrs P pointed out that if it makes that life longer then what's the problem. So now I'm on blood pressure tablets too and some others and I just joyfully rattle when I pop my four tablets every morning. The alternative is to lose weight and we all know how easy that is in your sixties...
It's very difficult to "lose weight" as what puts the weight on and keeps it on varies between individuals, plus the approaches to losing it successfully (and keeping it off) vary too. Don't give up on the idea and it's a reasonably slow process to do it successfully. It can be the simple things which set you off like having a hard boiled egg for breakfast instead of nothing at all. I've even read that people addressing sleep apnoea (or even just sleeping properly) have had decent weight loss.Edited by rodericb on Friday 24th March 08:30
Stan the Bat said:
Evoluzione said:
Stan the Bat said:
I really wish there was definitive answer to this.
I was put on them last year, even though my cholesterol level has been highish for over 40 years.
Maybe you should ask Dr Statin and not Dr PH.I was put on them last year, even though my cholesterol level has been highish for over 40 years.
Just a thought
Why did you bother.
This thread has been very useful in highlighting issues and has raised a lot of questions. You're on the football field and someone has just passed you the ball, don't stand there gibbering, get on with it.
There is now a long list of possibilities and pointers here. If you want to know more then get a pad and pen and write them down, get an appointment with a specialist and talk them through.
Or act otherwise to get your cholesterol down. Blood tests don't cost, they're free.
It's all there for you to explore.
A question for Dr PH 
How long do you think it takes for grapefruit to change your blood? (apologies I forgot the precise terminology).
The reason I ask is I've been on them for about 3 - 4 weeks now (will check back) and have been asked to come in for a blood test. They don't know i've changed my diet a bit and it'll be a good test to see what has happened. If it needs a bit longer i'll postpone it.
I did about a month on statins, but ditched them in favour of a dietary change to see what that would do instead when I read the accompanying sheet and then this thread popped up.
Also, is there any particular thing to test for in my blood that they may not do automatically and I could push for?
What i'm saying is you can use me as a Guinea pig and i'll report back. I am of course just an average man on the street and much of these heavily technical biological posts have gone over my head.
For the record, that ^ aside I have cut down on drinking a bit in between blood tests too so this will also have skewed the results. I haven't changed my diet though, apart from the addition of one pink grapefruit per day.
How long do you think it takes for grapefruit to change your blood? (apologies I forgot the precise terminology).
The reason I ask is I've been on them for about 3 - 4 weeks now (will check back) and have been asked to come in for a blood test. They don't know i've changed my diet a bit and it'll be a good test to see what has happened. If it needs a bit longer i'll postpone it.
I did about a month on statins, but ditched them in favour of a dietary change to see what that would do instead when I read the accompanying sheet and then this thread popped up.
Also, is there any particular thing to test for in my blood that they may not do automatically and I could push for?
What i'm saying is you can use me as a Guinea pig and i'll report back. I am of course just an average man on the street and much of these heavily technical biological posts have gone over my head.
For the record, that ^ aside I have cut down on drinking a bit in between blood tests too so this will also have skewed the results. I haven't changed my diet though, apart from the addition of one pink grapefruit per day.
Pitre said:
Kermit power said:
... what is causing your high blood pressure? If it's stress-related, surely it's better to treat the cause rather than the symptom?
Always been a bit overweight but now it's an issue, apparently.Many of us are in the same boat. Do I live an enjoyable short life or a less enjoyable longer life? That's what we, or at least I question as we roll the dice.
For change to happen you need to want it before doing it and realise you'll have to change for life.
It's tough and I know it too.
Edited by Evoluzione on Friday 24th March 09:54
Evoluzione said:
A question for Dr PH
How long do you think it takes for grapefruit to change your blood? (apologies I forgot the precise.
No idea. But I normally have a bloodtest every 8 weeks to check my levels.How long do you think it takes for grapefruit to change your blood? (apologies I forgot the precise.
I have hyperfamiliar cholesterol, dietary changes have no effect. When our family took part in trials 25 years ago, it appeared dietary changes could move it 1-1.5, and that's if your diet is really shocking. My liver is highly efficient at making it, so if I've off statins my results go early teens.
Have them check you liver functions, its only another vial, ALT serum levels etc. It will show how the liver is working, any possible disease. As we age, plaque is laid down, the arteries get less flexible.
Evoluzione said:
Stan the Bat said:
Evoluzione said:
Stan the Bat said:
I really wish there was definitive answer to this.
I was put on them last year, even though my cholesterol level has been highish for over 40 years.
Maybe you should ask Dr Statin and not Dr PH.I was put on them last year, even though my cholesterol level has been highish for over 40 years.
Just a thought
Why did you bother.
This thread has been very useful in highlighting issues and has raised a lot of questions. You're on the football field and someone has just passed you the ball, don't stand there gibbering, get on with it.
There is now a long list of possibilities and pointers here. If you want to know more then get a pad and pen and write them down, get an appointment with a specialist and talk them through.
Or act otherwise to get your cholesterol down. Blood tests don't cost, they're free.
It's all there for you to explore.
Seems both of us can make pointless posts.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff