Statins: any experience of them?

[Alf Bentley]

This is definitely a niche topic for oldies and medics. 

 

Is anyone on statins or taken them in the past and have any opinion on them?

Or anyone have experience of them through health work?

 

I ask as I'm likely to be recommended them again in a few days - and am 50-50 whether to agree this time, so second opinions would be appreciated.

 

For some years, blood tests have shown my "bad cholesterol" to be a bit high - not massively high, but a bit above normal. I don't lead a very unhealthy life, so little scope for natural improvement.

I've not yet had any angina/circulatory issues, though I do have unrelated heart issues (cardiomyopathy - thickening heart muscles, causing abnormal rhythms).

 

I'm not keen on over-medicating, but am not anti-medication. But I am put off by some reportedly quite common side-effects of statins, notably muscle pain.

Also, as a contrary bloke, I'm put off by the fact that statins are pushed so hard by the medical profession. There was even some senior doctor who called for everyone over 50 to be put on them!

 

Ironically, being under regular monitoring for unconnected heart issues also puts me off accepting statins.....such monitoring has always shown my circulation to be good & I assume echocardiograms could pick circulatory issues up early?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I have been taking them for years, and highly recommend them. High blood pressur and cholestrol are my main problems.

[Duquesne Whistle]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

This is definitely a niche topic for oldies and medics. 

 

Is anyone on statins or taken them in the past and have any opinion on them?

Or anyone have experience of them through health work?

 

I ask as I'm likely to be recommended them again in a few days - and am 50-50 whether to agree this time, so second opinions would be appreciated.

 

For some years, blood tests have shown my "bad cholesterol" to be a bit high - not massively high, but a bit above normal. I don't lead a very unhealthy life, so little scope for natural improvement.

I've not yet had any angina/circulatory issues, though I do have unrelated heart issues (cardiomyopathy - thickening heart muscles, causing abnormal rhythms).

 

I'm not keen on over-medicating, but am not anti-medication. But I am put off by some reportedly quite common side-effects of statins, notably muscle pain.

Also, as a contrary bloke, I'm put off by the fact that statins are pushed so hard by the medical profession. There was even some senior doctor who called for everyone over 50 to be put on them!

 

Ironically, being under regular monitoring for unconnected heart issues also puts me off accepting statins.....such monitoring has always shown my circulation to be good & I assume echocardiograms could pick circulatory issues up early?

Statins can be used in conjunction with other medication, so they're not always simply to lower cholesterol. I didn't know that until my doctor called me at home, basically told me I was being a bit of a tit and explained why I should take them along with the other medication I'd been given.

It it strictly for lowering cholesterol in your case? 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

Statins can be used in conjunction with other medication, so they're not always simply to lower cholesterol. I didn't know that until my doctor called me at home, basically told me I was being a bit of a tit and explained why I should take them along with the other medication I'd been given.

It it strictly for lowering cholesterol in your case? 

 

Yes, they'd be simply to lower "bad cholesterol" in my case.

[Duquesne Whistle]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, they'd be simply to lower "bad cholesterol" in my case.

Then it's probably a difficult one Alf. There's two schools of thought and both have 'backers'. It does seem that they want to push statins on everyone over a certain age, which makes me instantly dubious. 

I'm certainly no expert, so no real advice from me, but I'd personally be inclined to hold off in your situation. My family (on my mothers side) has a history of high bad cholesterol. From my Grandfather and Grandmother, to their five offspring and down to myself and my brother. That being said, my Grandparents died at 94 and 95 respectively, my mother is still going strong in her 80's and her 4 siblings are all over 70 and still with us. My brother and I are in our 50's. Maybe slightly high bad cholesterol isn't such a concern. Unless my Grandparents should have lived to be 120 of course!

I'll reiterate though, I'm no expert.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

This is definitely a niche topic for oldies and medics. 

 

Is anyone on statins or taken them in the past and have any opinion on them?

Or anyone have experience of them through health work?

 

I ask as I'm likely to be recommended them again in a few days - and am 50-50 whether to agree this time, so second opinions would be appreciated.

 

For some years, blood tests have shown my "bad cholesterol" to be a bit high - not massively high, but a bit above normal. I don't lead a very unhealthy life, so little scope for natural improvement.

I've not yet had any angina/circulatory issues, though I do have unrelated heart issues (cardiomyopathy - thickening heart muscles, causing abnormal rhythms).

 

I'm not keen on over-medicating, but am not anti-medication. But I am put off by some reportedly quite common side-effects of statins, notably muscle pain.

Also, as a contrary bloke, I'm put off by the fact that statins are pushed so hard by the medical profession. There was even some senior doctor who called for everyone over 50 to be put on them!

 

Ironically, being under regular monitoring for unconnected heart issues also puts me off accepting statins.....such monitoring has always shown my circulation to be good & I assume echocardiograms could pick circulatory issues up early?

I've been on statins for donkey's years Alf and currently take 40mg Atorvastain every day. I have a condition called Familial Hypercholesterolemia which is genetic/hereditary in our family, and means my body can't shift the LDL/bad cholesterol naturally.

 

My Grandad died of a heart attack in his late 40's so my Dad was immediately tested in his mid 20's. He's now 75 and has been on various drugs to manage it for over 50 years. I think he takes 60-80mg a day.

 

We both get blood tested twice a year to monitor it and the 'safe/normal' level of LDL is around 3mmol/L I believe. If it gets up to 8-10mmol/L then you're at high risk of arteries clogging and having a heart attack. My level is usually around 5-7 even with medication.

 

What I've noticed over the years is that when my level has been at it's lowest, it's been when I've been exercising regularly (maybe has something to do with the blood pumping/flushing the bad cholesterol through your system better?). Diet also plays a huge part for us and we try to cut out as much saturated fats as possible (my old man is much stricter than me on this).

 

So in summary, I think statins are safe and absolutely do the job. Yes, I suffer from a bit of joint ache but that's the only real side effect. Combined with a good diet and plenty of exercise I reckon you'll be fine mate 

 

 

Edited 22 May 2021 by Izzy

[tom27111]

Spilt red wine on a beige carpet once. 

 

Don't believe that pouring salt over it works, made even even worse.

[Bryn]

Big part of the reason deaths from coronary heart disease have plummeted, amongst other arteriopathies. The reason doctors want to "push"  them is that they cost pennies and save lives. This notion that doctors in the UK prescribe drugs for their own malicious ends is total bullshit.

 

They have side effects, all drugs do, but they're generally pretty mild and treatable.

 

If your doctor has calculated your individual cardiovascular risk and recommended a statin you're an absolute moron if you ignore them.

 

If you want to have a crack at lifestyle measures first fine, but if you're not winning just take them.

[Duquesne Whistle]

3 minutes ago, Bryn said:

Big part of the reason deaths from coronary heart disease have plummeted, amongst other arteriopathies. The reason doctors want to "push"  them is that they cost pennies and save lives. This notion that doctors in the UK prescribe drugs for their own malicious ends is total bullshit.

 

They have side effects, all drugs do, but they're generally pretty mild and treatable.

 

If your doctor has calculated your individual cardiovascular risk and recommended a statin you're an absolute moron if you ignore them.

 

If you want to have a crack at lifestyle measures first fine, but if you're not winning just take them.

Utter bollocks.

A general practitioner is just that, general. They are usually not experts in high cholesterol, they work off charts, which don't work for everyone. If charts, statistics and 'general' rules worked 100% for every human being, there'd never have been any deaths from taking ecstasy, or from the AZ vaccine either.

There's always exceptions to any rule, does that make the exception a moron if he's well informed and makes his own decision? I don't think so.

[Bryn]

3 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

Utter bollocks.

A general practitioner is just that, general. They are usually not experts in high cholesterol, they work off charts, which don't work for everyone. If charts, statistics and 'general' rules worked 100% for every human being, there'd never have been any deaths from taking ecstasy, or from the AZ vaccine either.

There's always exceptions to any rule, does that make the exception a moron if he's well informed and makes his own decision? I don't think so.

Sorry, no, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

GPs are extremely qualified in the management of chronic disease and the primary and secondary prevention of disease. Getting pretty tired of pandering to misinformation like this.

 

Following "general" evidence and protocol is why modern medicine is lightyears ahead of where it was even 30 years ago. Why mothers don't routinely in childbirth, why people generally don't die of preventable infections, why the overwhelming majority of people survive major surgery.

 

Feel free to make your own choices but please don't substitute a bit of googling for a medical degree and professional critique of the evidence base. Frankly, the pillar of ethics that is autonomy is going too far and people will suffer as a consequence. You're free to choose and I will never say otherwise. But I'm tired of this assumption that we have have ulterior motives for trying to achieve the best outcomes.

[Duquesne Whistle]

1 minute ago, Bryn said:

Sorry, no, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

GPs are extremely qualified in the management of chronic disease and the primary and secondary prevention of disease. Getting pretty tired of pandering to misinformation like this.

 

Following "general" evidence and protocol is why modern medicine is lightyears ahead of where it was even 30 years ago. Why mothers don't routinely in childbirth, why people generally don't die of preventable infections, why the overwhelming majority of people survive major surgery.

 

Feel free to make your own choices but please don't substitute a bit of googling for a medical degree and professional critique of the evidence base. Frankly, the pillar of ethics that is autonomy is going too far and people will suffer as a consequence. You're free to choose and I will never say otherwise. But I'm tired of this assumption that we have have ulterior motives for trying to achieve the best outcomes.

Ok mate, everyone is a moron (your choice of vocab) unless they do exactly what a GP says. Got you 

Edited 22 May 2021 by Duquesne Whistle

[Duquesne Whistle]

2 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

 

Feel free to make your own choices but please don't substitute a bit of googling for a medical degree and professional critique of the evidence base. 

I wasn't even referring to myself, if you read my posts. Seems you jump to conclusions, not only about people being 'morons', but also to what I was actually saying.

[Alf Bentley]

44 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I've been on statins for donkey's years Alf and currently take 40mg Atorvastain every day. I have a condition called Familial Hypercholesterolemia which is genetic/hereditary in our family, and means my body can't shift the LDL/bad cholesterol naturally.

 

My Grandad died of a heart attack in his late 40's so my Dad was immediately tested in his mid 20's. He's now 75 and has been on various drugs to manage it for over 50 years. I think he takes 60-80mg a day.

 

We both get blood tested twice a year to monitor it and the 'safe/normal' level of LDL is around 3mmol/L I believe. If it gets up to 8-10mmol/L then you're at high risk of arteries clogging and having a heart attack. My level is usually around 5-7 even with medication.

 

What I've noticed over the years is that when my level has been at it's lowest, it's been when I've been exercising regularly (maybe has something to do with the blood pumping/flushing the bad cholesterol through your system better?). Diet also plays a huge part for us and we try to cut out as much saturated fats as possible (my old man is much stricter than me on this).

 

So in summary, I think statins are safe and absolutely do the job. Yes, I suffer from a bit of joint ache but that's the only real side effect. Combined with a good diet and plenty of exercise I reckon you'll be fine mate 

 

 

 

Thanks for that. I didn't really have any doubts about them being safe or doing the job - it was more whether the risk of side effects was worth it and whether the job was necessary, given that mine is a marginal case (GP hasn't tried to twist my arm before  - more like suggested it might be a good idea and I'm expecting similar this time.

 

If I had the family history and readings you mention, I'm sure I'd be straight on them. 

 

My Dad got angina at 48, had a heart bypass at 63, was never on statins and lived till 91 (dying of other causes). Despite having lived a less healthy lifestyle than him when I was younger, I've had no signs of such issues - yet - apart from this marginal cholesterol issue. Hence seeing it as a 50-50 decision. I seem to have inherited my Mum's heart issues instead (the cardiomyopathy is hereditary - and she had that, my Dad didn't).

 

I do have a pretty good diet and try to exercise regularly, though other commitments sometimes get in the way.

 

I'm concerned by things like joint ache (and I've heard about that before - though the specialist sites refer instead to "muscle ache"). That's as much for psychological reasons - I have plenty going on to drag my mood down and moving around vigorously and exercising counteracts that. 

 

 

[Bryn]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for that. I didn't really have any doubts about them being safe or doing the job - it was more whether the risk of side effects was worth it and whether the job was necessary, given that mine is a marginal case (GP hasn't tried to twist my arm before  - more like suggested it might be a good idea and I'm expecting similar this time.

 

If I had the family history and readings you mention, I'm sure I'd be straight on them. 

 

My Dad got angina at 48, had a heart bypass at 63, was never on statins and lived till 91 (dying of other causes). Despite having lived a less healthy lifestyle than him when I was younger, I've had no signs of such issues - yet - apart from this marginal cholesterol issue. Hence seeing it as a 50-50 decision. I seem to have inherited my Mum's heart issues instead (the cardiomyopathy is hereditary - and she had that, my Dad didn't).

 

I do have a pretty good diet and try to exercise regularly, though other commitments sometimes get in the way.

 

I'm concerned by things like joint ache (and I've heard about that before - though the specialist sites refer instead to "muscle ache"). That's as much for psychological reasons - I have plenty going on to drag my mood down and moving around vigorously and exercising counteracts that. 

 

 

 

The muscle ache can be quite debilitating, it's uncommon but most people find within the class there's one that doesn't give them the myositis, or inflamed muscle, that causes it. The standard ones are atorvastatin or simvastatin but that's only because they're cheaper and equally effective. If they don't get on with you there's a good few others. There is an alternative drug, ezetimibe, which has shown good evidence in terms of making the blood tests better but hasn't shown as good outcomes in terms of reducing cardiovascular disease. But it's an option.

 

There are some good drugs in the pipeline for managing the fats in the blood at a molecular level but they're not widespread yet and don't have the safety data and evidence base.

 

Give liftstyle change a go for a few months and get your bloods rechecked and see if you're winning.

[Duquesne Whistle]

@Bryn

I was unnecessarily combative in my last two replies to you. We have different opinions, but I should have taken a moment before replying and worded my post differently. I've no wishes to fall out with a fellow Foxes fan so I apologise.

[Bryn]

Just now, Duquesne Whistle said:

@Bryn

I was unnecessarily combative in my last two replies to you. We have different opinions, but I should have taken a moment before replying and worded my post differently. I've no wishes to fall out with a fellow Foxes fan so I apologise.

 

Don't flinch bud I was just as combative

[Duquesne Whistle]

Personally, I blame Alf for starting the topic, selfish sod 

[Buce]

 

As you may be aware, Alf, I'm a firm believer in health through diet.

 

I can recommend these books:

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

The muscle ache can be quite debilitating, it's uncommon but most people find within the class there's one that doesn't give them the myositis, or inflamed muscle, that causes it. The standard ones are atorvastatin or simvastatin but that's only because they're cheaper and equally effective. If they don't get on with you there's a good few others. There is an alternative drug, ezetimibe, which has shown good evidence in terms of making the blood tests better but hasn't shown as good outcomes in terms of reducing cardiovascular disease. But it's an option.

 

There are some good drugs in the pipeline for managing the fats in the blood at a molecular level but they're not widespread yet and don't have the safety data and evidence base.

 

Give liftstyle change a go for a few months and get your bloods rechecked and see if you're winning.

 

Thanks for that helpful response.

 

Having read good posts by you before (you are a doctor, I believe), it comes as a relief as I found your first post to be arrogant, insulting and misrepresentative of my attitude (I never suggested anyone was "malicious").

I don't see myself as an "absolute moron" for questioning a doctor's advice, any more than if the advice was from a lawyer, teacher, builder, financial adviser or translator. Of course, I'd take seriously anything that any trained professional said - that's why I'm considering accepting this (anticipated) marginal recommendation for statins. But I'll take other issues into account e.g. marginally increased risk of serious cardiovascular problems v. marginally increased risk of serious muscle/joint pain, including possible major psychological impact thereof...your post above offers helpful advice on that re. specific medications. 

 

Anyway, you seem to have recovered from whatever red mist fed into your first post - and the one above is very helpful, so thanks a lot for that. 

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As you may be aware, Alf, I'm a firm believer in health through diet.

 

I can recommend these books:

 

 

 

Thanks for the thought - and I do try to eat a healthy, balanced diet (and mostly succeed), likewise re. exercise. But I've got a pile of other books to read at the moment.

 

Those are strange book titles - we're all going to die, just hopefully not too soon and even a perfect diet doesn't eliminate all risk of a premature demise, just improves your odds of a long life and good quality of life for longer, surely. 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for the thought - and I do try to eat a healthy, balanced diet (and mostly succeed), likewise re. exercise. But I've got a pile of other books to read at the moment.

 

Those are strange book titles - we're all going to die, just hopefully not too soon and even a perfect diet doesn't eliminate all risk of a premature demise, just improves your odds of a long life and good quality of life for longer, surely. 

 

 

'How to improve your odds of a long life and good quality of life for longer' isn't so catchy, even if it is more accurate.

 

Incidently, he's not the crank you may suspect he is; everything is substantiated by scientific evidence. Neither is he in it for the money, as he donates all profits from his books to charity.

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

Utter bollocks.

A general practitioner is just that, general. They are usually not experts in high cholesterol, they work off charts, which don't work for everyone. If charts, statistics and 'general' rules worked 100% for every human being, there'd never have been any deaths from taking ecstasy, or from the AZ vaccine either.

There's always exceptions to any rule, does that make the exception a moron if he's well informed and makes his own decision? I don't think so.

You do know that Bryn is a doctor, don't you? I think he's probably better qualified than the average lay-person such as you.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

Ok mate, everyone is a moron (your choice of vocab) unless they do exactly what a GP says. Got you 

Utter bollox

[Bryn]

2 minutes ago, Parafox said:

You do know that Bryn is a doctor, don't you? I think he's probably better qualified than the average lay-person such as you.

 

It's fine. I was overly aggressive. It's just a very tiresome era to specialise in anything isn't it. Probably does my mechanics nut in when I quibble over their assessments.

Edited 22 May 2021 by Bryn

[Duquesne Whistle]

3 hours ago, Parafox said:

You do know that Bryn is a doctor, don't you? I think he's probably better qualified than the average lay-person such as you.

Piss off mate. Where in my post did I say I was qualified, or that I had made that choice? I said well informed people were entitled to make their own choice.

Now, go pick the right person to preach to, as I don't give a toss what you think if you can't be bothered to read my post correctly.