No announcement yet.

would you take the statin? Here are my numbers:

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • would you take the statin? Here are my numbers:

    Triglyceride: 34
    Cholesterol: 341
    HDL: 134
    LDL: 200
    TC/HDL ratio: 2.54

    Doctor concerned about LDL. Suggested I take Crestor. Said I am otherwise "fit as a fiddle." I had eaten 2 huge bowls of stewed beef the night before! I'm 31. Blood pressure is great. Body fat is about 14%. Have been eating primally for about 6 months...first time i have ever had high cholesterol!
    Thanks for any advice!

  • #2
    Your ratios are fabulous! Demand at least a particle size test: I'd bet your LDL is the big fluffy kind--not a problem. Also, read Griff's cholesterol post: good stuff.
    Started PB late 2008, lost 50 lbs by late 2009. Have been plateaued, but that thing may just be biting the dust: more on that later.


    • #3
      what equation did he use? Read griffs thing. and dont take a statin! it will lower your HDL, not good news......


      • #4
        I really wouldn't. Make sure that your blood sugar, insulin, and c-reactve protein, and general nutrition status are good and I think you're set. Without a VAP test I can't say much except that dyslipidemia is usually characterized by low HDL and high trigs, which you have the exact opposite of. High cholesterol can be a problem, or it could just be large particles which are generally innocuous. I may be wrong, though. That is awfully high.

        One thing that nobody will disagree with is that statins are ineffective at best for people without heart disease, and harmful at worst.

        There's a good article with a video
        Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

        Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!


        • #5
          I have to agree with everyone above...your numbers look great to me!

          Using the Iranian equation:
          (Total/1.19) + (Trig/1.9) - (HDL/1.1) -38 = LDL
          341/1.19 + 34/1.9 - 134/1.1 = 182.64

          Ratios (from Griff's Primer):
          Total/HDL: 341/134 = 2.54 (ideal = 5 or below)
          Trig/HDL: 34/134 = .25 (ideal = 2 or below)
          LDL/HDL: 182.64/134 = 1.36 (ideal = 4.3 or below)


          • #6
            cool. thanks. fasting glucose was 60. All I know Is B12, TSH, and chemistry panel 15 (NA, K, etc) were within normal range.
            really proud that i have never required a prescription drug and bummed about being told I need one now. especially when i feel so well and have been recruiting others to this lifestyle!


            • #7
              I would try to avoid statins as much as possible. I think the long-term impacts are not studied thoroughly.

              Are you eating a lot of vegetables and some fruits? Select soluble fibers are good for keeping blood lipids in check, you may want to add eggplant, okra, artichoke, plus leafy greens, and limited amounts of apples, pears, and oranges.


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cristy View Post
                Triglyceride: 34
                Cholesterol: 341
                HDL: 134
                LDL: 200
                TC/HDL ratio: 2.54
                probably not.

                Here are all of your ratios. They're optimal in every way:
                Total/HDL 2.54 (optimal is ≤3...average is 4.5)
                HDL/Total .39 (optimal ≥ .24, under .24 is low, less than .1 is high risk)
                Trig/HDL .25 (optimal is ≤2)
                LDL/HDL 1.49 (optimal is ≤ 4.3)
                HDL/LDL .67 (optimal is ≥ .4)

                iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order


                • #9
                  i hope my numbers look that good! main your Trigs are LOW! thats a really good marker for health. Good job!!!!


                  • #10
                    No way would I take statins with those numbers. High hdl (and yours is about off the charts) and low trigs nearly always indicate large particle size ldl which is neutral or potentially good.

                    Not to mention the fact that statins have never been shown to help women whatsoever. If you're a male with a prior heart attack or have heart disease it mayy help and that's not even a guarantee. Your numbers are great. I'm jealous.


                    • #11
                      I think Admiral Ackbar said it best:

                      "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

                      Tell your doctor to take those statins and shove 'em.


                      • #12
                        My brother is a doc....but an anesthesiologist.

                        here's what he had to say......
                        "HDL 134... holy @%&!!. No way would I take a statin. Not only that, because of the other numbers, I would not loose a minute of sleep over the LDL. And if any physician had any issue with the TC of 341... well when your HDL is 134 of course the TC is high. The LDL of 200 must be placed in the context of the other numbers. Her ratios are perfect. Not good... perfect. I bet her CRP is pretty good too. Give her this link...


                        Tell her to focus on the concept of the NNT... they dont tell you this stuff when they prescribe statins. Also, the benefit of taking statin therapy was shown in patients with multiple risk factors (previous event, diabetes, hypertension, smoking etc...) So... what is the NNT in patients with no risk factors who only have a mildly elevated LDL and nothing else? The answer is... nobody really knows. It has not been studied. My guess is that if it was ever studied it would prove to be prohibitively high. But that does not stop physicians from assuming that it will benefit low risk patient populations.

                        Have her ask her physician if he/she know about the NNT of the statin he wants to prescribe. Then ask if he/she knows or is willing to find out what the NNT is for patients with her profile... perfect everything with mildly elevated LDL. I guarantee he will be unable to find or unwilling to look for the data. Cholesterol lowering is a sacred cow in medicine and most doctors will not think it is worth their while to question this dogma. This is what they do... find a number that is "off" and prescribe a drug to "fix" it. Sometimes this approach makes sense, but a lot of times it is just knee-jerk "I have to treat this number" medicine.

                        If it was me I would not take the statin knowing what I know. If it makes her feel better, tell her to tone down the red meat for 48 hours before the test and recheck. I bet the LDL is lower. Even if its not, I really would not worry."

                        iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order


                        • #13
                          I took statins (Lipitor) for 2 years before wising up due to PB.Side effects i experienced:-Stiff muscles, in legs especially,achilles tendon pain,erectile dysfunction (unlikeley to bother yourself) thinning of hair,general uneasiness and a myriad of smaller problems.My recent fasting lipid results show an
                          increase in hdl by almost double and a halfing of my previous ldl figure.So statins are an absolute no-no for everyone.


                          • #14
                            thanks all for the great info! feel much better now about saying "no thanks."
                            glad no one said to quit the bacon, avocado, or butter I've been enjoying over the past few months .


                            • #15
                              Cillakat, that article is damning evidence that statins are bad news (as we knew already.)

                              Cristy, if your doctor doesn't know the NNT of the statin prescribed, or doesn't even know what NNT means, and refuses to read the article, while prescribing a dangerous and expensive drug for a completely healthy person TO TREAT A NUMBER, which is PROBABLY A MISCALCULATED NUMBER! (see Griff's post about how to calculate LDL) then it's time for a new doctor.

                              The question remains, which seems obvious to me but which no one seems to ask, "how much money should we pay for the privilege of educating a primary care physician who should have educated him- or herself already?"