Cholesterol is OK now. Wait... what?

[Sea Ray]

Interesting. I have not seen these reports. If you don't mind, send me a link -- either here or via PM. I've heard nothing but good things about statins, but I haven't done too much research admittedly. With the frequency that the pendulum on cholesterol seems to swing back and forth, I wouldn't be surprised if we go back to "food cholesterol very bad" again in a few years.

There's tons of literature on this but here's a few to get you started. Basically taking this stuff risks liver damage, dementia, diabetes, muscle pain and more. Common sense tells me that the longer you take it the more likely you'll experience this.

Interestingly, according to the Mayo clinic, a specific group of people who have higher risk for bad reactions from statin medications are unique group of individuals called females. You will see “being female” listed under those “who are at risk of developing statin side effects” along with other important risk factors including neurological side effects, increased risk for diabetes, digestive problems, liver damage, as well as muscle pain and damage, when you visit the Mayo Clinic web page dedicated to educating us about the potential side effects of these medications.

http://www.drperlmutter.com/statin-d...cts/#more-3391

Dr James Le Fanu pointed out on these pages last week – may suggest that side effects are uncommon, but previous studies have found that one in five people on statins suffers adverse side effects, from muscle pain and diarrhoea to memory loss and blurred vision...Research from Canada, published last year in the BMJ, has shown that statins raise the risk of diabetes, so that gives me little faith. The controversy over these drugs was reignited last week when Prof Sir Rory Collins from Oxford University warned that doctors’ hesitancy about prescribing them to those at risk could cost lives.
GPs are, by definition, generalists. They don’t have time to read and analyse data from every paper on every medical condition. Even so, in a recent survey by Pulse magazine, six in 10 GPs opposed the draft proposal to lower the risk level at which patients are prescribed statins. And 55 per cent said they would not take statins themselves or recommend them to a relative, based on the proposed new guidelines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...-for-good.html

Kailash Chand, a doctor in the U.K., says he once brushed aside patients who complained of muscle pains, weakness,fatigue, and memory problems after he put them on cholesterol-lowering medications called statins.

Then a routine blood test showed he had high levels of some blood fats. And his own doctor put him on a statin.

"After 6 months, I started noticing that I was having a lack of energy," says Chand, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association. "My regular exercise was curtailed. I was feeling tired and exhausted."

Soon after that, he developed pain in his back so severe that it sent him to a specialist. Blood tests, X-rays, and MRI scans showed no obvious problems.

Then he happened to notice in the package insert for his medication that muscle pain might be a side effect of taking it.

Within a few weeks of stopping the drug, he felt much better. His pain was reduced and some nagging sleep problems also improved.

Chand's experience led him to question whether statins -- one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the U.S. -- are effective enough for some patients to justify their risks.

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-man...e-effects-news

[Kingspoint]

There is a new wave of folks like the author of the grain Brain book which I talked about in the other thread referenced earlier who thinks that no one should be on a statin drug and that our brains feed off of fat and cholesterol in particular. Others have said that people with heart disease should be considered for statins but not otherwise healthy folks.

Dawn just finished that book. She really liked it.

[919191]

We all need to make our own decisions about our personal medical care but you are the type of person who need not take statins IMO. Now, i don't know your triglyceride numbers before/after statins but doctors putting healthy, active people like yourself on statins for 240 cholesterol is not indicated. Do you really want to to take this stuff for the next 25-30 yrs? It says in the disclaimer that they have not been shown to reduce heart attacks.

Again I don't know a lot of your medical history but if other things checkout, I'd be thrilled if you continued to exercise regularly and ate somewhat responsibly and forget about putting drugs into your body indefinitely

If it was the cholesterol only I would strongly consider dropping the meds as it isn't that bad. An almost perfect diet and running 60 miles a week didn't help though (in that area anyway). It is the triglycerides I am concerned about. family history too. My mom had an almost complete blockage of her aorta and her kidneys failed due to the same thing- plaqued shut and it was mostly attributed to genetics. It's something I think about when making decisions.

[Kingspoint]

http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2015/...ietary-demons/

When it comes to diet and nutrition, however, old beliefs die hard. Even when the evidence contradicts dietary dogma, health professionals may cling to outdated recommendations. For nearly fifty years Americans have been warned to back away from butter, minimize meat and skimp on salt. This so-called healthy diet was supposed to protect us from heart attacks, strokes and other health problems like hypertension, diabetes and obesity. It turns out that these dietary guidelines were not based on solid scientific research. The recommendations did not reduce cardiovascular disease, diabetes or obesity. If anything, the twin epidemics of diabetes and obesity are far worse today than when the guidelines were issued.


Saturated fat has remained the main dietary villain for heart disease for over 50 years. Last year a meta-analysis of 72 studies with more than 600,000 participants determined that there was no association between how much saturated fat people ate and their risk of having a fatal or nonfatal heart attack (Annals of Internal Medicine, March 18, 2014).

[Rojo]

The American Heart Association can't turn to the all their past and present donors and say "guess what? We may have been spending you're money foolishly".

[Ohayou]

I've never worried too much about saturated fat or cholesterol. Both are needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormones in the body, which includes testosterone. Saturated fats, however, are a lot more likely to be stored as body fat than unsaturated fats (consider why butter is solid at room temperature), so I try to keep my saturated fat intake around 20ish percent.

Like anything else, just because a certain amount is good, doesn't make a crapload great. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? Yeah, fiber has plenty of benefits, but if you get it high enough, there can be inverse effects, like malabsorption of certain nutrients.

[RedEye]

Can someone give me a list of the most common sources of saturated fat? I could Google it, yeah... but why do that when I have the collective wisdom of Reds fans?

[Kingspoint]

I've never worried too much about saturated fat or cholesterol. Both are needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormones in the body, which includes testosterone. Saturated fats, however, are a lot more likely to be stored as body fat than unsaturated fats (consider why butter is solid at room temperature), so I try to keep my saturated fat intake around 20ish percent.

Like anything else, just because a certain amount is good, doesn't make a crapload great. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? Yeah, fiber has plenty of benefits, but if you get it high enough, there can be inverse effects, like malabsorption of certain nutrients.

Yes. Moderation never goes out of style.

[Rojo]

Saturated fats, however, are a lot more likely to be stored as body fat than unsaturated fats (consider why butter is solid at room temperature), so I try to keep my saturated fat intake around 20ish percent.

Where did you get this? Saturated fat stays solid because the oxygen is protected by hydrogen and doesn't go rancid, like PUFA and MUFA's.

[gonelong]

Yes. Moderation never goes out of style.

The only thing I practice in moderation, is moderation.

GL

[Ohayou]

Where did you get this? Saturated fat stays solid because the oxygen is protected by hydrogen and doesn't go rancid, like PUFA and MUFA's.

It's pretty simple. Unsaturated fats have double bonds, saturated fats have none. Unsaturated fats prevent tight packing (easier to metabolize), saturated fats cause tight packing (harder to metabolize).

[Rojo]

Statins linked to Parkinson's?

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...-nerve-disease

The Parkinson’s research carried out over 20 years, and involving nearly 16,000 people, suggests cholesterol may have a vital role in protecting the brain and nervous system.

The findings have alarmed experts who say if applied to the number of Britons deemed eligible for statins it could equate to 150,000 extra patients with Parkinson’s, a central nervous system disorder affecting one in 350 mostly older people.

[Sea Ray]

Statins linked to Parkinson's?

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...-nerve-disease

The Parkinson’s research carried out over 20 years, and involving nearly 16,000 people, suggests cholesterol may have a vital role in protecting the brain and nervous system.

The findings have alarmed experts who say if applied to the number of Britons deemed eligible for statins it could equate to 150,000 extra patients with Parkinson’s, a central nervous system disorder affecting one in 350 mostly older people.

That's consistent with recent findings such as those I mentioned earlier who feel that the brain feeds off cholesterol . Very interesting

[Rojo]

It's pretty simple. Unsaturated fats have double bonds, saturated fats have none. Unsaturated fats prevent tight packing (easier to metabolize), saturated fats cause tight packing (harder to metabolize).

Do you have a link? I'm a little skeptical about this, but I'm open-minded about it.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of saturated fat being ok is that the fat on our body is saturated fat. So if it's such poison, why does our body store it for later fuel?

[Kingspoint]

We don't even pay attention to the fat content at our house. It's pretty irrelevant.

Since switching off of carbs (my spouse is staying around 60 grams, not counting fiber, per day), she's gone from 31 body fat count to 26 in a matter of less than two months. Those aren't accurate numbers. They're just relative to the particular scale we happen to be using. But, the reduction is relevant. I'm not even coming close to limiting my carbs the way she is, as I'm not dedicating myself to it, so I'm not getting the results that she is. I hang around the 22-25 range, but I'm exercising. She did it without exercising.