Showing posts with label Statins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statins. Show all posts

Lifestyle versus statins - or complements?

This is an ideal combination for those with high LDL-C levels that do not respond to lifestyle changes alone or for those who have not received or are unlikely to follow advice about making lifestyle changes. 

For some, if not many, patients it may be easier to take one or two tablets each day than to find the time and determination to exercise regularly. Despite this, the attending medical practitioner should strongly recommend combining statins with lifestyle changes, including exercise. 

In an observational study, both statins and exercise individually reduced the adverse outcomes of CVD. Their combined effects were additive (Table 3). In the least physically fit, no statin group, baseline total cholesterol was 6.0 mmol/l, with baseline LDL-C being 4 mmol/l. 

After statin treatment, total cholesterol was 4.1 mmol/l, and LDL-C was 2.6 mmol/l (p<0.0001). 

Before intense exercise, lipids levels were similar. After intense exercise training, values were: total cholesterol 5.1 mmol/l, with LDL-C being 3.6 mmol/l. 

The combination of high fitness (for definition, refer to Lee  and Paffenbarger[45]) and statin treatment in patients yielded a substantial reduction in mortality risk than in those who were least fit and either taking statin or no statin (HR 0.30; p<0.0001).

The major unresolved problem is that either exercise or statins can singly cause muscular symptoms with an elevation of serum CK.[35] There is, as yet, no clearly defined outcomes-based policy to deal with such symptoms. 

A reasonable practical approach is to assess the CK level, and if elevated, to reduce either the statin dose or the intensity of exercise to brisk walking (Fig. 4).[44,45] 

Conclusion 

Both lifestyle changes and statin therapy and their combination have well-defined positive roles in the management of the patient who needs advice on cardiovascular health.

Statins and statistical deception

We have provided a critical assessment of research on the reduction of cholesterol levels by statin treatment to reduce cardiovascular disease. Our opinion is that although statins are effective at reducing cholesterol levels, they have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes. 

We have described the deceptive approach statin advocates have deployed to create the appearance that cholesterol reduction results in an impressive reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes through their use of a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR), a method which amplifies the trivial beneficial effects of statins. We have also described how the directors of the clinical trials have succeeded in minimizing the significance of the numerous adverse effects of statin treatment.

Read more

The Ugly Side of Statins

Cardio-vascular specialists have witnessed and actively participated in the revolutionary developments that have occurred in their field of specialization over the last few years. 

Cutting-edge technologies have led to dramatic improvements in life-expectancy and quality of life. An open-mind and pioneering attitude are necessary when exploring new frontiers to improve our patients’ health. However, naïve indiscriminate acceptance of novel mainstream therapies is not always advisable and prudence is required in unearthing harmful, covert side effects. An objective review of contemporary vascular research was performed and industrial bias was sifted out for a fresh prospective on how to promote primary cardiovascular prevention with attainable lifestyle adjustments [1].

 A comprehensive review of Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane review databases was undertaken for articles relating to cardiovascular primary prevention and statin side effects with the aim of harmonising their roles within contemporary clinic practice.

 Particular attention was paid to large-scale randomised controlled trials on contemporary cardiovascular pharmacotherapies and their specific adverse effects on metabolic pathways which feature prominently in cardiovascular primary prevention and regenerative programmes. There is a categorical lack of clinical evidence to support the use of statin therapy in primary prevention. 

Not only is there a dearth of evidence for primary cardiovascular protection, there is ample evidence to show that statins actually augment cardiovascular risk in women, patients with Diabetes Mellitus and in the young. Furthermore statins are associated with triple the risk of coronary artery and aortic artery calcification

. Cardiovascular primary prevention and regeneration programmes, through life style changes and abstaining from tobacco use have enhanced clinical efficacy and quality of life over any pharmaceutical or other conventional intervention.  

Read more

Beat cholesterol in a week

When my GP telephoned me last month to tell me I had shockingly high cholesterol levels, I did what any normal woman would do.
I burst into tears and immediately ate a family-sized Toblerone bar. As I crammed it, joylessly, into my mouth, I felt a bit sick (obviously). But I kept on going. It wasn’t the smartest of moves, but, in my defence, it did mark a personal watershed. As I surveyed the crumple of silver foil, I swore it would be the last time I binged on the sort of high-fat, high-sugar foods that could, quite literally, kill me.
I could tell by the tone of my doctor’s voice that my condition was serious.
Cholesterol is a fatty substance found in the blood that is essential for all body functions. But too much increases the risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular disease, making high cholesterol a silent epidemic in the Western world.
An ideal cholesterol level would be a total that is below 5 mmol/l - the lower the better. The UK average is a slightly elevated 5.4 and anything above is deemed high. A measurement of seven or above would usually result in cholesterol-lowering drugs, known as statins, being prescribed as a matter of clinical urgency.
My reading? An appalling 9.5. On the cholesterol scale, I had the equivalent of liquid Krispy Kreme doughnuts coursing through my veins.
There are two types of cholesterol; “good” HDL cholesterol, which has a protective function, and “bad” LDL cholesterol, which is harmful. While the overall cholesterol number is important, it is crucial to look at the ratio between the two.
The outlook here was also far from healthy; I had five times as much bad to good cholesterol.
High cholesterol is most often linked with poor diet, obesity and high blood pressure. Moderate alcohol consumption arguably boosts good cholesterol, but stress increases bad cholesterol production. High cholesterol can also be hereditary.
Although I did have an embarrassingly bad diet for an intelligent person (I work from home, a mere two flights of stairs away from the biscuit cupboard), I wasn’t particularly overweight and had low blood pressure.
But I must confess to being unnecessarily, (shamefully) sedentary since breaking my back two years ago in a riding accident, I had been given a clean bill of health by my surgeon, but I remained held back by fear and, if I’m brutally honest, more than a smidgen of self-pity about any form of physical activity.
More saliently however, it was my family background that set off alarm bells. My father died in his 50s of a heart attack while reading me and two of my sisters a story in bed. My mother suffered from angina, had a major heart attack in her early 60s and died two years later.
The indications were that I may have inherited a condition called familial hypercholesterolaemia, where cholesterol is typically 7.5 or greater and the risk of early heart attack is increased.
Two of my (five) sisters were diagnosed with high cholesterol (although not as eye-wateringly elevated as mine) and prescribed the cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins. But one suffered such debilitating side effects – muscular pain, memory loss – that she ditched them, cut out saturated fats, such as butter, cheese and dairy products from her diet and invested in an £800 cross-trainer.
Exercise converts bad LDL to good HDL – and by dint of hard work, she managed to get her levels down through lifestyle changes.
But just looking at her cross-trainer made me feel weary. The reason I had gone to my GP for tests was because I was suffering from aching joints, pains in my legs and a general feeling of torpor.
Despite being 45, I felt about 20 years older, and with two lively daughters, aged eight and three, I was worried I was about to keel over with some terrible affliction. But it appeared that all was normal apart from the cholesterol.
I could, of course, have started taking statins without a second’s thought – they have been hailed in some quarters as a wonder drug, credited not only with dramatically lowering cholesterol, but slashing the risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent, according to Harvard Medical School research published in October.
More than 2.5 million people take them in the UK, and it has even been posited that everyone should be prescribed them as soon as they hit middle age.
Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, says newly compiled 11-year data shows that risk of cardiovascular disease rises with age, and statins are a safe and highly effective way of safeguarding health.
“If you are extremely highly motivated, you can reduce your cholesterol and keep it down, but you need to maintain a rigid diet and exercise plan for perhaps 15 years, and most people just don’t do that. You have to be pragmatic.” But there are statin sceptics. One recent review claimed up to 3 million people were taking them needlessly. Telegraph columnist Dr James Le Fanu has long been concerned about what he regards as the over-prescription of statins.
“Too many people with mildly raised cholesterol are routinely given statins when the evidence of their benefit is minimal, if not non-existent,” he says. “There are other ways of reducing cholesterol. However, where there is familial hypercholesterolaemia, it’s reasonable to suggest that statins are beneficial.”
A genetic test would confirm whether I have the condition, but, until then, my instincts told me that I needed to go into crisis- management mode.
And so, after my major Poor Me moment with the Toblerone, I had an epiphany. I would seize back control of my health, lower my cholesterol without recourse to statins, improve my fitness and start practising the Five-a-Day I preach to my children but seldom adhere to myself.
But how? Where on earth to begin? It’s all very well embarking on an ascetic one-woman health regime if you’re Gwyneth Paltrow, but with a hectic job and husband and two children to feed, I felt like I was wading through treacle just to get to the supermarket.
I needed to lose a bit of chub, so I would feel more inclined to exercise. I began by cramming the fridge with Benecol, a range of products including drinks and spreads, which have been shown to lower cholesterol.
I rustled up an emergency vat of vegetable curry (which I ate for every meal for three days straight – I almost said “solid”, but it was quite the opposite). What I needed was to buy myself some time to plan menus, devise meals, stock the cupboard with healthy snacks.
Then, in a Eureka moment, I discovered Soulmate Food, a company that devises tailored, calorie-controlled diets and delivers them to your door, breakfast, snack, lunch, afternoon snack and dinner.
I was prepared to eat anything, no matter how dreary and virtuous as long as I didn’t have to think about it. But, in the event, the low-cholesterol food was spectacularly good, so much so I ended up having to hide it from the children (on normal rations) who would gaze longingly at my apple and vanilla breakfast pancakes like Dickensian urchins.
A typical day comprised mango and passion fruit yoatie, a snack of spiced seeds and mandarin segments, pork ramen for lunch, mixed fruit pot for an afternoon pick-me-up and salmon en papillote for supper.
At £30 a day, it’s not a cheap option, but, when combined with an exercise plan from the company’s fitness consultancy, clients can lose up to two stone in 10 weeks.
I wasn’t interested in my weight, I just wanted to feel more energised – but, gratifyingly, within a week my mummy tummy was melting away, my face had lost podge I never knew it had and friends were remarking on how slim I was looking.
As I was no longer pumping petrol into my body’s diesel engine, I could sense my metabolism revving up a gear. My aches and pains had disappeared and, after three weeks, it was as though I had shrink-wrapped into the neat shape I used to be – regardless of my cholesterol, I was more energised, happier and walking more briskly.
And so I was ready to embark on The Final Push; a week at boot camp. Mindful that exercise would pummel my bad cholesterol into submission, I was ready to do what it took to get fit – fast.
Call me naive, but I thought a stay in a lovely Jacobean pile in Suffolk would be relaxing, with yoga, nutrition advice and life coaching and a bit of keep fit. I swear I didn’t notice the military boot-print logos plastered over the website.
It was only when I glanced through the Essential Kit List, the day before departure, that misgivings began to creep in.
Phrases as “high-visibility vest and head torch for night marches”, “waterproof trousers” and “five sports bras” drew me up short. Did any woman on the planet (apart, possibly, from Dame Kelly Holmes) own five sports bras? I didn’t own any.
The day before I left, I saw my GP who was adamant I should start on statins. He stressed that they wouldn’t have an effect for several weeks so, reluctantly, I did as he recommended.
Then events overtook me; boot camp was seven days of sheer, unmitigated hell. It was worse, even, than childbirth, because, for all its faults, the NHS doesn’t usually shout dog’s abuse at you, to jump higher, squat deeper, run faster and dispense punishments “Thirty sit-ups! Fifty lunges!” on an apparent whim.
There was running and boxing, circuit training and battle PT when we had to sprint, laden with pretend rocket launchers and ammunition, jog carrying 20kg stretchers and try to throw golf-ball grenades into a barrel. This was interspersed with weight training and crunches, relay races and unspeakable things called burpees. And that was just day one.
Collapsed, face down, in the mud, I absolutely hated it. Flanks heaving like a racehorse, sweat pouring off my face, I thought my lungs would burst. But, hand on heart, I wouldn’t have missed it for the world.
Women had flown in from Finland, Singapore and Dubai; one woman had come to improve her fertility, another was on the verge of being officially diagnosed as obese, a third just wanted to slip into a body-con dress by Christmas.
Food rations at the camp were tiny – but enough. Thanks to my diet boxes, my stomach had shrunk inside as well as out, but there were dark hours when I had to force myself to focus on why I was there; to win my fight against cholesterol.
The camp ethos of No Excuses, was hugely inspirational. Besides, nobody listened when I whinged about once having broke my back “You’re walking aren’t you? Start running. Or you’ll all have 50 press-ups to do.” It was the wake-up call I needed, and one that only a bellowing shaven-headed stranger in Army fatigues could have delivered.
By day four, we were flagging, until one of the trainers – ex-RAF, with muscles like Popeye – observed that the company no longer ran all-male boot camps, because men just lost their tempers (and their bottle), jumped into their cars and drove home. It was such an exquisite revelation that it buoyed us up beyond measure.
Over the week, I lost eight inches off my body and gained an inch of muscle on each of my thighs, which has led to their UN reclassification as lethal weapons.
And my cholesterol levels? Down from 9.5 to a staggering 5.9! Excuse the exclamation mark, but I am thrilled!
I went to a private walk-in clinic to be tested as my GP wasn’t keen to recheck me so soon. A full analysis showed the proportion of bad cholesterol to good has also been reduced, and now stands at three to one.
My head is clear, my skin glows with endorphins and I feel physically – and psychologically – empowered. I have boot camp recipe sheets to cook from and exotic diet delivery dishes I can create myself. There is a cross-trainer in my basement.
I plan to give up statins, unless a genetic test reveals I do have familial hypercholesterolaemia, in which case I will take medical advice.
If not, my cholesterol levels will be checked every three months, and if the reading changes and I need to take statins, then so be it.
What is disturbingly obvious to me is that I could have popped a pill, stuck to my dodgy diet and continued firing on no cylinders. What a depressing thought.
Now, I feel leaner and fitter than I have done in decades and, without wishing to sound like Gwyneth, I care too much about my body to clog it up with junk.
Whatever happens now, I feel equipped to face the future – I’ve even booked a top-up fitness day for next month. Because I firmly believe that boot camps should be offered on the NHS long before statins are handed out.

Do you need statins?

Heart disease stubbornly remains one of the biggest killers in the UK, where there are 7 million people living with the condition. During the past 60 years, the management of cholesterol has become an important weapon in the fight against this – and drugs called statins are often used in treatment.
But as a new review highlights, statins can often cause crippling side-effects – and may actually result in more harm than good. Writing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Australian science reporter Maryanne Demasi claims that doctors and patients are being misled about the true benefits and harms of these drugs. She also suggests that raw data on their efficacy and safety are being kept secret and have not been subjected to scrutiny by other scientists.

Hmmmm

"So what next for millions reading this who are on statins? If you have no trouble with them, there is no reason to stop."

Read more

You're over 75 - why take a statin

Should a 76-year-old who doesn’t have heart disease, but does have certain risk factors for developing it, take a statin to ward off heart attacks or strokes?
You’d think we’d have a solid answer to this question. These widely prescribed medications lower cholesterol to reduce cardiovascular disease, the nation’s most common killer, and get much of the credit for the nation’s plummeting rates of heart attacks and strokes.
When they entered common use in the 1990s, “it was very exciting,” said Dr. Ariela Orkaby, a geriatrician at the Harvard Medical School and lead author of a new study on statins in older adults. “Suddenly you had a drug that could reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke by 20 or 30 percent or more.”
So current medical guidelines recommend statins for people in that no-heart-disease category, a strategy called primary prevention — but only for those up to age 75. Yet almost half of adults aged 75 and older take statins, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
Some of those people probably are taking drugs that aren’t helping and can cause problems, researchers and geriatricians say. On the other hand, some older patients who likely would benefit from statins aren’t taking them.
Continue reading the main story
“This is a situation that makes most doctors very uncomfortable,” said Dr. Sei Lee, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Some feel these drugs have been successful used in younger patients, so why not use them?”
So why not? “We don’t have good specific data for people without known heart disease over age 75,” Dr. Lee said. “Are statins helpful or harmful for them? The honest answer is, we don’t know.”
To be clear: Statins make sense for adults of any age who already have heart disease, who have suffered a heart attack or stroke, or who have had arteries unblocked with a procedure like stenting. This is called secondary prevention.
In 2013, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association issued a series of statin recommendations for primary prevention, relevant to adults up to age 75 who have high cholesterol or diabetes, or who for other reasons face an estimated 7.5 percent risk or greater of developing heart disease within 10 years.
Last year, the United States Preventive Services Task Force similarly recommended statins for primary prevention in people aged 40 to 75 who had risk factors like high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure or smoking, with a 10-year disease risk of 10 percent or greater.
But for people over age 75, both panels agreed, there was not sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. As with many clinical trials, the major statin studies mostly haven’t included patients at advanced ages.

Read more

How to say 'no' to statins

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/how-do-i-say-no-to-statins.130687/ know you're not doctors but I'm hoping someone can help me :)

I was on statins from about Oct 15 until November 16 as my cholesterol was high. I stopped because the numbers were better and I didn't want to be on them having found out what they can do - and can't! I understand they can increase the risk of diabetes - is that right? Apart from anything else.

Got my latest blood test results today. And a phone call from the surgery asking me to come in to see the doctor.
My HbA1c has dropped from 41 in May to 38 - it was 43.2 in Feb last year so that's why I'm being checked. I was pleasantly surprised as I thought that was why I was being called back.
BUT my Serum cholesterol has gone up from 4.9 in May this year to 5.4 which is over the limit of 5, my Se non HDL cholesterol level has gone form 2.8 in May to 3.4 which is over the limit of 3 and my serum urea level has also gone just over the normal limits.

I've been eating low carb as much as I can but I have put on 7 kg over the last year - mostly due to a family wedding and also eating to relieve stress.

I do not want to go back to statins but the doctor at the time I said I wanted to come off them said it depended on my results. I have patient access online to my records and after that consultation under the heading 'Problems' it says declined statins!! along with prediabetes, when I had it, hypertension and all the rest.

My question is - can I politely decline statins, or am I risking my health? And if so what do I say to the doctor to convince him it's not dangerous?
Also, am I eating too much protein and that's affecting the cholestorol and the urea? I know it's not the fat - although somebody on hearing my results said they were not surprised, implying it was because of all the fat and butter I've been eating.

Hope someone can help.

Thanks

Now read the ansswers

Effect of Statins on COPD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Much controversy persists regarding the place of statin drugs in the treatment of patients with COPD. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the clinical efficacy of statin therapy in COPD.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database, and PubMed for relevant clinical studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of statin drugs with placebo in COPD populations were included. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was determined using the I2statistic.

Results

Ten trials with a total of 1,471 patients were included. Statin treatment was associated with a larger improvement in exercise capacity, lung function, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score compared with placebo, but there were no statistically significant differences in inflammatory markers, all-cause mortality, and safety outcomes; however, subgroup analysis indicated that statin drugs improved clinical outcomes in the subjects from trials enrolling patients with overt cardiovascular disease (CVD), elevated baseline C-reactive protein levels, or a high cholesterol level.

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review suggest a role for statin drugs in patients with COPD and coexisting CVD, evidence of increased systemic inflammation, or hyperlipidemia with respect to improving exercise tolerance and pulmonary function. These findings need to be confirmed by RCTs specifically designed to test this hypothesis and identify appropriate patients for statin use.

Are Statins Related to Diabetes Progression?

Statin therapy may be elevating risk of type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults.
Statins or HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors provide several cardiovascular benefits in addition to lowering cholesterol. This could lead individuals to believe that statins may potentially aid in reducing diabetes risk. However, in numerous cardiovascular disease (CV) prevention studies, it has been consistently found that diabetes risk is increased with statin therapy. Because diabetes is not usually a direct measure in these CV disease studies, participants are often low-risk.
The following study aimed to evaluate the effect of statin therapy on diabetes patients who are considered high-risk. Population data was analyzed from a 3-year study called the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), and an extension of this study called the DPP Outcomes Study (DPPOS). The DPP is a randomized, controlled trial that studied the effect of lifestyle changes, metformin use, and placebo on high-risk patients with obesity or overweight. There were 3,234 participants randomized to receive 1 of the 3 interventions. Participants were included if they were older than 25 years of age, had obesity or were overweight, had high fasting blood sugar levels, and had impaired glucose tolerance. Following the DPP, participants were given the option to join the DPPOS extension study.
In both the DPP and DPPOS, use of statins and other medications was obtained through patient self-report at baseline and twice yearly at follow-up visits. Statin therapy along with hypertensive therapy was determined by the participants’ primary physicians outside of the study. Lipid panels and blood pressure were recorded once yearly. Diabetes was diagnosed using a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test once yearly, or by obtaining fasting plasma glucose levels twice yearly. Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to determine the time-dependent relation between the use of statins and risk of developing diabetes on the DPP/DPPOS population.
Results at 10 years of follow-up show that the use of statins before a diabetes diagnosis was not statistically significant among the 3 interventions. Statin use prior to diabetes diagnosis was 33% in the lifestyle intervention group, 37% in the metformin intervention group, and 35% in the placebo intervention group (P=0.36). 40% of participants were taking simvastatin, 37% were taking atorvastatin, 9% were taking lovastatin, and 8% were taking pravastatin. The use of statins increased throughout the study, becoming more prevalent after diabetes diagnosis.
It was found that risk of developing diabetes was elevated in the participants using statins in all 3 interventions. The combined hazard ratio (HR) for the 3 interventions was 1.36 (95% Cl, 1.17 to 1.59). The study also assessed statin use duration and its association to diabetes risk. Diabetes risk was increased in participants who had been using statins for a longer period of time, with higher risk in the lifestyle intervention group. The HR per visit with statin use for the lifestyle intervention was 1.06 (1.02 to 1.11), P=0.007). In the metformin intervention, the HR was 1.01 (0.96 to 1.06). And finally, the HR for the placebo intervention was 1.02 (0.97 to 1.07). Low vs. high potency statins were also evaluated in relation to diabetes risk and no difference was found with an HR of 0.96 (0.68 to 1.35).
Mechanisms behind how statins can potentially increase diabetes were also studied through insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion analysis. The Insulinogenic Index, a measure of insulin secretion, was statistically significant between statin users and non-statin users. Insulin secretion decreased in statin users and increased in non-statin users (P=0.013). There were no significant changes in fasting insulin values suggesting that statins have little to no effect on insulin sensitivity.
Overall, this study showed that diabetes risk is increased in hig- risk patients who use statins. Although this study provides evidence that statins reduce insulin secretion, mechanisms behind this finding are not clear and need to be studied further. Limitations in this study include lack of randomization of participants using statins, statin use was confirmed through patient self-report, and statin dose in relation to diabetes risk was not evaluated due to limited access to this information.
Practice Pearls:
  • Patients with obesity or who are and who have impaired glucose tolerance and use statins have a higher risk of developing diabetes.
  • High-risk diabetes patients who use statins chronically and only practice lifestyle changes are at higher risk of progression to diabetes.
  • Blood glucose should be closely monitored in diabetes high-risk patients taking statins and risks vs. benefits of statin use should be considered.

Statins are gateway drugs for Big Pharma: Take one and you’ll need four or five more prescriptions for the side effects

One out of every three American adults take statins, and if you think that sounds like good news for statin manufacturers, you’re missing the bigger picture. All of Big Pharma benefits when people take statins. In fact, statins can really be thought of as gateway drugs. After all, they have so many side effects that you will likely end up taking several other medications after you start statins just to deal with them.
What can happen to you if you take these dangerous drugs? They suppress your body’s immune system, rendering it less able to fight off infections. They also inhibit production of coenzyme Q10, which helps to regulate your immune and nervous system and maintain a healthy heart and blood pressure. There’s also a higher risk of neurological diseases when you take statins, with many patients reporting forgetfulness, confusion and memory loss. But don’t worry – whatever happens to you, Big Pharma has a solution for that, too!
Statins also increase your risk of diabetes, so much so that the FDA has required that a warning label be placed on the package informing people of the link between statins, higher blood glucose levels and diabetes. The risk is especially heightened if you are an older woman. An Australian study found that elderly women who took high doses of statins had a 50 percent higher risk of developing diabetes. This could mean you’ll end up on diabetes medication for the rest of your life.
And for what benefit are you placing yourself at so much risk? According to research published in BMJ, taking statins over the course of two to five years adds just 3.2 days to a patient’s lifespan on average – if the side effects don’t kill them first. Yes, they’ve been approved by the FDA, but how many times has the FDA had to pull drugs after initially approving them as their dangers became too obvious to ignore?

Statin alternatives

If all this make you want to keep your distance from statins, you will be pleased to know there are some great alternatives. Dr. Jack Wolfson, a Phoenix-area holistic cardiologist, believes that a wellness model needs to be followed rather than a sickness one.
In an interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, he pointed out that cardiologists sometimes fall into the easy routine of blindly prescribing statins as Big Pharma tells them to and collecting a paycheck. After all, they’ve got medical school loans to pay off.
Dr. Wolfson asks why people would want to choose statins, which can reduce the risks associated with high cholesterol slightly yet put them at risk of many other problems, when they could take safe actions that bring their risks down to zero? He said that nobody says they feel better when they take statins and blood pressure medications. In contrast, those who turn to evidence-based supplements often report feeling great, losing weight, and having more energy.
Some of the alternatives he mentioned in the interview include beetroot powder, magnesium, and Omega 3. He says that we can make such a big difference in our health through food., and he also points out how powerful the sun can be in keeping us healthy. He also suggests that people get more physical activity, such as walking or gardening.
When your health is less than optimum, Dr. Wolfson says, your body is deficient in nutrients, not pharmaceuticals. Drugs might be good for emergencies, but when it comes to prevention, you can’t beat a healthy, well-rounded and nutritious diet, physical activity, and good old-fashioned sunshine. What do you have to lose by trying it?
Watch the full, shocking interview with Dr. Wolfson below.


Heart Stents, Cholesterol and Statin Smoking Guns?









Great Britain’s Most Outspoken Cardiologist Sets the Record Straight on Saturated Fats

In addition to the recommendation to follow a low-fat diet, many doctors are still avid prescribers of statins, which help lower your cholesterol. In fact, 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 40 are on these drugs; soon to be 1 in 3. Malhotra is greatly troubled by these kinds of statistics.
“This is a drug that was marketed over the last three decades as being a wonder drug. It’s driven a multi-trillion dollar industry. We’re only now realizing that the benefits of statins have been grossly exaggerated and the side effects underplayed. One of the reasons for that is that most if not all of the studies that drove the guidelines, and the information around statin prescription, were industry-sponsored studies.
One of the things we have neglected in medicine is this issue around absolute risk and relative risk. The reality is if you look at the published data ... if you have heart disease and you've had a heart attack, then taking a statin every day for five years, there’s a 1 in 83 chance that [statin] will save your life.
That means in 82 of 83 cases, it’s not going to save your life. That information isn’t given to patients, but it’s really important. Actually that’s a much more informative and transparent way to understand the benefit they’re going to get.
On top of that when you look at people with lower risk, otherwise healthy people, there is no mortality benefit. People should know that if they haven’t had a heart attack, according to the published literature, they are not high risk and they’re going to live one day longer from taking statins.”

Statins Are Associated With Serious Side Effects

Then there’s the issue of side effects. According to Malhotra, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 patients suffer unacceptable side effects (which he qualifies as side effects that interfere with or diminish the quality of your life). Muscle pain is the most significant side effect reported followed by fatigue (mostly in women). This isn’t very surprising, considering the fact that statins are essentially a metabolic blocker and mitochondrial poison.
They inhibit an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase. This is how they lower cholesterol. But that same enzyme is also responsible for a number of other things like making coenzyme Q10, which is why muscle pain and fatigue are so common. This is in fact a sign that your CoQ10 is being depleted, and you don’t have enough cellular energy.
Statins also block the formation of ketones, which are an essential part of mitochondrial nutrition and overall health. If you can’t make ketones, you impair the metabolism in your entire body, including your heart, thereby raising your risk for heart problems and a variety of other diseases. It’s also recently been established that within a few years of taking statins, the drug causes type 2 diabetes in one out of 100 patients.
That too can be a significant tradeoff that needs to be taken into account, as diabetes is a risk factor for heart disease and other chronic diseases. Dr. Michel De Lorgeril, a well-respected French cardiologist at Grenoble University recently reopened the debate about statins after publishing a review in which he questions whether statins actually have any benefit at all.
“He pointed out several discrepancies in the original trials ... statistical manipulation, conflict of interest ... ” Malhotra says. ”He’s actually suggested that maybe nobody benefits from statins; even people on statins for prevention.
He says that unless we get access to the raw data, independent analysis, the actual claims about the benefits of statins are not evidence-based. Now, I’m not personally saying that. I’m saying this is really intriguing and certainly raises as many questions ... This is something that people need to know about. Even if we use the published literature at face value properly, people would be better informed. That’s the way forward in my view.”

Read more 

It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality

Most heart attacks and ischaemic strokes are caused by complicated atheroma usually compounded by thrombosis suddenly reducing blood flow in a critical artery. Extensive evidence suggests that this atheroma silently builds up over many decades. However, arterial stiffening can be seen even in children who are obese, and aortic fatty streaks are visible in some teenagers and young adults.1 Yet, most cardiovascular events do not manifest until after the age of 60 years. The general perception is thus of a slow process that will therefore only reverse slowly, if at all. However, this perception is wrong. Extensive empirical and trial evidence reveals that substantial reductions in mortality can occur within months of quitting smoking, or making healthy dietary changes. These reductions apply to both individuals and to entire populations. In one American hospital, admissions for acute coronary syndromes decreased by 40% within 6 months of the introduction of local smoke free legislation.2 When the law was rescinded, coronary admissions rapidly returned to previous levels. The introduction of smoke-free legislation in Scotland in 2006 was soon followed by a 6% decrease in out of hospital cardiac deaths and a 17% decrease in hospital admissions within a year.3Even 30 min of secondhand smoke exposure has been proven to increase platelet activity and hence elevate cardiovascular risk.4
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes. In comparison with an American Heart Association recommended ‘low fat’ diet, a Mediterranean diet post myocardial infarction is a more powerful coronary intervention tool for mortality than aspirin, statins, or coronary stents, but without any significant difference in total cholesterol, triglycerides or HDL between the two groups.9 It is the abundant α-linoleic acid, polyphenols and Ω-3 fatty acids found in nuts, olive oil, oily fish and vegetables, that rapidly exert positive health effects by attenuating inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis.10 Conversely, the consumption of trans-fats commonly found in fast food can rapidly increase C reactive protein and other inflammatory markers within weeks.11
Strategies that prevent excessive weight gain in children and adults through curbing the consumption of the amounts of unhealthful foods should also be welcomed. However, simply focusing on weight loss in obese subjects misses a key finding from analysis of PREDIMED subgroups: dietary intervention achieved consistently large reductions in CVD risk irrespective of weight. Furthermore, weight loss interventions are rarely sustained. The weight loss industry, which emphasises calorie restriction over good nutrition, generates $58 billion in revenue annually in the USA, even though long-term follow-up studies reveal that the majority of individuals regain virtually all of the weight that was lost during treatment irrespective of whether they maintain their diet or exercise programme.12 Shifting focus away from calories and emphasising a dietary pattern that focuses on food quality rather than quantity will help to rapidly reduce obesity, related diseases and cardiovascular risk.13 ,14 Rapid weight loss and regain that can occur from fad dieting is actually detrimental to health. Such ‘weight cycling’ contributes to hypertension, insulin resistance and dyslipidaemia resulting in increased mortality risk and worse cardiovascular outcomes.15 The look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial found no reduction in the composite endpoint (ie, death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or hospitalisation for angina) with a low calorie diet (on top of increased physical activity) in patients with type 2 diabetes despite a maximum follow-up of 13.5 years and despite significant weight loss in the intervention group.16
In a randomised, controlled, double-blinded dietary intervention trial for blood pressure, compared to placebo, the daily ingestion of flaxseed (high in Ω-3, lignans and fibre) induced a significant 10 mm Hg systolic/7 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure reduction in hypertensive patients with peripheral arterial disease, within 6 months. The rate of stroke and myocardial infarction was cut in half in the flaxseed group compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in weight change between the two groups.17
The American Heart Association predicts that 8 million Americans will have heart failure by 2030. The total direct costs will triple from approximately $20 billion in 2012 to $70 billion in 2030.18 Recently, a small study suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet in patients with diabetes reversed echocardiographic markers of diastolic dysfunction within weeks of implementation.19 This finding is all the more valuable considering there is, to date, no proven pharmacological intervention that improves prognosis in diastolic heart failure, which affects 30–50% of all heart failure patients.19
An exaggerated belief in the (modest) benefits of pharmacotherapy,20 aggressively reinforced by commercial vested interests, can often mislead patients and doctors, and promotes overtreatment in chronic disease management, and may even distract from and undermine the benefits of simple lifestyle interventions.
Focusing on total energy consumed, as opposed to nutritional value, has been exploited by the food industry, which has added sugar to over 80% of all processed foods. One can of cola contains nine teaspoons of sugar. The EPIC study revealed that one can a day (approximately 150 calories) was associated with substantially increasing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.21 Conversely, PREDIMED revealed that consumption of a handful of nuts, (30 g of walnuts, 15 g of almonds and 15 g of hazelnuts) or four tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil per day (approximately 500 calories) significantly reduced the risk of heart attack and stroke. A recent randomised pilot study of a calorie unrestricted very low carbohydrate/high fat diet in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes resulted in a significant improvement in glycaemic control and even discontinuation of diabetes medications within 3 months in comparison to a moderate carbohydrate, low-fat calorie-restricted diet (consistent with guidelines from the American Diabetes Association), with no adverse effect on blood lipids.22 A critical review in Nutrition also concluded that dietary carbohydrate restriction is the “single most effective intervention for reducing all of the features of the metabolic syndrome” and should be the first approach in diabetes management with the very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet (<10% carbs) revealing the greatest falls in glycated hemoglobin and reduction in the use of medications with benefits occurring even without weight loss.23
Primary and secondary care clinicians clearly have a duty to their individual patients and also to their local populations. Our continued collective failure to act is an option we cannot afford. Obesity alone is already costing the National Health Service (NHS) over £5 billion a year. Total costs of type 2 diabetes in the UK exceed £20 billion and are predicted to double in the next 20 years.24Similarly, in the USA, the cost of diabetes has risen 40% in the past 5 years, reaching $245 billion in 2012.25 The extensive Global Burden of Disease studies show that poor diet is consistently responsible for more disease and death than physical inactivity, smoking and alcohol combined.26 This global disease burden will clearly not be prevented by medications; it will require policy interventions that make healthier diet choices easier (the ‘default option’).27 The most powerful and effective policies include taxation on sugary drinks, and subsidies to increase the affordability and availability of healthier foods including nuts, vegetables and fruit, in addition to controls on the marketing of junk foods and clear package labelling. Increasing nut consumption among the American population by two servings per week could prevent 90 000 CVD deaths per year.28 Applying these population-wide policies might achieve rapid reductions in disease and hospital admissions visible even within the electoral term of most politicians. It is time to stop counting calories, and time to instead promote good nutrition and dietary changes that can rapidly and substantially reduce cardiovascular mortality. The evidence indeed supports the mantra that “food can be the most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison”. Recommending a high fat Mediterranean-type diet and lifestyle to our patients, friends and families, might be a good place to start.