• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

what are the alternatives to statins?

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.

Carina1962

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
I am on an 80mg daily dose of simvastatin and was wondering as a few people on here seem to have stopped taking statins but what i want to know is, what is the alternative? don't GP's recommend alternative drugs to statins? i have read quite a few articles on statins and how bad they are that i am getting a little concerned but i don't suppose i have a choice as i don't want to have high cholesterol :(
 
The way it was put to me by my GP when I asked him the question was they're the best we have at the moment and statistics show that they are protective.

If, in 10 years time, it's shown to be otherwise, then they will find somethign else, but for now, there's not the scientific data or better alternatives that they know will do the same job.

Although it's easy to find data that shows how harmful they are, we're not qualified to assess which set of data is correct. So we rely on the experts to tell us their opinion. Some will have a vested interest in pushing the statins, some will just be looking for whatever works best.

I have come down in favour of the statins for now, since I don't seem to be feeling ill effects and any I was may have been due to other things.

I've been told that there's not much else you can do beyond exercise, eat healthily (less saturated fats, etc) and hope your genes are predisposed towards lower cholestorol.

Rob
 
I'm not aware of any alternative drugs. You could try Niacin which is supposed to reduce cholesterol and you don't need a prescription. I've tried it and given up and it didn't seem to produce a significant reduction, it does have interesting side effects, if you want a red face and itchy scalp and arms for about 10 minutes.
 
thanks for the info Robster. I used to take a 40mg dose but it was increased as my cholesterol was till high. I get my HBAIC results next week and will also know whether my cholesterol has come down from last time and i think it may have done because (no news is good news) and have not had the standard letter from my GP which you get when something is flagged up which i did do last time so am keeping fingers crossed that it has come down. I wonder if i will be able to decrease my dosage back down to 60 or 40mg as i now have started regularly excercising at the gym and am losing weight - will wait and see.
 
A lot of people find if they decrease the amount of carbohydrate they eat, their LDL and Trigs go down and their HDL increases - it's the relationship between these 3 which gives a pointer to how much good LDL you have and how much bad LDL - the bad sort incidentally is called VLDL - - ie VERY low density chol. (LOL) see

http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2009/10/cholesterol-fats-carbs-statins-and.html

Cos we need 'good' LDL as much as we need to breathe, it is the only thing that repairs our brains.

( - is why I packed the statins in after I got complete and very worrying mental gaps, I honestly believed I had Alzheimers coming on - fast ..... and I'd never read any of the bad press until after I stopped taking them - and it was only an experiment off me own bat, I took a BP lowering pill and a Chol lowering one and was going to try stopping either of then 'in case' - just happened to pick the statin first and after a fortnight I saw improvemnt, in 2 months I was back to normal .... GP denies it, he insisted it was old age! - told him when I die of a heart attack he can come and view my body and say, 'I told you so!' - but I want to keep my marbles thanks LOL)

I understand there is a type of Niacin now available on scrip that doesn't have the 'flushing' side-effect, Vic. There is also something else; Fibro something? - old drug they seem to be ignoring because if the statin hype ... and I thought one called Erithromycin but can't find that either - now this is old age LOL
 
Another, slightly more informative, article...

http://health.usnews.com/health-conditions/heart-health/lowering-ldl-cholesterol

Some good suggestions and statistics in this one.🙂

It mentions Niacin and its side effects. Raising BG is one of them apparently. But might not be enough to cause harm.

Aerobic exercise. 'Moderate' alcohol consumption. Quit smoking. Limit saturated fats. Moderate amounts of eggs. Cut out transfats as much as poss.

Rob
 
I couldn't take statins as they affected my liver so the doc put me on Bezafibrate and that seems to work fine.
 
A lot of people find if they decrease the amount of carbohydrate they eat, their LDL and Trigs go down and their HDL increases - it's the relationship between these 3 which gives a pointer to how much good LDL you have and how much bad LDL - the bad sort incidentally is called VLDL - - ie VERY low density chol. (LOL) see

Wrong , LDL is the bad sort.
VLDL isn't LDL - the "very low density" tells you that VLDL is large and cannot get through the pores into the endothelium.

You appear to be confusing VLDL with Pattern B LDL.
 
So - I agree it does sound like I have, what I thought was VLDL does seem as if it's pattern B, ias long as that's the one that does the damage?

So .... does the calculated LDL value given in the tests (cos they don't test for it specifically, do they? - just work it out from the things they do test for) exclude the Pattern B then? I understood it was the total calculated LDL which would include the large fluffy molecules (ie the good guys) as well as the smaller ones that do the damage? (whether they are called VLDL or Pattern B) (so does that make VLDL Pattern A????)

Sorry, people do have to explain things to me in terms I can easily relate to; because the good guys are like fluffy white clouds and benign, I think of the baddies as nasty little bits of cartoon spiky all over grit ! (not unlike the pic Northie put on his 'What A Diabetic Looks Like' ode!)
 
So - I agree it does sound like I have, what I thought was VLDL does seem as if it's pattern B, ias long as that's the one that does the damage?

So .... does the calculated LDL value given in the tests (cos they don't test for it specifically, do they? - just work it out from the things they do test for) exclude the Pattern B then? I understood it was the total calculated LDL which would include the large fluffy molecules (ie the good guys) as well as the smaller ones that do the damage? (whether they are called VLDL or Pattern B) (so does that make VLDL Pattern A????)

)

The pores in the outer layer of the artery walls are an average of 26nm wide.
The average width of LDL is 22nm ie. most LDL can get through the 26nm pores in the artery walls and enter the endothelium ( the space between the outer and inner walls of the artery). In the endothelium the LDL spills its cargo of cholesterol ( each LDL particle is carrying on average 1500 molecules of cholesterol) onto inflamed macrophages,. The cholesterol thus deposited builds up into foam cells ( which start in childhood), "Fatty Streaks", atheromas, plaques, narrowing of the arteries, cvd etc

There are hypothesised as being three distributions of LDL ..
Pattern I ... a normal pattern with a bell shape curve of LDL centred on the average width of 22nm. This "normal" pattern of LDL is atheromatic because they are clustering well below the average arterial pore width of 26nm i.e. LDL is hazardous even at a normal distribution.
Pattern A ... this is where the average width of LDL is above the 26nm pores width. It is less atheromatic because less LDL can get through the pores into the endothelium but there is still a tail of LDL that can get through.
Pattern B... this a distribution of LDL which has the average width below the average of LDL itself i.e. this distribution ( Pattern B) is highly atheromatic since most can get through and deposit cholesterol in the endothelium.
What's extremely annoying is that diabetics are prone to Pattern B ( the really damaging distribution).

Some people on the support groups seem to have got the idea that there are two types of LDL ( large and fluffy versus small and dense). This is not really true, LDL is much the same whatever average width it has. The terms, Pattern A and Pattern B don't really refer to different kinds of LDL but rather to the pattern of distribution around the average width of 22nm.

Pattern A ( the relatively benign) distribution is quite rare and has really only been seen in hereditary circumstances.

Of course it is virtually impossible to discover what pattern of LDL you have without extensive, expensive tests. So basically the average diabetic Joe just needs to follow standard advice and get the LDL under 2 ( usually via Statins).Trying to determine what pattern of LDL you have from the TRigs figure appears to be largely clutching at straws.

VLDL is large as the name,"very low density", implies and has nothing to do with LDL and cannot get through the 26nm pores in the artery walls. VLDL degenerates after it gives up its content (cholesterol and APoE) into VLDL-fragments, which can be atheromatic, and are metaphorically described as "LDL".
 
Last edited:
Gosh ... !

Thank you.

Not sure what I can do with it, LOL as I still shan't go back on Simvastatin and lose my memory again .......
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top