Cholesterol

[bulkbiker]

Moderator’s note: This side discussion was split from another member’s thread so that it didn’t distract from the original topic.

My GP has just prescribed statins for me, as my Cholesterol is slightly raised, and he thinks this is best for me.

Picked the box of pills up today, and read in the leaflet that they can elevate blood sugar levels, and that diabetics should monitor their levels more carefully.

Now, I do have a glucometer, and do use it, but obviously I'm a bit concerned about this. Before I go back to my GP, has anyone any experience of this happening to them? Just looking for a bit of information from anyone who is using them. Thank you.

I have always refused them and always will..

But even the gov acknowledge there may be a problem

Statins: risk of hyperglycaemia and diabetes

Statin use may be associated with a level of hyperglycaemia in some patients where formal diabetes care is appropriate.

www.gov.uk

The total number is to be honest pretty meaningless in my view so without a full lipid breakdown there's little to know way of telling if you are at risk of CVD (assuming that elevated cholesterol is causative of CVD for which the evidence is pretty slim).

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I have always refused them and always will..

But even the gov acknowledge there may be a problem

Statins: risk of hyperglycaemia and diabetes

Statin use may be associated with a level of hyperglycaemia in some patients where formal diabetes care is appropriate.

www.gov.uk

The total number is to be honest pretty meaningless in my view so without a full lipid breakdown there's little to know way of telling if you are at risk of CVD (assuming that elevated cholesterol is causative of CVD for which the evidence is pretty slim).

"studies clearly show a benefit of statins in reducing major cardiovascular events"

It's in your link.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Expert bodies say that "Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD."

Eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837225/ from the European Atherosclerosis Society.

Here's a visual summary:



Each square represents a particular high-quality study. The different colours represent different types of study.

The x-axis is the amount by which LDL is reduced. At 5 years risk reduces by about 20% for each reduction of 1 mmo/l, regardless of how high it was to start with.

As the period lengthens, the risk reduction increases.

These associations are as well studied and certain as anything in medicine.

 

[bulkbiker]

"studies clearly show a benefit of statins in reducing major cardiovascular events"

It's in your link.

Old studies mainly pre 2004 when the reporting criteria were tightened up greatly.

You and I both know it's mainly nonsense and a reduction in relative risk not absolute.. so....

 

[bulkbiker]

bad cholesterol

What is "bad" ?

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Old studies mainly pre 2004 when the reporting criteria were tightened up greatly.

You and I both know it's mainly nonsense and a reduction in relative risk not absolute.. so....

Eddie, that's hilarious.
You are rubbishing your own source of information?

 

[bulkbiker]

Eddie, that's hilarious.
You are rubbishing your own source of information?

People write all sorts of nonsense (bit like you calling me "Eddie") at the start of these papers and make all sorts of idiotic assumptions.

 

[bulkbiker]

Expert bodies say that "Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD."

Eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837225/ from the European Atherosclerosis Society.

Here's a visual summary:

View attachment 23304

Each square represents a particular high-quality study. The different colours represent different types of study.

The x-axis is the amount by which LDL is reduced. At 5 years risk reduces by about 20% for each reduction of 1 mmo/l, regardless of how high it was to start with.

As the period lengthens, the risk reduction increases.

These associations are as well studied and certain as anything in medicine.

Meta analyses of multiple meta analyses still can be nonsense if the underlying studies were flawed to start with though.

Its the usual "garbage in garbage out" flaws.

 

[bulkbiker]

Here's a real heart surgeon on the subject.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1555511990227009538

 

[Deleted member 21371]

People write all sorts of nonsense (bit like you calling me "Eddie") at the start of these papers and make all sorts of idiotic assumptions.

Tell you what Eddie.
Help us all out.
Put up the government reference you linked to, but put a red line through all the bits you know are obviously wrong, just leave in the bits you want us to read, so we don't get confused by reading it all.

 

[bulkbiker]

Tell you what Eddie.
Help us all out.
Put up the government reference you linked to, but put a red line through all the bits you know are obviously wrong, just leave in the bits you want us to read, so we don't get confused by reading it all.

The Q was about statins and increased blood sugar levels.
The link I posted gives a warning about precisely that.

You have chosen to highlight other parts that are irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

The Q was about statins and increased blood sugar levels.
The link I posted gives a warning about precisely that.

You have chosen to highlight other parts that are irrelevant to the OP.

Ah, ok Eddie.
A more relevant bit then.

"the reduced vascular risk from statin therapy outweighs the risk of diabetes, which is therefore not a reason for stopping statin treatment"

Or is that another "inconvenient truth" from your link that shouldn't be mentioned in public, and hidden from people who don't ask exactly the right questions you can't bluster round, and you can decide for the op that it's irrelevant to them?

Personally, I prefer to put all the facts out there, treat people as adults, and let them decide for themselves, not tell them they don't need to know and try to bury it because it's not my opinion.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Here's a real heart surgeon on the subject.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1555511990227009538

I suppose you have a point ... if you think his opinion is more informed than the 25 or so top practitioners listed as authors on the consensus statement I linked. And also the many many many others involved in similar statements from the other international organisations. And if you think the people doing the studies and metastudies are all yowling morons.

Hmmmm, have to think about that.

 

[bulkbiker]

Ah, ok Eddie.
A more relevant bit then.

"the reduced vascular risk from statin therapy outweighs the risk of diabetes, which is therefore not a reason for stopping statin treatment"

Or is that another "inconvenient truth" from your link that shouldn't be mentioned in public, and hidden from people who don't ask exactly the right questions you can't bluster round, and you can decide for the op that it's irrelevant to them?

Personally, I prefer to put all the facts out there, treat people as adults, and let them decide for themselves, not tell them they don't need to know and try to bury it because it's not my opinion.

The Q was "can statins raise blood glucose".. the answer is yes they can.
That is putting the info out there and as you say letting people make their own decisions.
Personally I can't see many reasons to take statins so have and always will refuse them.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

The Q was "can statins raise blood glucose".. the answer is yes they can.
That is putting the info out there and as you say letting people make their own decisions.
Personally I can't see many reasons to take statins so have and always will refuse them.

Nope you want cholesterol in double figures to live longer.
You read that on the internet.
Your choice, but don't try to get us to validate it by hiding the facts Eddie.

 

[bulkbiker]

Nope you want cholesterol in double figures to live longer.

And where precisely have I ever said that?

 

[bulkbiker]

I suppose you have a point ... if you think his opinion is more informed than the 25 or so top practitioners listed as authors on the consensus statement I linked. And also the many many many others involved in similar statements from the other international organisations. And if you think the people doing the studies and metastudies are all yowling morons.

Hmmmm, have to think about that.

There are lots of points to be made.. the main one still being that taking a lot of poor studies and pooling the results doesn't magically make them 'better' however "esteemed" the authors are.

Like all studies in human nutrition and disease there are unlikely to be black and white casual relationships to be drawn.

Here's a new one on "bad" cholesterol for you to poo poo.

Elevated LDL-cholesterol levels among lean mass hyper-responders on low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets deserve urgent clinical attention and further research

It has been observed that lean individuals with low triglycerides (TG) and high HDL-cholesterol (HDL-c) may develop a marked elevation of plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) when consuming a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet1. This phenomenon, which has been termed the lean mass hyper-responder...

www.lipidjournal.com

We simply don't know yet in which contexts things are 'good' or 'bad' and honest scientists will admit it.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Here's a new one on "bad" cholesterol for you to poo poo.

Elevated LDL-cholesterol levels among lean mass hyper-responders on low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets deserve urgent clinical attention and further research

It has been observed that lean individuals with low triglycerides (TG) and high HDL-cholesterol (HDL-c) may develop a marked elevation of plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) when consuming a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet1. This phenomenon, which has been termed the lean mass hyper-responder...

www.lipidjournal.com

We simply don't know yet in which contexts things are 'good' or 'bad' and honest scientists will admit it.

There are lots of points to be made.. the main one still being that taking a lot of poor studies and pooling the results doesn't magically make them 'better' however "esteemed" the authors are.

Like all studies in human nutrition and disease there are unlikely to be black and white casual relationships to be drawn.

Here's a new one on "bad" cholesterol for you to poo poo.

Elevated LDL-cholesterol levels among lean mass hyper-responders on low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets deserve urgent clinical attention and further research

It has been observed that lean individuals with low triglycerides (TG) and high HDL-cholesterol (HDL-c) may develop a marked elevation of plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) when consuming a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet1. This phenomenon, which has been termed the lean mass hyper-responder...

www.lipidjournal.com

We simply don't know yet in which contexts things are 'good' or 'bad' and honest scientists will admit it.

I confess to not having followed the whole LMHR thing very much. But if I was looking for a poo-poo angle I think I'd focus on why it means anything other than that eating keto results in very high LDL for a lot of people, as if well known, and which we know from about a gadzillion rigorous studies is a Bad Thing, regadless of meaningless ratios like TG/HDL, but maybe less of a Bad Thing if you've avoided obesity. Or something like that.

 

[bulkbiker]

gadzillion rigorous studies is a Bad Thing

In your opinion.

regadless of meaningless ratios like TG/HDL,

In your opinion.

eating keto results in very high LDL for a lot of people

Define "a lot" for many people keto leads to reductions in cholesterol to "normal" levels so....

I just don't worry about mine ...