Looking for a little schooling here. My doctor wants me to get my LDL down to 70 from 100. It has been at 100 at every lab. I really don't have a good understanding of the numbers or the med. I have seen various comments that are negative towards statins. I have also seen information saying they can be beneficial for retinopathy.I want to make an informed choice which is why I'm posting this. Insight, experience and references are all appreciated.
Randy- I don't think an LDL of 100 is high enough to take statins. I have never taken them and wouldn't take them unless my LDL was really high ( which would never happen.) My husband ( non-D) has a slightly high LDL and he takes Red Rice Yeast. It is a Chinese herb used for thousands of years and is has a mild statin effect. You can Google it. It is available at any Health Food store or on-line at any vitamin site.
The level for treatment used to be 120 then it was lowered to 100, some claim in order to sell more statins. Even by the new standards you are borderline, by the old standards you are well within the optimal range.
I agree with both of the above. Don't take statins for that kind of LDL! 100 is an awesome number. You don't mention what your HDL is. Is it pretty high?
All I can say is do ALL the research you can about statins as well as cholesterol and it's role in our bodies. Don't let some doctor force you on medications you don't "need".
My doc was flabbergasted when he saw that my LDL had decreased 37 points. He said,"And you're still taking the whateveritscalled-statin?"
Me: "No. I never started taking it." (You'd think he would have realized that since I never called to get it refilled and it had been a year!)
Him, in a snotty voice: "Can I ask why not?"
Me: "Because I'm too young to be taking that kind of medication and I can get it down within a decent range by the diet and exercise that I need to be doing anyways. As proven by those lab results right there."
Here's a quote from an article about the tactics drug companies use to sell their products in the Atlantic.
"Changing the metrics for diagnosing a disease is one reliable technique. Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor of pharmacology and director of the industry watchdog group PharmedOut.org at Georgetown University School of Medicine, pointed to how the numbers used to diagnose diabetes and high cholesterol have been lowered over time. "The very numbers we use have been reduced to the point of absurdity," she said."
My Dr has been trying to get me to take Crestor/Lipitor for the last year but I have always refused. She doesn't like it but its my choice. My LDL is the same as yours: hovers around 80-100. I don't think this is high enough for me to be taking the drug but she keeps telling me the "guideline" is below 70 for diabetics, Type 1/2. I've also read articles which indicate statins may actually raise BG levels slightly. I'm a very active guy with a resting heart rate of 54 and BMI of 20.5. I've never smoked and there is no history of heart disease/attack in my family.
I'm still young(ish) and don't want to be on this kind of aggresive medication for the rest of my life (maybe when I'm 60).
This is obviously a personal choice and everyone is different.
Thanks everyone for your input. I'm doing my research, but some personal insights are always a great help for me.I love having TuD as a resource. Where else could we go for this kind of support? Thanks again.
Just curious- do you have high HDL? And do they account for that on your bloodwork/decision to want to start you on medication for it?
Another thought/question... from what I've read.. diabetes is ultimately a vascular disease. Maybe there's some resource somewhere saying that since diabetics are more likely to have vascular disease because of BG fluctuations, they need a lower LDL as high LDL can affect your vessels too... if there's information somewhere relating the two, and it's not backed by a drug company.. then maybe it's credible?
I also know a perfectly healthy, thin guy who shoes horses for a living (so in essence, very active)... and in his mid sixties (actually, just last year) had to have quadruple bypass surgery.
Just a few thoughts.
Not suggesting either way.