That's the 64,000 Dollar Question. Remember that show, from back in the 1950s?GrannyH wrote:All this is food for thought! Just wonder how dangerous my high cholesterol would be without crestor???
Tex
Why Statins Scare Me
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I am NOT a doctor and don't play one on TV (disclaimer)
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
GrannyH,
To help answer the 64 thousand dollar question, consider this study:
Those are European values for cholesterol measurement. Converting them to the mg/dL units used in this country, gives these values:
4.0 mmol/l = 155.44 mg/dL - this gave the highest rate of mortality, 5.2 times the rate at 7.0 mmol/l
7.0 mmol/l = 270.27 mg/dL - this gave the lowest rate of mortality
8.8 mmol/l = 339.77 mg/dL - this gave a mortality rate only 1.8 times higher than the minimum rate at 7.0 mmol/l
Clearly, the greatest risk for mortality occurs at low cholesterol levels, not high levels.
You may also be interested in this study of subjects older than 70. Of course, this doesn't yet apply to you, despite the fact that you constantly claim that you are old.
Obviously, you're too young to be considered "old".
and this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10690699
In order to be objective, I feel obligated to point out that there are a few studies with results that are not as clear cut, such as this one. However, remember that just because a positive association is found, does not mean that it is strong enough to be worth worry worrying about - no numbers are noted in this abstract, so the association might be only a minor consideration:
Tex
To help answer the 64 thousand dollar question, consider this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/256495092 women aged 60 years and over (mean 82.2, SD 8.6) living in a nursing home and free from overt cancer were followed-up for 5 years. 53 died during this period; necropsy revealed cancer in only 1 patient. Serum total cholesterol at entry ranged from 4.0 to 8.8 mmol/l (mean 6.3, SD 1.1). Cox's proportional hazards analysis showed a J-shaped relation between serum cholesterol and mortality. Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l, 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account.
Those are European values for cholesterol measurement. Converting them to the mg/dL units used in this country, gives these values:
4.0 mmol/l = 155.44 mg/dL - this gave the highest rate of mortality, 5.2 times the rate at 7.0 mmol/l
7.0 mmol/l = 270.27 mg/dL - this gave the lowest rate of mortality
8.8 mmol/l = 339.77 mg/dL - this gave a mortality rate only 1.8 times higher than the minimum rate at 7.0 mmol/l
Clearly, the greatest risk for mortality occurs at low cholesterol levels, not high levels.
You may also be interested in this study of subjects older than 70. Of course, this doesn't yet apply to you, despite the fact that you constantly claim that you are old.
Obviously, you're too young to be considered "old".http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 72/17/1335Conclusions.
—Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years.
and this study:
We found little or no association in women between all-cause mortality and any of the lipid measures studied.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10690699
In order to be objective, I feel obligated to point out that there are a few studies with results that are not as clear cut, such as this one. However, remember that just because a positive association is found, does not mean that it is strong enough to be worth worry worrying about - no numbers are noted in this abstract, so the association might be only a minor consideration:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8113829Abstract
Serum total cholesterol (TC) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were investigated as risk factors for mortality from ischemic heart disease among 272 elderly men and women during 17 years of follow-up. For men, TC was not significantly associated with mortality from ischemic heart disease. Among women, a significant positive association was found (p-trend = 0.03 when adjusted for age, body mass index, SBP, alcohol consumption, smoking, and the prevalence of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris and diabetes mellitus). Among women a significant positive association was also observed for SBP after adjustment for all potential confounders (p-trend = 0.05). Among men, the adjusted association with SBP was not statistically significant. The results suggest that TC and SBP are stronger independent risk factors for mortality from ischemic heart disease among elderly women than among elderly men. These differences between genders may be due to selective mortality among middle-aged men and physiological changes in women during menopause.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Still confused.. I take it those are the numbers for total cholesterol. My cholesterol total before going back on crestor was 272...
triglycerides...125
HDL................48
LDL..............190
I don't remember the explanation but doc said that the HDL and LDL have some factors too.. one should be higher... not sure which one... can you shed any light on this?
grannyh
triglycerides...125
HDL................48
LDL..............190
I don't remember the explanation but doc said that the HDL and LDL have some factors too.. one should be higher... not sure which one... can you shed any light on this?
grannyh
HDL is considered to be "good" cholesterol, and LDL is considered to be "bad" cholesterol.
Yes, your numbers are probably considered to be "way less than ideal" by your doc. However there are those in medicine who have a contrary opinion. In fact, some claim that high total cholesterol, and/or high LDL is actually protective of infection, and, (believe it or not), protective of atherosclerosis.
That claim is supported by this study, also:
That study was done 13 years ago, but as far as I'm aware, the statement about "The effects of cholesterol-lowering therapy have yet to be assessed", is still a valid claim. The thing to bear in mind is that most of the studies associating high cholesterol with risk of heart disease, etc., are epidemiological, in nature. The problem with that approach is that even if an association is found, it doesn't prove that one is causing the other. A good example of the absurdity of that approach is the fact that studies have found that owning a car is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Does anyone believe that ownership of a car actually causes an increased risk of heart disease? I sure don't. Most likely, it means that people who own a car, don't get as much walking exercise, as people who don't own a car, or they develop some other habit/s that tend to increase their odds of developing heart disease. IOW, they may tend to lead a generally less active lifestyle, for example. The study, though, blames heart disease on car ownership.
Doctors, like everyone else, are prone to sometimes jumping to the wrong conclusions. When we do that, it can affect our lives, so we get what we deserve. When doctors do that, guess whose life it affects, and guess who gets what they don't deserve.
Incidentally, the significantly-increased risk of death that comes with lower cholesterol levels, is almost certainly due to a significantly-increased risk of developing cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518179/
Tex
Yes, your numbers are probably considered to be "way less than ideal" by your doc. However there are those in medicine who have a contrary opinion. In fact, some claim that high total cholesterol, and/or high LDL is actually protective of infection, and, (believe it or not), protective of atherosclerosis.
However, the many observations that conflict with the LDL receptor hypothesis, may be explained by the idea that high serum cholesterol and/or high LDL is protective against infection and atherosclerosis.
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/con ... eytype=refand most of all, the fact that high cholesterol predicts longevity rather than mortality in old people, suggests that the role, if any, of high cholesterol must be trivial. The most likely explanation for these findings is that rather than promoting atherosclerosis, high cholesterol may be protective, possibly through its beneficial influence on the immune system.
That claim is supported by this study, also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9343498INTERPRETATION: In people older than 85 years, high total cholesterol concentrations are associated with longevity owing to lower mortality from cancer and infection. The effects of cholesterol-lowering therapy have yet to be assessed.
That study was done 13 years ago, but as far as I'm aware, the statement about "The effects of cholesterol-lowering therapy have yet to be assessed", is still a valid claim. The thing to bear in mind is that most of the studies associating high cholesterol with risk of heart disease, etc., are epidemiological, in nature. The problem with that approach is that even if an association is found, it doesn't prove that one is causing the other. A good example of the absurdity of that approach is the fact that studies have found that owning a car is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Does anyone believe that ownership of a car actually causes an increased risk of heart disease? I sure don't. Most likely, it means that people who own a car, don't get as much walking exercise, as people who don't own a car, or they develop some other habit/s that tend to increase their odds of developing heart disease. IOW, they may tend to lead a generally less active lifestyle, for example. The study, though, blames heart disease on car ownership.
Doctors, like everyone else, are prone to sometimes jumping to the wrong conclusions. When we do that, it can affect our lives, so we get what we deserve. When doctors do that, guess whose life it affects, and guess who gets what they don't deserve.
Incidentally, the significantly-increased risk of death that comes with lower cholesterol levels, is almost certainly due to a significantly-increased risk of developing cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518179/
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
It still wouldn't hurt to see what your doc thinks about some of these studies - he or she might have some insight on some of them, but looking at all the research data, it appears that the older we get, the less detrimental, (or more beneficial, depending on how we look at it), elevated cholesterol levels tend to become.
You're certainly most welcome,
Tex
You're certainly most welcome,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Statins and MC
I was on Zcor for about 6 months and then went on Vytorin (Zcor and Zetia) for a few months. My liver enzymes became elevated and I went off Vytorin . About three days later I had my first diarrhea flare. I am 99% convinced that the statin Vytorin caused my LC.
A few years ago I read that about 80 to 90% of all patients with MC will have complete remission of their illness within three years of their diagnosis.....with or without medication.
I was just thinking the other day that I rarely need to take Immodium anymore. And it was three years ago this past April that I had my first D flare.
I think what has helped me the most is avoiding raw vegetables, and high fiber veggies. Also I noticed a big improvement when I began taking the probiotic Align about 7 months ago.
As for those who have high cholesterol I would suggest you seriously try the Atkins and or Bernstein diet. People who have diligently followed their "low carb" diet have had remarkable success in lowering their cholesterol.
A few years ago I read that about 80 to 90% of all patients with MC will have complete remission of their illness within three years of their diagnosis.....with or without medication.
I was just thinking the other day that I rarely need to take Immodium anymore. And it was three years ago this past April that I had my first D flare.
I think what has helped me the most is avoiding raw vegetables, and high fiber veggies. Also I noticed a big improvement when I began taking the probiotic Align about 7 months ago.
As for those who have high cholesterol I would suggest you seriously try the Atkins and or Bernstein diet. People who have diligently followed their "low carb" diet have had remarkable success in lowering their cholesterol.
IssyW123
Issy,
You are probably correct about the Vytorin causing your MC. Statins are known to cause MC.
Links to the original research articles that you refer to, (regarding spontaneous remission of MC within approximately 3 years), are listed below. I have a theory that this type of remission is frequently experienced by people whose MC was originally caused by a drug, and for whom gluten or casein intolerance was never triggered. In those cases, once remission is achieved, permanently avoiding the drug that triggered the disease, is usually sufficient to prevent a relapse. IOW, avoiding that drug is the only necessary maintenance treatment. Those of us for whom true food intolerances were triggered, (along with the MC), can usually prevent a relapse by a similar behavior pattern, namely avoiding all our food intolerances, forever.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8995938
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9824342
The first article contains a statement in the conclusions, that I simply cannot believe, however, (which makes me wonder if the rest of the claims can be trusted):
Fiber is an interesting topic. Some species eat fiber because it is a primary source of nutrition for them. Accordingly, their digestive systems are designed to break down fiber, in order to extract whatever nutrients might be available, (all grazing animals fall into this catetory, for example). Other species eat foods with significant amounts of fiber, if they can't find anything more nutritious, (for example, coyotes will eat fruit, and even grain, if they can't find enough meat to keep them going). I have a hunch that our ancestors fell into this category, also. IOW, if hunting for meat wasn't successful, (which was frequently the case), they "gathered" and ate whatever was available. Not because they craved it, but in order to keep their stomachs from gnawing on their backbones. Throughout history, (after recorded history became a common practice), the elite ate meat, and the poor ate whatever else was available. People in starvation situations have proven that they will eat virtually anything, in order to try to overcome the hunger pangs.
IMO, we never actually evolved to eat fiber, though, because if we had done so, we would be able to digest fiber. To this day, fiber is an irritant to the gut, and it is recommended by "experts", as a means to stimulate "regular" bowel movements. Well now let's see - fiber is irritating to the gut, and it stimulates bowel movements . . . What does that remind us of? Oh yeah - it sounds like a laxative, doesn't it.
Tex
You are probably correct about the Vytorin causing your MC. Statins are known to cause MC.
Links to the original research articles that you refer to, (regarding spontaneous remission of MC within approximately 3 years), are listed below. I have a theory that this type of remission is frequently experienced by people whose MC was originally caused by a drug, and for whom gluten or casein intolerance was never triggered. In those cases, once remission is achieved, permanently avoiding the drug that triggered the disease, is usually sufficient to prevent a relapse. IOW, avoiding that drug is the only necessary maintenance treatment. Those of us for whom true food intolerances were triggered, (along with the MC), can usually prevent a relapse by a similar behavior pattern, namely avoiding all our food intolerances, forever.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8995938
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9824342
The first article contains a statement in the conclusions, that I simply cannot believe, however, (which makes me wonder if the rest of the claims can be trusted):
Say what? Are they saying that the continued use of NSAIDs made no difference on the clinical course of their disease? Really? That's mighty hard for me to believe. It certainly runs contrary to the collective experience of the members of this board. I have no doubt that there are probably a few people with MC, who can take NSAIDs, and get away with it, but that certainly doesn't apply to the majority of us, as the article would have us believe.There was a high incidence of arthritis and NSAID use in our population, but there was no relationship between these entities and clinical course or histology.
Fiber is an interesting topic. Some species eat fiber because it is a primary source of nutrition for them. Accordingly, their digestive systems are designed to break down fiber, in order to extract whatever nutrients might be available, (all grazing animals fall into this catetory, for example). Other species eat foods with significant amounts of fiber, if they can't find anything more nutritious, (for example, coyotes will eat fruit, and even grain, if they can't find enough meat to keep them going). I have a hunch that our ancestors fell into this category, also. IOW, if hunting for meat wasn't successful, (which was frequently the case), they "gathered" and ate whatever was available. Not because they craved it, but in order to keep their stomachs from gnawing on their backbones. Throughout history, (after recorded history became a common practice), the elite ate meat, and the poor ate whatever else was available. People in starvation situations have proven that they will eat virtually anything, in order to try to overcome the hunger pangs.
IMO, we never actually evolved to eat fiber, though, because if we had done so, we would be able to digest fiber. To this day, fiber is an irritant to the gut, and it is recommended by "experts", as a means to stimulate "regular" bowel movements. Well now let's see - fiber is irritating to the gut, and it stimulates bowel movements . . . What does that remind us of? Oh yeah - it sounds like a laxative, doesn't it.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I've been taking Zocor (now Simvastatin) for over 10 years. I also have been taking high blood pressure medicine (Atenolol) for about a year. My legs always hurt when walking, etc. I've attributed that to being very overweight. After reading this thread I am thinking of getting off the Simvastatin and maybe the Atenolol, too. I have had on and off flares (mostly on) for several months now. Think I'll alternate pills, instead of taking both each night, until they are gone.
kathy
Make sure you talk to your doctor. When I had bad leg cramps my doctor took me off crestor for several months. I started drinking lime gatorade last year to keep electrolytes in balance and that has helped a bit with leg cramps as well.
It isn't a great idea to go off a medication without talking to a doctor you trust. Learn the pros and cons.
grannyh
It isn't a great idea to go off a medication without talking to a doctor you trust. Learn the pros and cons.
grannyh