Just got Rosuvastatin prescribed…

[OldManLogan]

So long story short, my cardiologist (who informed me that even though my heart and I are in good shape overall) did prescribe Rosuvastatin going forward.

He explained that even though statistically it might not make much of a difference given my risk factors, calcium score etc., he thinks it might be beneficial long term.

I’m a little concerned about taking it and possible sides- cramping etc. - but another part of me is thinking if I do increase my test or possibly do a low dose AAS cycle, this might be a great preventative measure to keep my bloodwork nicely in range.

My bloodwork is super solid as of this week without it- all parameters in the green, currently 210 Test C, 210 Mast, 25mg Anavar only as sublingual preworkout 3-4 times a week. LDL 92 mg/dl, HDL 50 mg/dl, total 142, triglycerides 35. If it matters 53 years old 5’8” 196 # 10% bf.

Any advice, or what has your experience been with Rosuvastatin?

 

[aimanabolic]

Personally I won't be taking any statins, especially if (it is) my cholesterol is good.

If my cholesterol is ever really bad I may reconsider.

 

[seymoor77]

ur LDL sucks - u will have no sides whatsoever from Crestor - ur body does not need LDL - lower the number the better - ur other lipid numbers are fine

 

[OldManLogan]

ur LDL sucks - u will have no sides whatsoever from Crestor - ur body does not need LDL - lower the number the better - ur other lipid numbers are fine

The LDL sucks?

I thought it was pretty good- for reference:

Here are the standard reference ranges for LDL (Low-Density Lipoprotein) and HDL (High-Density Lipoprotein) cholesterol levels in adults:

LDL Cholesterol (the “bad” cholesterol):
• Optimal: Less than 100 mg/dL
• Near optimal/above optimal: 100–129 mg/dL
• Borderline high: 130–159 mg/dL
• High: 160–189 mg/dL
• Very high: 190 mg/dL and above

HDL Cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol):
• Low (higher risk):
• Men: Less than 40 mg/dL
• Women: Less than 50 mg/dL
• Acceptable:
• Men: 40–59 mg/dL
• Women: 50–59 mg/dL
• High (protective): 60 mg/dL and above

So…?
But hey, if no sides- sounds like it’s a win win?

 

[pimpman]

LDL sucks?

 

[bbxtreme]

Your lipids are actually pretty good. I would check Apo A and B if it were me along with CRP.

But simply based on your lipids I personally would not take a statin as you have no need and the side effects could outweigh the benefits.

If anything add some citrus bergamot daily for lipid and heart health. But at the end of the day it’s a personal choice and decide with your doctor. I would really dive into the latest research on statins and make an educated decision for yourself.

 

[primobolan]

one thing to always remember is that there is always some sort of incentive from the pharmaceutical companies for doctors to prescribe these drugs.

 

[alfresco]

Your lipids are actually pretty good. I would check Apo A and B if it were me along with CRP.

But simply based on your lipids I personally would not take a statin as you have no need and the side effects could outweigh the benefits.

If anything add some citrus bergamot daily for lipid and heart health. But at the end of the day it’s a personal choice and decide with your doctor. I would really dive into the latest research on statins and make an educated decision for yourself.

FYI. I have “high” cholesterol. But my CRP (?) is 7 so no statins for me.

 

[bbxtreme]

FYI. I have “high” cholesterol. But my CRP (?) is 7 so no statins for me.

Statins have been shown to be very effective at managing CRP, which can in layman’s terms mean they help keep inflammation in check. It’s not why doctors prescribe them, but a very effective secondary indicated use IMO.

Most people will need to watch their CK levels and liver enzymes on them. Problem with most bodybuilders is that their CK levels usually stay high from training so hard.

Overall I just personally don’t believe that many people should be on them.

 

[alfresco]

Statins have been shown to be very effective at managing CRP, which can in layman’s terms mean they help keep inflammation in check. It’s not why doctors prescribe them, but a very effective secondary indicated use IMO.

Most people will need to watch their CK levels and liver enzymes on them. Problem with most bodybuilders is that their CK levels usually stay high from training so hard.

Overall I just personally don’t believe that many people should be on them.

My mistake. Was a CRC? (Having problems, remembering what all these acronyms mean )

 

[qbkilla]

one thing to always remember is that there is always some sort of incentive from the pharmaceutical companies for doctors to prescribe these drugs.

This. I'd be wary of any doc wanting to put you on meds with a good ldl...they just love to prescribe these meds

 

[Reno911]

OP- what was your calcium score number?

 

[bbxtreme]

one thing to always remember is that there is always some sort of incentive from the pharmaceutical companies for doctors to prescribe these drugs.

This. I'd be wary of any doc wanting to put you on meds with a good ldl...they just love to prescribe these meds

It’s generally outdated knowledge and research driving doctors to prescribe things such as statins. It’s easy to get caught up in what you learned 10+ years ago while in med school.

Seeing patients day in and out leaves little time for most to pursue further and newer research. Especially objective research NOT funded by Big Pharma. I applaud those who do.

 

[M@NU]

take 2,5mg eod.
the effects are not dose linear but side effects get much harsher at higher dosages.
2,5eod already brings your numbers down very effectively without the harsher side effects

 

[Orville Shreddenbacher]

CoQ10 is supposed to be good at combating sides . Lipitor crippled me , crestor gives me no sides at all

 

[buck]

When a Dr tells me that they recommend a drug even though it will likley not help i definitely avoid it. I had an experience with 2 cardiologists 3 years ago where they recommended a stain even though the thought it would not benefit me as my cholesterol levels were already where they would be shooting for. When i asked about side effects or life expectancy they told me those were things i had to consider. Seems that was not a part of their job, looking at those factors.

 

[td]

I'm not a doctor. This is not medical advice.

The link between lipids and cardiovascular health is not well understood. It was first believed high cholesterol was a cardiac risk. Then it LDL. Then VLDL. The standard of care is to control LDL with pharmaceutical intervention. But if you find a doctor who is honest and up to date on the most current literature, they will tell you that we simply don't know. All octogenarians exhibit high cholesterol. Is that something that just happens with age? Is there something casual not yet understood? We don't know. Collections of large datasets that wasn't previously possible, is really throwing a wrench into current understanding of responsible Healthcare.

That is to say, most medical questions are much more complex than many medical professionals will disclose.

 

[OldManLogan]

OP- what was your calcium score number?

It was a 3.

 

[Reno911]

It was a 3.

Probably the only advantage of microdosing a statin for you would be for the soft plaque stabilization.

Of note to share.
A friend of mine had a CT of 73 two years ago at age 52. A couple weeks ago he went in for a physical and the EKG came back abnormal. They sent him in for a stress echo and he didn't even get on the treadmill. They imaged him on the table for about 2-3 minutes and pulled him off. He had "had" a heart attack at some point. A week later he got stented and had 90%+ blockage in the LAD and another 90% in one of the other coronaries.

Don't let a low CT give you a false sense of security. A CT Angiogram is a better option if you really want to see what's going on.

 

[OldManLogan]

Probably the only advantage of microdosing a statin for you would be for the soft plaque stabilization.

Of note to share.
A friend of mine had a CT of 73 two years ago at age 52. A couple weeks ago he went in for a physical and the EKG came back abnormal. They sent him in for a stress echo and he didn't even get on the treadmill. They imaged him on the table for about 2-3 minutes and pulled him off. He had "had" a heart attack at some point. A week later he got stented and had 90%+ blockage in the LAD and another 90% in one of the other coronaries.

Don't let a low CT give you a false sense of security. A CT Angiogram is a better option if you really want to see what's going on.

Thank you for the heads up. In my case, we did the CT cardio imaging, plus EKG annd stress test also, nothing to worry about at a glance, supposedly. But I’m keeping your warning top of mind for sure.