STATINS all the time

[GoneForever]

So, is there a downside of using a statin like lipitor or something year round to keep cholesterol down(LDL down and hdl up) Why wouldnt everyone use one on cycle?

 

[thebrick]

They put additional stress on your liver and you will be monitored for that. With the stresses we already inflict on our liver in our sport, I don't think its good unless absolutely necessary. But because gear messes with (most of us) our lipid profiles, its sort of a catch 22 situation IMO. My doctor wants to start me on one but I am trying a tighter diet and more cardio first.

 

[PHIL HERNON]

THE LATEST

So, is there a downside of using a statin like lipitor or something year round to keep cholesterol down(LDL down and hdl up) Why wouldnt everyone use one on cycle?

DOCTORS ARE SAYING THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE ON THEM NOW.

 

[bulldog21]

DOCTORS ARE SAYING THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE ON THEM NOW.

Phil have you heard of Colstid? My father is on that now and it is helping his lipid levels really well he says and he has tried many drugs incl. Statins..

I need to do some more research on them and see what they are about...

 

[GoneForever]

So PHIL you think they are a good idea? And how bad are they on the liver. My liver usually is fine maybe ast and alt slightly elevated but not too bad, but my cholst is aweful. I wonder if I should go on one. Anyone know a good first starter and dose? Any other side effects other than liver? Once you stop them your body will go back to normal right, there is no lipid hpta shutdown right lol?

 

[Tom]

No statins.....

I would take 2 to 3 thousand mgs fish oil, niacin at 1500 mgs per day and increase cardio. I personally would not put a statin drug into my body.

 

[BIG-JD]

Statins

Its funny, it seems like people put doctors on pedestals or regard them as gods and listen to every little thing they want us to use in our bodies. Yet you can go to a health food store do a little research and find something natural that will work just as good if not better than all these new and exciting drugs that are coming out nowadays. All it is all of these pharmaceutical companies just trying to make money and then a few years down the road they are paying out billions of dollars cause they actually did more harm to people in the first place. It just annoys me. Has anyone seen the movie SICKO yet? i thought it was great it will make you want to move to France. thanks for listening

 

[Tom]

Why I won't take statins

Cholesterol-lowering drugs may do more harm than good
Nutrition Health Review, Fall, 2002
It always pays to do your research and read the fine print, even when taking a seemingly safe drug.

The group of drugs classified as statins--most notably lovastatin (Mevacor[R]), pravastatin (Pravachol[R]), simvastatin (Zocor[R]), and atorvastatin (Lipitor[R])--are used by a large number of people to control high cholesterol levels. The medications' own prescribing information warns of countless adverse effects and contraindications.

"Active liver disease or unexplained persistent elevations of serum transaminases" tops the list of contraindications on one leading simvastatin drug. "Liver Dysfunction--HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, like some other lipid-lowering therapies, have been associated with biochemical abnormalities of liver function" is listed as a warning on an atorvastatin calcium drug. The warning goes on to say that jaundice developed in one patient in clinical trials.

»
Liver damage is not the only drawback to statin drugs.

In August 2001, Bayer Pharmaceutical Division announced a voluntary withdrawal of Baycol[R] (cerivastatin), a popular drug used to lower cholesterol. Approved in 1997, Baycol[R] was touted as a "miracle drug" that blocked a specific enzyme in the body that is involved in the creation of cholesterol. Unfortunately, a significant amount of patients developed rhabdomyolysis--a condition in which serious muscle damage results in release of muscle cell contents into the bloodstream--as a result of Baycol[R] treatment. Rhabdomyolysis has been known to cause fatal kidney damage as well as damage to other vital organs. Most patients complaining of this condition require hospitalization. Fatal rhabdomyolysis was reported most frequently when used in higher doses, with elderly patients, and when taken with gemfibrozil (Lopid[R] and generics).

According to a study published in 2002 in Biological Psychiatry, a woman taking medication for schizophrenia along with lovastatin developed a prolonged QTc, a measure of the heartbeat. On the day she was scheduled for a routine test, she took 20 milligrams of lovastatin, double the dose prescribed, because she had missed a dose. Doctors lowered her dosage of lovastatin to 5 milligrams per day, and her QTc returned to normal one day later.

The remaining statin-class drugs are generally considered safe, but the literature for both Lipitor[R] and Zocor[R] mentions numerous ailments associated with statin therapy. Among the side effects listed are muscle cramps, loss of libido, dysfunction of certain cranial nerves (including alteration of taste and impairment of extraocular movement), facial paralysis, breast enlargement, incontinence, sweating, acne, and uterine hemorrhage. Zocor[R], according to its literature, occasionally causes myopathy, "which is manifested as muscle pain or weakness associated with grossly elevated creatine kinase."

According to the May 14, 2002, issue of Neurology, statin drugs can also increase the risk of peripheral neuropathy, a condition characterized by weakness, numbness, and pain in the hands and feet as a result of damage done to the peripheral nerves. Patients taking statin drugs were 14 times more likely to develop peripheral neuropathy than those not taking the medication. Taking statins for extended periods of time increased the risk.

 

[Tom]

more reasons to avoid statins

The use of statin drugs to lower cholesterol is founded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of cholesterol's role in heart disease.

The unsystematic and inconsistent association of high cholesterol with heart disease is first simplified into a mythical consistent, systematic association. A second error is made in pointing to the presence of cholesterol in atherosclerotic lesions as indicating biological plausibility for a causal role of cholesterol in this association.

Yet, as Dr. Ravnskov points out in The Cholesterol Myths, if high blood cholesterol was responsible for the accumulation of cholesterol in those plaques, then cholesterol would accumulate most in those plaques when its level is the highest. On the contrary, what we see is that cholesterol is absent from atherosclerotic plaques until after the middle-age peak in cholesterol levels, where it begins accumulating when blood cholesterol begins declining.

In The Doctor's Heart Cure, Dr. Al Sears discusses how injuries to the blood vessels from homocysteine, bacterial toxins, components of cigarette smoke, and other abrasive materials, recruit the immune-repair response of LDL cholesterol and white blood cells, which results in a rough patchwork that can cause obstruction of blood vessels down the road.

Many positive behaviors have what is considered a "positive effect" on blood cholesterol levels. For example, quitting smoking, losing weight, and exercising will all cause a "favorable" change in LDL to HDL ratios.

Yet where is the value? If one lowers homocysteine by increasing B vitamins, and thereby lowers the need for LDL cholesterol's repair activity in blood vessels, does the body rejoice at the lack of LDL? Or does it rejoice at the absence of abrasive injuries to its blood vessels?

If one makes a favorable change in lipoprotein ratios by exercising, does the body rejoice at the cholesterol levels? Or do the cholesterol levels simply reflect the body's rejoicing in response to the positive effects of exercise?

The idea of using statins or herbal agents to lower cholesterol misses the point. There are two kinds of lowering cholesterol. One can lower cholesterol by decreasing the body's need for cholesterol (e.g. exercise, quitting smoking, losing weight, increasing nutrient intake) or one can decrease the cholesterol level directly (e.g. statins, red yeast rice, various "natural" therapies).

The two are fundamentally different. The former assumes cholesterol levels to reflect other positive and negative processes in the body. The latter assumes cholesterol levels in and of themselves to be the causative agents in health-damaging processes.

These two understandings can make the difference between helping and harming the body.

If cholesterol is needed, for example, to manufacture hormones involved in stress adaptation such as cortisol, and therfore cholesterol levels rise along with harmful chronic stress, removing the stressors and learning to master relaxation will lower cholesterol at the same time as lowering cortisol and the harmful stress that elicits those compounds.

On the other hand, if those stressors remain in place, and the body's need for cortisol and need for cholesterol remains intact, what harm could result in sabotaging the body's ability to meet that need with "cholesterol-lowering" drugs?

Of course, it is a misnomer to refer to statins as "cholesterol-lowering." Statins have other independent effects, such as anti-inflammatory effects. But statins do not directly inhibit cholesterol synthesis. They inhibit the precursor to all isoprenes, mevalonate. They should be called isoprene-lowering drugs, which means that they equally attack cholesterol, squalene, coenzyme Q10, and the very many proteins that utilize varying isoprene side-chains for many different functions.

It will be a long time before we find out fully what the true effects of statins are, although as Dr. Ravnskov has pointed out, evidence already indicates they cause some forms of cancer.

If their value is in their anti-inflammatory action, would it not be safer to pursue the many natural therapies such as nutritional supplementation that can more safely inhibit inflammation? It makes sense to start with the basics and begin reincorporating some of the substances found naturally in human diets-- such as small amounts of DHA and EPA-- that are missing in standard modern diets, before we begin popping expensive pills that disrupt a plethora of important biological systems within our bodies.

 

[vadim_b1]

Statins should NEVER be used by hard training athletes simply because of this point posted above : "Unfortunately, a significant amount of patients developed rhabdomyolysis--a condition in which serious muscle damage results in release of muscle cell contents into the bloodstream--as a result of Baycol[R] treatment. Rhabdomyolysis has been known to cause fatal kidney damage as well as damage to other vital organs. Most patients complaining of this condition require hospitalization. Fatal rhabdomyolysis was reported most frequently when used in higher doses, with elderly patients, and when taken with gemfibrozil (Lopid[R] and generics)."
Athletes have a much higher chance of developing this condition while on statins than sedentary people. If youre not aware, this condition can either kill you or totally destroy your life as an athlete, permanently.
Control your HDL/LDL ratios naturally, by using supplementation, and most importantly limiting ORAL steroids and antiestrogens.

 

[GoneForever]

^^^^ so your saying orals have a higher effect on cholest levels than injectables? Also, which anti-e's? b/c I know nolvadex and clomid help cholest but they are serms but what about aromasin. Its supposedly the only anti e other than formestane that has no effect on lipids or liver?

 

[Jarconis]

fish oil is so cheap nowadays, its really not that expensive to run 20g/day. I know I get a 1000 1gram gel caps for $22.

 

[vadim_b1]

^^^^ so your saying orals have a higher effect on cholest levels than injectables? Also, which anti-e's? b/c I know nolvadex and clomid help cholest but they are serms but what about aromasin. Its supposedly the only anti e other than formestane that has no effect on lipids or liver?

Yes, the liver is directly responsible for lipid metabolism and HDL synthesis. When it is under stress, you cannot expect it to fulfill those functions adequately. Look at winstrol - it can send your HDL levels into single digits in a matter of days.
I was talking about AI's, drugs that directly lower estrogen levels in men. As you may or may not know, estrogen levels show direct correlation with HDL levels. (this is why women on average always have higher HDL than men). Add to this liver toxicity of AI's and the picture should be clear.
Every AI will have an effect on lipids, just some will be more devastating than others.
SERMS have nothing to do with this, since they do not lower blood estrogen levels.

 

[LEX]

polycosinols and or red rice yeast.

 

[GoneForever]

Yes, the liver is directly responsible for lipid metabolism and HDL synthesis. When it is under stress, you cannot expect it to fulfill those functions adequately. Look at winstrol - it can send your HDL levels into single digits in a matter of days.
I was talking about AI's, drugs that directly lower estrogen levels in men. As you may or may not know, estrogen levels show direct correlation with HDL levels. (this is why women on average always have higher HDL than men). Add to this liver toxicity of AI's and the picture should be clear.
Every AI will have an effect on lipids, just some will be more devastating than others.
SERMS have nothing to do with this, since they do not lower blood estrogen levels.

even aromasin?

 

[vadim_b1]

Since aromasin is not liver toxic, and is not as effective in lowering estrogen as say femara, it will not have as large of an impact. But it will have some, anything that strongly lowers your estrogen levels directly, will have an impact on HDL levels, since as i said before, estrogen is linked with HDL synthesis.

 

[6.8SPC]

polycosinols and or red rice yeast.

Red yeast rice contains naturally occuring lovastatin.

 

[moj0]

Thanks for the great post Tom. I have done a great deal of research on statins myself and they have worse proven sides than many of the compounds we take for enhancement purposes. Once you look at the evidence it is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that statins are nothing but a cash cow for big pharma.

 

[Big Bapper]

Bump to the top for more info. Phil.

 

[tap]

Winny and or tren sends my bad chol. through the roof.I was in the 240's 3 wks after I came off.Test only cycles only elavate it slightly.I am taking gh and I also drink a glass of red wine everynight.My total chol. levels now are 160's when off and 180's when on(test) and I havent taken lipitor in 2 years.