lower you cholesterol the safe way

[tinca tinca]

On 1/27/2018 at 4:41 PM, Forkinhades said:

I have 3 about every 3 days. Pecans and walnuts inbetween.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

THESE are very expensive in Thailand and i love both of them

[DogNo1]

Spacedoc (Dr. Duane Graveline) found in his research that taking a very low dose of a milder type of statin (I take Pravastatin) lowers inflammation in the blood vessels.  Taking them to lower cholesterol though, is not beneficial.  Besides, these numbers of getting your LDL below 100, or in Trump's case, below 70 are arbitrary numbers made up by some doctors.  Recent research has repeatedly demonstrated that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease.  I can cite the clinical studies or you can go on spacedoc and read through the articles on your own.

[bogozy]

The cholesterol is a basic element of the human body. Without it, You would be die, very soon. Forget the anti cholesterol campaigns, and enjoy Your life. Eat a lot of vegetables and fruits of You afraid about Your health

[luk AJ]

The cholesterol is a basic element of the human body. Without it, You would be die, very soon. Forget the anti cholesterol campaigns, and enjoy Your life. Eat a lot of vegetables and fruits of You afraid about Your health

I have heart desease and have stent and tripple bypass. Eating fruit may be healthy but will not heal my heart. Build up of cholesterol and calcium in the main arteries is a desease and until today there is no cure. So people who advice against statins, probably have no heart desease. Let me know if you find somebody with heart desease who doesn’t take statins..


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[faraday]

3 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

Spacedoc (Dr. Duane Graveline) found in his research that taking a very low dose of a milder type of statin (I take Pravastatin) lowers inflammation in the blood vessels.  Taking them to lower cholesterol though, is not beneficial.  Besides, these numbers of getting your LDL below 100, or in Trump's case, below 70 are arbitrary numbers made up by some doctors.  Recent research has repeatedly demonstrated that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease.  I can cite the clinical studies or you can go on spacedoc and read through the articles on your own.

Can you link the studies please.

Thanks

[sikishrory]

I was surprised to find mine was quite high as well. I drink 3 mulberry leaf teas a day which has with a number of things such as blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and cholesterol. it also contains a bunch of other good stuff. it's been almost 6 months since I learned of my cholesterol so I will be testing soon to see if much has changed. I changed my diet a bit and also doing muay Thai most days. Brazil nuts is another thing I will try now I know.

[catman20]

7 hours ago, sikishrory said:

I was surprised to find mine was quite high as well. I drink 3 mulberry leaf teas a day which has with a number of things such as blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and cholesterol. it also contains a bunch of other good stuff. it's been almost 6 months since I learned of my cholesterol so I will be testing soon to see if much has changed. I changed my diet a bit and also doing muay Thai most days. Brazil nuts is another thing I will try now I know.

ive tried most things to reduce my cholesterol and Brazil nuts had the most impact by far. i guarantee the Brazil nuts work. let us know please.

[simon43]

My last cholesterol check was last March, when it was well within limits.

Since that date, I've been following a vegetable/fruit/nuts/oily fish/lean chicken/keffir milk diet, with plenty of walnuts, almonds and pecan nuts.

I will have a new cholesterol test in a month or so, and will report the results on this thread.

[DogNo1]

Here is a link to spacedoc.  You can find everything from there.

 

https://spacedoc.com/

[Stocky]

On 27/01/2018 at 11:45 AM, catman20 said:

have been eating Brazil nuts

I've a nut allergy so I'll stick to my 40mg Simvastatin daily. I've been taking statins for over 15 years and, touch wood, not had any problems, last blood test was 198 mg/dL with a cholesterol ratio of 2.6.

[nickcar]

On 28/01/2018 at 4:19 PM, TunnelRat69 said:

My diabetician in Bumrungrad prescribed me CoQ10, 10mg once a day in evening.

10mg is tiny. I take 100 mg twice a day. I have some heart conditions but i would think diabetes is serious enough to take more, especially if you are on statins. Its not expensive if you know were to buy it. 

[MuntyC0re]

Limit your intake of foods full of saturated fats, trans fats, and dietary cholesterol.
Good sources are cold-water fish like salmon, mackerel, halibut, trout, herring, and sardines.
Poor Choice: Red meat (beef, pork, lamb, veal, goat). For all red meat choices, select cuts that are under 30% fat.

[FracturedRabbit]

On 1/29/2018 at 8:00 AM, luk AJ said:

I have heart desease and have stent and tripple bypass. Eating fruit may be healthy but will not heal my heart. Build up of cholesterol and calcium in the main arteries is a desease and until today there is no cure. So people who advice against statins, probably have no heart desease. Let me know if you find somebody with heart desease who doesn’t take statins..


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Me. 
I have a partial blockage in two arteries and the doctor prescribed statins. I threw them away. 
Your arteries and mine are blocked because of inflammation caused by insulin resistance. Cholesterol seals the damage (and plaque builds from there), but it does not cause the damage in the first place. It's like blaming fire fighters for starting fires because they are always present at the scene!
Statins reduce my body's production of cholesterol (with potentially unpleasant side effects); why would I want to do that?
My strategy is to move to a low carbohydrate diet to limit the amount of sugar/carbs causing insulin spikes and inflammation (this means very limited fruit, and only certain types). Supplemented by exercise and certain vitamins, I hope to limit the damage to my arteries and maybe even reduce it.
If you want to understand the science around this, I highly recommend watching some of Ivor Cummins' videos. He explains it very clearly. Cholesterol is not the problem and statins are not the answer!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPn4FsiQP15nudug9FDhluA

[moe666]

On 1/27/2018 at 4:23 PM, Krataiboy said:

The question one should ask before going nuts over Brazils or, statins any other cholesterol-lowering substances is. . .  is low cholesterol good for you?

 

Cholesterol is a vital constituent of every cell in our bodies and in fact constitutes 60 per cent of brain matter. Too little cholesterol,. therefore, can be as bad as too much.

 

The pharmaceutical companies and their sales and marketing arm we call the medical profession have demonised cholesterol and pushed statins as a wonder cure, which they most certainly are not.

 

In fact, statins can have extremely unpleasant and dangerous side effects and studies have shown they are really only of value to individuals who have already suffered heart attacks or strokes. Lowering cholesterol in older people - which a lot of us on this site tend to be - can be counter-productive and potentially damaging.

 

The reputable Telegraph Newspaper reported in June 2016: 

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/12/high-cholesterol-does-not-cause-heart-disease-new-research-finds/

 

The hypertension/cholesterol/statins issue is the subject of a furious controversy, even among medical professionals, as is made clear here: 

https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2016/09/05/doctors-deeply-divided-over-the-value-of-statins/

 

I would urge anyone advised to reduce high blood pressure by lowering  their cholesterol levels to arm themselves with the relevant facts before investing in costly cholesterol-lowering drugs - or rushing out to buy a bag of Brazil nuts. 

 

There are lots of vested interests out there telling us what to do. But thanks to miracle of the Internet and sources like Google and YouTube we don't have to take any of them at their word. A few hours careful research will help you make up your mind about the sensible steps to take for a healthier, happier and longer life.

I have the problem of low cholestrol it normally runs around 130 or so. This can cause memory loss, low testosterone, even suicide. Taking statins may increase your life expectancy about 3 months over a 10 year period

[partington]

51 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Me. 
I have a partial blockage in two arteries and the doctor prescribed statins. I threw them away. 
Your arteries and mine are blocked because of inflammation caused by insulin resistance. Cholesterol seals the damage (and plaque builds from there), but it does not cause the damage in the first place. It's like blaming fire fighters for starting fires because they are always present at the scene!
Statins reduce my body's production of cholesterol (with potentially unpleasant side effects); why would I want to do that?
My strategy is to move to a low carbohydrate diet to limit the amount of sugar/carbs causing insulin spikes and inflammation (this means very limited fruit, and only certain types). Supplemented by exercise and certain vitamins, I hope to limit the damage to my arteries and maybe even reduce it.
If you want to understand the science around this, I highly recommend watching some of Ivor Cummins' videos. He explains it very clearly. Cholesterol is not the problem and statins are not the answer!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPn4FsiQP15nudug9FDhluA

Except this is the wrong explanation, and Ivor Cummins cannot be trusted. He is just one of these wildcard chancers, with no medical qualifications, who does not have a clue.

 

Cholesterol is a direct cause of arterial inflammation, through a pathway that was worked out many years ago, by many different research groups, (who unlike Cummins have training and research degrees in arterial biology rather than engineering.) and for which the evidence is extremely good.

 

It works like this:

 Step1. LDL, bad cholesterol,  gets under the thin layer of cells called the endothelium which lines arteries. It does this by passive processes which carry LDL in proportion to their concentration in the blood. This is why high LDL in the blood is bad : it results in higher amounts of LDL getting under this protective layer.

 

Step 2. A protein on LDL called apoB has binding sites for the extracellular matrix or base layer that the endothelial cells sit on, and so when LDL gets under the endothelium it gets bound and trapped.  Cells, including endothelial cells secrete compounds that oxidise the LDL- when it is trapped under endothelium it is not protected from oxidation as it is in the environment of the blood.

 

Step 3. Oxidised LDL attracts immune protective cells called macrophages, and it activates them. In the activated state they try to get rid of the harmful oxidised LDL by engulfing it. THis does two things, 1. it fills the macrophages with cholesterol so they become foamy fat filled cells which are the fatty streaks in arteries that initiate atherosclerosis formation, and 2. it cause the macrophages to secrete chemical messengers that say help, other macrophages please come to deal with this. This is inflammation-the recruitment of white cells to deal with a wound area forming in artery wall.

 

Step 4. An increasing chain reaction of inflammation starts : more macrophages come in, eat more cholesterol, signal for more recruitment  and so the lesion gets bigger and bigger. Eventually macrophages in the center die from cholesterol overload and the core becomes a necrotic mass of dead cells, free globules of cholesterol, calcified scar tissue and activated macrophages on high inflammatory programs.

 

This over many years produces unstable artery lesions which can burst, causing platelets to bind to the exposed surface underneath the endothelium, and this triggers a massive clot in the artery, which if it blocks it, deprives your heart muscle of oxygen, and yes, you have a heart attack.

 

Evidence for this is so good that it is the mainstream scientific account of how arterial lesions can form. In animal models blocking different steps in the path result in complete or hugely significant blocking of atherosclerotic lesions forming.  Just as an example: you can block step 1-the trapping of LDL on the extracellular matrix, by mutating apoB protein on LDL. Because so little LDL now gets trapped these fatty streaks are almost completely prevented.  Similarly if you mutate the protein macrophages use to eat up oxidised LDL, you can stop them getting full of fat, and again massively impede the formation of atherosclerosis in animals with the mutation.

 

This is the scientific method: you make a hypothesis about how atherosclerosis happens, then you block the steps in the pathway you have deduced and see if it has the reduction in atherosclerosis you expect. If blocking any one step has the expected beneficial effect, and blocking two or more steps can prevent atherosclerosis altogether then you have pretty good evidence you are on the right track.

 

This evidence exists, is consistent, and is in the scientific literature. Not You Tube, which strangely enough is not followed by working scientists as peer-reviewed evidence.

 

People who don't believe cholesterol is a problem need also to explain why patients with the rare double FH genetic mutation (f the protein that removes LDL from the circulation doesn't work at all) have as pretty much their only symptom extraordinary massive levels of LDL  1200-1500mg/dl (30mM+)  and die of heart disease in their early teens.

 

They also need to explain the large number of studies now showing statins are effective in primary prevention of heart disease: that is preventing heart attacks in people who have not yet had them.

 

e.g

November 15, 2016

Statins for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in AdultsEvidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Roger Chou, MD1,2,3; Tracy Dana, MLS1; Ian Blazina, MPH1; et alMonica Daeges, BA1; Thomas L. Jeanne, MD4

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA. 2016;316(19):2008-2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15629

Conclusions and Relevance  In adults at increased CVD risk but without prior CVD events, statin therapy was associated with reduced risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and CVD events, with greater absolute benefits in patients at greater baseline risk.

 

and a Cochrane meta-study analysing and combining the results of 18 separate studies done at different centres by different groups:

 

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

 All-cause mortality and fatal and non-fatal CVD events were reduced with the use of statins as was the need for revascularisation (the restorationof an adequate blood supply to the heart) by means of surgery (coronary artery bypass graft ) or by angioplasty (PTCA). Of 1000 people treated with a statin for five years, 18 would avoid a major CVD event which compares well with other treatments used for preventing cardiovascular disease. Taking statins did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects such as cancer. Statins are likely to be cost-effective in primary prevention.

 

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004816/VASC_statins-primary-prevention-cardiovascular-disease

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by partington

[FracturedRabbit]

8 minutes ago, partington said:

Except this is the wrong explanation, and Ivor Cummins cannot be trusted. He is just one of these wildcard chancers, with no medical qualifications, who does not have a clue.

 

Cholesterol is a direct cause of arterial inflammation, through a pathway that was worked out many years ago, by many different research groups, (who unlike Cummins have training and research degrees in arterial biology rather than engineering.) and for which the evidence is extremely good.

 

It works like this:

 Step1. LDL, bad cholesterol,  gets under the thin layer of cells called the endothelium which lines arteries. It does this by passive processes which carry LDL in proportion to their concentration in the blood. This is why high LDL in the blood is bad : it results in higher amounts of LDL getting under this protective layer.

 

Step 2. A protein on LDL called apoB has binding sites for the extracellular matrix or base layer that the endothelial cells sit on, and so when LDL gets under the endothelium it gets bound and trapped.  Cells, including endothelial cells secrete compounds that oxidise the LDL- when it is trapped under endothelium it is not protected from oxidation as it is in the environment of the blood.

 

Step 3. Oxidised LDL attracts immune protective cells called macrophages, and it activates them. In the activated state they try to get rid of the harmful oxidised LDL by engulfing it. THis does two things, 1. it fills the macrophages with cholesterol so they become foamy fat filled cells which are the fatty streaks in arteries that initiate atherosclerosis formation, and 2. it cause the macrophages to secrete chemical messengers that say help, other macrophages please come to deal with this. This is inflammation-the recruitment of white cells to deal with a wound area forming in artery wall.

 

Step 4. An increasing chain reaction of inflammation starts : more macrophages come in, eat more cholesterol, signal for more recruitment  and so the lesion gets bigger and bigger. Eventually macrophages in the center die from cholesterol overload and the core becomes a necrotic mass of dead cells, free globules of cholesterol, calcified scar tissue and activated macrophages on high inflammatory programs.

 

This over many years produces unstable artery lesions which can burst, causing platelets to bind to the exposed surface underneath the endothelium, and this triggers a massive clot in the artery, which if it blocks it, deprives your heart muscle of oxygen, and yes, you have a heart attack.

 

Evidence for this is so good that it is the mainstream scientific account of how arterial lesions can form. In animal models blocking different steps in the path result in complete or hugely significant blocking of atherosclerotic lesions forming.  Just as an example: you can block step 1-the trapping of LDL on the extracellular matrix, by mutating apoB protein on LDL. Because so little LDL now gets trapped these fatty streaks are almost completely prevented.  Similarly if you mutate the protein macrophages use to eat up oxidised LDL, you can stop them getting full of fat, and again massively impede the formation of atherosclerosis in aimals with the mutation.

 

This is the scientific method: you make a hypothesis about how atherosclerosis happens, then you block the steps in the pathway you have deduced and see if it has the reduction in atherosclerosis you expect. If blocking any one step has the expected beneficial effect, and blocking two or more steps can prevent atherosclerosis altogether then you have pretty good evidence you are on the right track.

 

This evidence exists, is consistent, and is in the scientific literature. Not You Tube, which strangely enough is not followed by working scientists as peer-reviewed evidence.

 

People who don't believe cholesterol is a problem need also to explain why patient with the rare double FH genetic mutation (f the protein that removes LDL from the circulation doesn't work at all) have as pretty much their only symptom extraordinary massive levels of LDL  1200-1500mg/dl (30mM+)  and die of heart disease in their early teens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I respectfully suggest you  have missed out a step.
LDL only gets under the  endothelium if the endothelium has first become damaged/ inflamed?

[partington]

14 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

I respectfully suggest you  have missed out a step.
LDL only gets under the  endothelium if the endothelium has first become damaged/ inflamed?

Not necessarily so, but of course this makes it a lot worse. Endothelium can be leaky, and macrophages which are bigger than LDL can squeeze through gaps.

 

However there is also a  process called pinocytosis which is when cells engulf a droplet of the medium surrounding them , eg plasma, and transport it through the cell releasing it on the other side. If the drop is full of LDL because your blood concentration is too high this is another way to get LDL under the endothelial layer.  Where blood flow is turbulent endothelial cells can also be leaky, which is why you often see lesion starting at branches or forks in arteries where the blood flow is disturbed.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by partington

[FracturedRabbit]

My personal approach is to change my lifestyle in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of initial  endothelium damage. This includes a low carb diet, increased exercise and other lifestyle changes. These in themselves should also reduce my LDL pattern B, so double win.

 

This I believe to be more important than reducing my cholesterol numbers by using statins which, based on a study earlier in the thread,  have a less than 2% chance of making an impact over five years (which is actually the likely success rate my doctor quoted to me), during which time  my coenzyme Q10 and vitamin K2 (important for my arterial health) are being depleted.

 

I have arrived at this conclusion after much reading,  some scholarly,  some more easily digested; but all with the same message. Cummins may not work in the field; but he imparts the message in an easy to understand form.

Others may place a different importance on cholesterol numbers and managing same if felt important. It's a personal thing, good luck to all!

[partington]

40 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

My personal approach is to change my lifestyle in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of initial  endothelium damage. This includes a low carb diet, increased exercise and other lifestyle changes. These in themselves should also reduce my LDL pattern B, so double win.

 

This I believe to be more important than reducing my cholesterol numbers by using statins which, based on a study earlier in the thread,  have a less than 2% chance of making an impact over five years (which is actually the likely success rate my doctor quoted to me), during which time  my coenzyme Q10 and vitamin K2 (important for my arterial health) are being depleted.

 

I have arrived at this conclusion after much reading,  some scholarly,  some more easily digested; but all with the same message. Cummins may not work in the field; but he imparts the message in an easy to understand form.

Others may place a different importance on cholesterol numbers and managing same if felt important. It's a personal thing, good luck to all!

Up to you.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by partington

[Krataiboy]

On 2/2/2018 at 10:11 PM, partington said:

Up to you.

 

 

Really appreciate the stuff LDL  But have you seen this:

No association between 'bad cholesterol' and elderly deaths

Systematic review of studies of over 68,000 elderly people also raises questions about the benefits of statin drug treatments

 

I'm nudging 80 and was prescribed statins after a TIA nearly a year ago. I didn't take them, having done a lot of research and decided that at my age the cons probably outweighed the pros. Seems I may have been right.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627095006.htm

 

 

[catman20]

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Really appreciate the stuff LDL  But have you seen this:

No association between 'bad cholesterol' and elderly deaths

Systematic review of studies of over 68,000 elderly people also raises questions about the benefits of statin drug treatments

 

I'm nudging 80 and was prescribed statins after a TIA nearly a year ago. I didn't take them, having done a lot of research and decided that at my age the cons probably outweighed the pros. Seems I may have been right.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627095006.htm

 

 

that was the idea of me, the OP posting  (safe way to lower your cholesterol)

[xylophone]

On 30/01/2018 at 2:24 PM, simon43 said:

My last cholesterol check was last March, when it was well within limits.

Since that date, I've been following a vegetable/fruit/nuts/oily fish/lean chicken/keffir milk diet, with plenty of walnuts, almonds and pecan nuts.

I will have a new cholesterol test in a month or so, and will report the results on this thread.

I haven't had a cholesterol check for a long time now, although if I remember correctly, my last one was okay whereas it is usually quite high (that is my LDL) along with my triglycerides.

Statins were suggested previously when my levels were high, however at that particular time I tried Policosanol and believe it or not on my next visit six months later, there was a 25% reduction across the board and the doctor here was quite amazed. Unfortunately the Policosanol supplier stopped making these capsules because they said they couldn't get the quality of raw material they wanted, so that was that.

I have gone on to taking red yeast rice capsules and only hope that it is doing some good, so perhaps I should get another check soon.

PS. As an aside, I have had "conversations" with Partington in the past and found him to be extremely knowledgeable in the field of medicine and medical research.

[faraday]

Xylophone, I see that iherb Policosanol.

What dose were you taking?

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, faraday said:

Xylophone, I see that iherb Policosanol.

What dose were you taking?

Sorry faraday, but I can't remember......probably followed the dose on the label BUT suffice it to say that the published trials are inconclusive, however they worked for me and I didn't change my diet.

 

 

[xylophone]

On 04/02/2018 at 6:47 PM, xylophone said:

I have gone on to taking red yeast rice capsules and only hope that it is doing some good, so perhaps I should get another check soon.

Cholesterol test a couple of days ago was all good as regards Total Cholesterol, LDL and HDL, but as always my Triglycerides were high...........probably due to my love of sweet things, pasta, pizza and other carbohydrates.

 

Note to self to try and control those urges. 

 

So Faraday, you may wish to give Cholestene Red Yeast Rice supplements a try as they seem to work for me and there is much positive info on the net re this (iHerb stock them).

 

On 04/02/2018 at 6:56 PM, faraday said:

Xylophone, I see that iherb Policosanol.

What dose were you taking?

 

[Ron19]

Another one to help bring cholesterol down is Oatmeal Porridge.

 

Tesco Lotus stock it and don't doubt that other outlets do as well.

 

1. Oats. An easy first step to improving your cholesterol is having a bowl of oatmeal or cold oat-based cereal like Cheerios for breakfast. It gives you 1 to 2 grams of soluble fiber. Add a banana or some strawberries for another half-gram. Current nutrition guidelines recommend getting 20 to 35 grams of fiber a day, with at least 5 to 10 grams coming from soluble fiber. (The average American gets about half that amount.)

[HAKAPALITA]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Cholesterol test a couple of days ago was all good as regards Total Cholesterol, LDL and HDL, but as always my Triglycerides were high...........probably due to my love of sweet things, pasta, pizza and other carbohydrates.

 

Note to self to try and control those urges. 

 

So Faraday, you may wish to give Cholestene Red Yeast Rice supplements a try as they seem to work for me and there is much positive info on the net re this (iHerb stock them).

 

 

 

A Cup of Green Tea lowers the level .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[xylophone]

24 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

A Cup of Green Tea lowers the level

As does a cup of black tea, but not significantly enough............some info follows (and don't like green tea anyway!).

 

Research shows that drinking up to 10 cups of green tea a day has a significant impact on your blood cholesterol levels.

 

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/really-the-claim-drinking-green-tea-can-help-lower-cholesterol/

Studies have found that green tea may reduce levels of LDL cholesterol, but the effect appears minimal.

 

 Both green and black tea can help lower cholesterol levels

https://www.aarp.org/health/...09.../foods-that-help-lower-cholesterol-slideshow.html

[Jingthing]

I will add this from someone that has been on statins for a very long time.

The optimal time to explore ways to get healthier is BEFORE you start statins.

Once you're on statins long term, it becomes harder (and medically risking BECAUSE you've been on statins) to stop using them.

That's why it's standard and good advice for grey area cases to really work hard to avoid the statins in the first place. 

In many cases, that won't be possible or wise, but that is the optimal time. 

Edited February 24, 2018 by Jingthing

[xylophone]

31 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I will add this from someone that has been on statins for a very long time.

The optimal time to explore ways to get healthier is BEFORE you start statins.

Once you're on statins long term, it becomes harder (and medically risking BECAUSE you've been on statins) to stop using them.

That's why it's standard and good advice for grey area cases to really work hard to avoid the statins in the first place. 

In many cases, that won't be possible or wise, but that is the optimal time. 

Can't disagree with what you said, especially as you have had some experience, however the research on these things is very mixed!

First of all it's been pretty well established that diet plays only a very small part in high cholesterol levels because most of it is manufactured by the liver, and some people are prone to high cholesterol levels which are out of their control in the main (unfortunately for them).

So sure eat healthy, however those predisposed to high cholesterol levels will not find that it helps that much. Furthermore the latest research doesn't seem to worry too much about high cholesterol levels, so one wonders if all of those folks on statins really need to be?

Then of course there is the mixed messages from the medical fraternity themselves, where my doctor/surgeon suggested that if I wanted to go on them, I could take them pretty well for the rest of my life with no real side-effects; others have said that there are some potentially drastic side-effects; and yet another publication by a medical journal quoted other doctors/specialist as saying that it wouldn't be a bad thing for everybody to go on statins!

So what are we to do? This when the medical fraternity are at odds on this subject!

I'm all for trying natural things, and the first time I tried Policosanol it worked over a three-month period or thereabouts, however I couldn't source them again from the manufacturer because they had stopped making this particular brand, stating that they couldn't get the high quality raw materials they wanted (from sugarcane, not other sources).

Cholestene, which is derived from red yeast rice, contains a natural compound similar to one used in a particular brand of statin, so although I like the natural approach of this, how natural is it if it is in fact a type of statin, or mimics one?

Much to ponder on this subject.............