There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?

Yes, but they're not cheap:-

http://www.bhrdirect.co.uk/shop/heal...lesterol-test/

£12.25 per test according to the maker's website.

Oats are supposedly good for keeping cholesterol down, which makes
Potteries oatcakes and proper porridge worth a try.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:43:23 PM UTC+1, Jim Hawkins wrote:

There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?

I heard a review a year or so ago where various home test kits were tried, many were uselessly inaccurate.


NT

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?

One of the arguments for statins is that they do not simply reduce
cholesterol levels, but also help prevent plaque adhesion to the blood
vessel walls.

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

As for the test kits, most only test the total level of cholesterol,
which is not a great deal of use by itself. You need to know the levels
of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and
triglycerides, which you will only get from the most sophisticated and
expensive test kits. You also need to know how to use that information.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:20:32 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of the
statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day). It would be
nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure one's own
cholesterol levels ?

One of the arguments for statins is that they do not simply reduce
cholesterol levels, but also help prevent plaque adhesion to the blood
vessel walls.

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

As for the test kits, most only test the total level of cholesterol,
which is not a great deal of use by itself. You need to know the levels
of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and
triglycerides, which you will only get from the most sophisticated and
expensive test kits. You also need to know how to use that information.

Colin Bignell

I found that Simvastatin caused muscle pain and led to depression. It
affects some people like this but not others. I eventually stopped taking
it and went back to the doctors.

I was put on "Omacor" 1000mg, which is highly refined fish-oil - rich in
certain types of Omega 3 that help to reduce cholestrol. These are *not*
the same as Omega 3 available over the counter.

So far, I've had no side effects and they seem to be working as blood
tests have shown an improvement that has pleased both me and the doctor.

So yes, there are natural(ish) alternatives, HTH...

--
Steve

On 02/04/2013 18:43, Steve Eldridge wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:20:32 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of the
statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day). It would be
nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure one's own
cholesterol levels ?

One of the arguments for statins is that they do not simply reduce
cholesterol levels, but also help prevent plaque adhesion to the blood
vessel walls.

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

As for the test kits, most only test the total level of cholesterol,
which is not a great deal of use by itself. You need to know the levels
of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and
triglycerides, which you will only get from the most sophisticated and
expensive test kits. You also need to know how to use that information.

Colin Bignell

I found that Simvastatin caused muscle pain and led to depression. It
affects some people like this but not others. I eventually stopped taking
it and went back to the doctors.

I was put on "Omacor" 1000mg, which is highly refined fish-oil - rich in
certain types of Omega 3 that help to reduce cholestrol. These are *not*
the same as Omega 3 available over the counter.

So far, I've had no side effects and they seem to be working as blood
tests have shown an improvement that has pleased both me and the doctor.

So yes, there are natural(ish) alternatives, HTH...


Omacor is on the list of products not recommended for prescription. The
reason given is a lack of evidence that it is effective.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:53:05 +0100, Nightjar wrote:



Omacor is on the list of products not recommended for prescription. The
reason given is a lack of evidence that it is effective.


Maybe that is the case, but they seem to be working for me.

I can only speak for myself, but Simvastatin wasn't going to work because
it messed me up and I wasn't going to take it!

My doctor has no problem with Omacor.



--
Steve

On 02/04/2013 19:13, Steve Eldridge wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:53:05 +0100, Nightjar wrote:



Omacor is on the list of products not recommended for prescription. The
reason given is a lack of evidence that it is effective.


Maybe that is the case, but they seem to be working for me.

Unfortunately, that is rather too small a sample space.

I can only speak for myself, but Simvastatin wasn't going to work because
it messed me up and I wasn't going to take it!

As I said, there are other, better, statins, although I choose not to
take any.

My doctor has no problem with Omacor.

It is usually less a matter of whether your doctor has a problem than
whether NICE has one.

Colin Bignell

On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

On 02/04/13 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

well that's what I had that made me (more suicidal) than simvastatin.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/04/2013 22:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/04/13 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

well that's what I had that made me (more suicidal) than simvastatin.



AFAIK statins don't make people suicidal so I expect its your mental
health deteriorating.

there are drugs that do make you suicidal if you need to try a reference.

On 03/04/2013 13:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/04/13 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems
to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if
your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

well that's what I had that made me (more suicidal) than simvastatin.



AFAIK statins don't make people suicidal so I expect its your mental
health deteriorating.

there are drugs that do make you suicidal if you need to try a reference.

However "depression" is listed as a possible side effect - sure that is
not written as "suicidal ideation" as per some anti-depressants.

--
Rod

On 02/04/2013 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

Ah! It doesn't make you legs or arms drop off?

This is an edited list of side effects for Atorvastatin - leaving only
the most serious:

anaphylaxis.
peripheral neuropathy.
hearing loss.
pancreatitis.
hepatic failure.
angioneurotic oedema, dermatitis bullous including erythema multiforme,
Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
myopathy, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, tendonopathy, sometimes complicated
by rupture.

The list of Simvastatin is similar - and I don't think it is any longer.

It might be less likely to cause some or all side effects. But it
certainly appears capable of doing so.

--
Rod

On 02/04/2013 22:50, polygonum wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

Ah! It doesn't make you legs or arms drop off?

This is an edited list of side effects for Atorvastatin - leaving only
the most serious:

anaphylaxis.
peripheral neuropathy.
hearing loss.
pancreatitis.
hepatic failure.
angioneurotic oedema, dermatitis bullous including erythema multiforme,
Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
myopathy, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, tendonopathy, sometimes complicated
by rupture.

If I took notice of all the contraindications of my different
medications, I shouldn't be taking any of them, although I would
probably be dead by now if I didn't.

The list of Simvastatin is similar - and I don't think it is any longer.

It might be less likely to cause some or all side effects. But it
certainly appears capable of doing so.


AIUI Atorvastatin requires a lower dose to achieve the same effect as
Simvastatin, which reduces the probability of the side effects. The
effective dose of Rosuvastatin is lower still. Simvaststin is still the
cheapest to prescribe, so is preferred by NICE.

Colin Bignell

On 02/04/2013 23:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:50, polygonum wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems
to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if
your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

Ah! It doesn't make you legs or arms drop off?

This is an edited list of side effects for Atorvastatin - leaving only
the most serious:

anaphylaxis.
peripheral neuropathy.
hearing loss.
pancreatitis.
hepatic failure.
angioneurotic oedema, dermatitis bullous including erythema multiforme,
Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
myopathy, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, tendonopathy, sometimes complicated
by rupture.

If I took notice of all the contraindications of my different
medications, I shouldn't be taking any of them, although I would
probably be dead by now if I didn't.

The list of Simvastatin is similar - and I don't think it is any longer.

It might be less likely to cause some or all side effects. But it
certainly appears capable of doing so.


AIUI Atorvastatin requires a lower dose to achieve the same effect as
Simvastatin, which reduces the probability of the side effects. The
effective dose of Rosuvastatin is lower still. Simvaststin is still the
cheapest to prescribe, so is preferred by NICE.

Colin Bignell

I agree about lists of side effects in general - I was making the
specific point that the possible side effects of atorvastatin are,
broadly, similar to those of simvastatin - which seems to contradict the
claim I was responding to.

However, I do also agree that they seem broadly dose-related so, as you
say, the lower doses of atorvastatin quite possibly mean overall fewer
side effects and less serious when they do occur.

BNF prices show bottom (10mg) dose of simvastatin at 81p for 28 tabs,
atorvastatun £1.89.

--
Rod

On 02/04/2013 22:51, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-02, polygonum wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

Ah! It doesn't make you legs or arms drop off?

This is an edited list of side effects for Atorvastatin - leaving only
the most serious:

anaphylaxis.
peripheral neuropathy.
hearing loss.
pancreatitis.
hepatic failure.
angioneurotic oedema, dermatitis bullous including erythema multiforme,
Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
myopathy, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, tendonopathy, sometimes complicated
by rupture.

The list of Simvastatin is similar - and I don't think it is any longer.

It might be less likely to cause some or all side effects. But it
certainly appears capable of doing so.

Everything has side effects. All that matters is the rate of incidence.


Dennis said:

"It has less sever side effects than simvastatin..."

I simply pointed out that the side effects can be just as severe.

Of course the rates of incidence are very important. But so too is the
range of side effects. If all side effects of a medicine are in the
"mild to moderate" range, then reasonably high incidence might be
acceptable. When a medicine has the side effect of death, then a very
low incidence is demanded.

--
Rod

On 02/04/13 22:51, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-02, polygonum wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/04/2013 18:20, Nightjar wrote:

There are alternatives to the widely used Simvastatin, which seems to be
linked to most of the reports, but they cost more and upset NICE if your
doctor prescribes them. Rosuvastatin, for example, is effective at much
lower doses but is also the most expensive. Personally, with a natural
cholesterol level of 4.0, I don't bother with them. I take enough pills
as it is.

Atorvastatin is now a generic drug and is dirt cheap.
It has less sever side effects than simvastatin and many doctors are
switching patients to it.

Ah! It doesn't make you legs or arms drop off?

This is an edited list of side effects for Atorvastatin - leaving only
the most serious:

anaphylaxis.
peripheral neuropathy.
hearing loss.
pancreatitis.
hepatic failure.
angioneurotic oedema, dermatitis bullous including erythema multiforme,
Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
myopathy, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, tendonopathy, sometimes complicated
by rupture.

The list of Simvastatin is similar - and I don't think it is any longer.

It might be less likely to cause some or all side effects. But it
certainly appears capable of doing so.

Everything has side effects. All that matters is the rate of incidence.


All that matters is what it does to YOU
I made me feel 20 years older


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
I made me feel 20 years older

Too much information!

--
Simon

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

On 02/04/13 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?



they always take blood samples.

I simply didnt get on wit stains AY ALL. suicidal.literally. One day I
thought 'I've never even when totally miserable end depressed felt like
this' so I stopped taking them. Gone in three days. Sheesh.

Doc said 'how do you describe how you felt?'

'Like driving a car with the brakes seized on' I said. She didn't
understand me, I think.

The previous ones made me weak and useless and I kept getting muscle aches.

Frankly statins looked likely to shorten my life or make it not worth
living..

Haven't felt so good in ages now. Only taking on ACE inhibitor for
hypertension. makes me a little bit lower and less 'hyper' thats all.
and manages the BP down just enough.

The other pills I tried ****ed me up as well. Constant ****ing agonising
cramps and weakness. Bugger that.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:31:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



I simply didnt get on wit stains AY ALL. suicidal.literally. One day I
thought 'I've never even when totally miserable end depressed felt like
this' so I stopped taking them. Gone in three days. Sheesh.

Much the same with me!

Doc said 'how do you describe how you felt?'

'Like driving a car with the brakes seized on' I said. She didn't
understand me, I think.

They ruined my life until I realised and then stopped taking them.

The previous ones made me weak and useless and I kept getting muscle
aches.

I couldn't walk far before cramp and pain kicked in.

Frankly statins looked likely to shorten my life or make it not worth
living..

I felt very old, useless and very depressed quite quickly after starting
Simvastatin but it took a while for the penny to drop.

Haven't felt so good in ages now. Only taking on ACE inhibitor for
hypertension. makes me a little bit lower and less 'hyper' thats all.
and manages the BP down just enough.

The other pills I tried ****ed me up as well. Constant ****ing agonising
cramps and weakness. Bugger that.

Omacor (as mentioned above) seems to work for me, with no side effects,
so far.



--
Steve

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:59:52 +0000, Steve Eldridge wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:31:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



I simply didnt get on wit stains AY ALL. suicidal.literally. One day I
thought 'I've never even when totally miserable end depressed felt like
this' so I stopped taking them. Gone in three days. Sheesh.

Much the same with me!

Doc said 'how do you describe how you felt?'

'Like driving a car with the brakes seized on' I said. She didn't
understand me, I think.

They ruined my life until I realised and then stopped taking them.

The previous ones made me weak and useless and I kept getting muscle
aches.

I couldn't walk far before cramp and pain kicked in.

Frankly statins looked likely to shorten my life or make it not worth
living..

I felt very old, useless and very depressed quite quickly after starting
Simvastatin but it took a while for the penny to drop.

Much the same for me - I found I was having to have a sleep in the middle
of the day to keep going.

Once I stopped taking Simvastatin it was like the lights coming back on
almost immediately.


Haven't felt so good in ages now. Only taking on ACE inhibitor for
hypertension. makes me a little bit lower and less 'hyper' thats all.
and manages the BP down just enough.

The other pills I tried ****ed me up as well. Constant ****ing
agonising cramps and weakness. Bugger that.

Omacor (as mentioned above) seems to work for me, with no side effects,
so far.

I am now on Pravastatin which seems to work and there are no obvious side
effects.

Hopefully you both reported the side effects
http://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/
I suspect that most people just sigh with relief then move on.
Reporting side effects should feed back into the system and bump up the
risk reporting in the enclosed leaflet.

[Cue flight of pigs.]

Cheers

Dave R

On 2 Apr 2013 21:46:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-04-02, Steve Eldridge wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:31:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



I simply didnt get on wit stains AY ALL. suicidal.literally. One day I
thought 'I've never even when totally miserable end depressed felt like
this' so I stopped taking them. Gone in three days. Sheesh.

Much the same with me!

Doc said 'how do you describe how you felt?'

'Like driving a car with the brakes seized on' I said. She didn't
understand me, I think.

They ruined my life until I realised and then stopped taking them.

The previous ones made me weak and useless and I kept getting muscle
aches.

I couldn't walk far before cramp and pain kicked in.

Frankly statins looked likely to shorten my life or make it not worth
living..

I felt very old, useless and very depressed quite quickly after starting
Simvastatin but it took a while for the penny to drop.

I've been taking simvastation for years. Apart from some rather lurid dreams
in the first couple of weeks, I've not noticed a thing. Other than my cholesterol
coming down.

+1.

--
Frank Erskine

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:05:15 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:
I've been taking simvastation for years. Apart from some rather
lurid dreams
in the first couple of weeks, I've not noticed a thing. Other than
my cholesterol
coming down.


+1.

+1 and -4 (/mmol)

--
Reentrant

On 03/04/2013 09:37, Reentrant wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:05:15 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:
I've been taking simvastation for years. Apart from some rather
lurid dreams
in the first couple of weeks, I've not noticed a thing. Other than
my cholesterol
coming down.


+1.

+1 and -4 (/mmol)


If it reduced mine by 4 its would be negative.
(There are other reasons for statins than cholesterol.)

On 02/04/2013 22:46, Huge wrote:
....
I've been taking simvastation for years. Apart from some rather lurid dreams
in the first couple of weeks, I've not noticed a thing. Other than my cholesterol
coming down.

I took it for many years, then I started to get odd pains in my legs. A
bit of research suggested this was a possible side effect from statins.
After a visit to the doctor, I started a series of trials to confirm
they were linked and to see if any of the more advanced statins would
cure the problem. I no longer take statins, but I have a naturally low
level of cholesterol, so they were only a precautionary measure, not a
corrective measure in my case.

Colin Bignell

On 03/04/2013 10:06, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-03, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:46, Huge wrote:
...
I've been taking simvastation for years. Apart from some rather lurid dreams
in the first couple of weeks, I've not noticed a thing. Other than my cholesterol
coming down.

I took it for many years, then I started to get odd pains in my legs. A
bit of research suggested this was a possible side effect from statins.
After a visit to the doctor, I started a series of trials to confirm
they were linked and to see if any of the more advanced statins would
cure the problem. I no longer take statins, but I have a naturally low
level of cholesterol,

Lucky you. I have high levels and although diet brought it down a little,
it was still ~8 (is it mmol/litre? I forget). 40mg of simvastation brought
it down to ~4.

Mine rose to 4 when I stopped taking statins.

Colin Bignell

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?



I would like to see everyone who is considered to be a candidate for
statins first tested for thyroid issues.

1) In earlier years, high cholesterol levels were considered a sign of
thyroid disorder;
2) People who are hypothyroid and are given statins have a
significantly higher level of side effects including myopathies and
rhabdomyolysis;
3) If despite 1) and 2) it is still decided to treat with statins, then
the ones which are regarded as safer in those with thyroid disorders can
be chosen, and simvastin in particular can be avoided.

Lots and lots of people have experienced cholesterol lowering upon
having their thyroid disorder treated appropriately.

(Mind, this suggestion flies in the face of adding statins to the water
supply as several doctors suggested in the early days. More or less
seriously.)

--
Rod

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?



Read this before you do anything;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choles...4931280&sr=1-1

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:35:24 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?



Read this before you do anything;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choles...4931280&sr=1-1


Interesting (being another Statins abuser (20mg)).

On the same subject (cholesterol) there was a thing going about a
while back about the (supposed?) side effects of the homogenisation of
(cows) milk?

Summat to do with the tiny fat partials being absorbed into the
bloodstream and enzymes carried (?) by that fat, eroding the inside of
the blood vessels, causing the body to produce cholesterol as past of
it's proper repair mechanism?

Said study plotted the incidence of cholesterol hot-spots specifically
to countries where people generally drunk homogenised (cows) milk.
Goats milk didn't need the same treatment and people didn't suffer
from it's consumption (where milk was consumed after weaning in the
first place etc).

Pasteurised is ok and the fats in non-homogenised milk is generally
passed though and not absorbed etc?

Not my findings, just offering the idea up as there are obviously
people who here who may better understand the science and know of it's
an urban myth etc.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Given that homogenising isn't actually needed in any case ... ?

On 03/04/2013 00:36, T i m wrote:


Said study plotted the incidence of cholesterol hot-spots specifically
to countries where people generally drunk homogenised (cows) milk.
Goats milk didn't need the same treatment and people didn't suffer
from it's consumption (where milk was consumed after weaning in the
first place etc).

Pasteurised is ok and the fats in non-homogenised milk is generally
passed though and not absorbed etc?

Not my findings, just offering the idea up as there are obviously
people who here who may better understand the science and know of it's
an urban myth etc.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Given that homogenising isn't actually needed in any case ... ?


Interesting - and widely claimedon the alternative health sites. We
didn't used to have much homogenised milk at all - didn't it used to
have its own cap colour on bottles? Until we started to see lots of milk
in supermarkets...

At least some supermarket goats milk is homogenised:

"All St Helen’s Farm whole and semi-skimmed milk is lightly homogenised
to disperse the cream throughout the milk. Skimmed milk, because it has
virtually no fat, is not homogenised."

"Waitrose Goats Milk full cream fresh pasteurised homogenised milk"

I could not find a statement regarding homogenisation on the Delamere
site, which is the other brand I see around.

And did you know the cholesterol can be removed from the homogenised
milk using Febreze:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10575599

Ho ho. :-)

--
Rod

On 03/04/2013 08:54, polygonum wrote:
On 03/04/2013 00:36, T i m wrote:


Said study plotted the incidence of cholesterol hot-spots specifically
to countries where people generally drunk homogenised (cows) milk.
Goats milk didn't need the same treatment and people didn't suffer
from it's consumption (where milk was consumed after weaning in the
first place etc).

Pasteurised is ok and the fats in non-homogenised milk is generally
passed though and not absorbed etc?

Not my findings, just offering the idea up as there are obviously
people who here who may better understand the science and know of it's
an urban myth etc.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Given that homogenising isn't actually needed in any case ... ?


Interesting - and widely claimedon the alternative health sites. We
didn't used to have much homogenised milk at all - didn't it used to
have its own cap colour on bottles? Until we started to see lots of milk
in supermarkets...


Gold top milk was high fat and not homogenised. Unfortunately, once you
had drunk the cream off the top, it tasted like chalk water. Silver top
was homogenised and, by my recollection, by far the most common bottle
on the milk cart. Pasteurised milk came in crown topped bottles and had
a rather unpleasant taste, particularly when boiled and served in Camp
coffee by my grandmother.

Colin Bignell

On 03/04/2013 09:15, Nightjar wrote:
On 03/04/2013 08:54, polygonum wrote:
On 03/04/2013 00:36, T i m wrote:


Said study plotted the incidence of cholesterol hot-spots specifically
to countries where people generally drunk homogenised (cows) milk.
Goats milk didn't need the same treatment and people didn't suffer
from it's consumption (where milk was consumed after weaning in the
first place etc).

Pasteurised is ok and the fats in non-homogenised milk is generally
passed though and not absorbed etc?

Not my findings, just offering the idea up as there are obviously
people who here who may better understand the science and know of it's
an urban myth etc.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Given that homogenising isn't actually needed in any case ... ?


Interesting - and widely claimedon the alternative health sites. We
didn't used to have much homogenised milk at all - didn't it used to
have its own cap colour on bottles? Until we started to see lots of milk
in supermarkets...


Gold top milk was high fat and not homogenised. Unfortunately, once you
had drunk the cream off the top, it tasted like chalk water. Silver top
was homogenised and, by my recollection, by far the most common bottle
on the milk cart. Pasteurised milk came in crown topped bottles and had
a rather unpleasant taste, particularly when boiled and served in Camp
coffee by my grandmother.

Colin Bignell

We used to get silver top non-homogenised, pasteurised - with the odd
bottle of gold top. I thought the crown-capped "beer" bottle was
sterilised? Always looked disgusting and I never tried it. Not sure that
the cap colours were 100% consistent across dairies/regions back in the
1960s - but Wiki says this:

Glass bottles

Gold foil - milk from Channel Island (Jersey/Guernsey) breeds
(about 5.2% fat)[1]
Silver foil - whole milk (about 4% fat - minimum 3.5%)
Red foil - Homogenised whole milk
Red and silver striped foil - semi-skimmed milk (less than 2% fat)
Blue and silver striped foil - skimmed milk (0.1 to 0.3% fat)
Green foil - raw (unpasteurized) milk, giving rise to the name
"green-top milk"
Gold striped foil on a green background - unpasteurized milk from
Channel Island breeds[2]
Pink foil - Organic skimmed milk
Blue foil - Organic whole milk
Green foil - Organic semi-skimmed milk

--
Rod

On 02/04/2013 21:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:35:24 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?



Read this before you do anything;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choles...4931280&sr=1-1


There is a body of medical opinion, albeit small, that says
cholesterol is broadly irrelevant to things like coronary heart
disease, and that the relation between saturated fats and cholesterol
levels is at best, unproven. As well as Kendrick, the OP might also
read Ravnskov, see http://tinyurl.com/c3497vl. Whilest taking statins
may reduce deaths due to cardiovascular disease (CVD), and may also
reduce cholesterol, it doesn't mean that the cholesterol was the cause
of the CVD. It's quite possible that inflammation causes both CVD and
high cholesterol, and that statins reduce inflammation, so reducing
both CVD and cholesterol. Correlation is not causation.

1.Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
2.Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3.Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than
us.
4.Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart
attacks than us.
5.Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer
heart attacks than us.

CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently
what kills you.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 02/04/2013 21:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:35:24 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 02/04/2013 17:43, Jim Hawkins wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?



Read this before you do anything;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choles...4931280&sr=1-1


There is a body of medical opinion, albeit small, that says
cholesterol is broadly irrelevant to things like coronary heart
disease, and that the relation between saturated fats and cholesterol
levels is at best, unproven. As well as Kendrick, the OP might also
read Ravnskov, see http://tinyurl.com/c3497vl. Whilest taking statins
may reduce deaths due to cardiovascular disease (CVD), and may also
reduce cholesterol, it doesn't mean that the cholesterol was the cause
of the CVD. It's quite possible that inflammation causes both CVD and
high cholesterol, and that statins reduce inflammation, so reducing
both CVD and cholesterol. Correlation is not causation.

1.Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
2.Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3.Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
4.Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
5.Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer
heart attacks than us.

My Doctor asked me about my diet and I told him that it's a Mediterranean
diet which is true.

The medical profession seems to think this means nibbling some leaves and
tomatoes.

Last week's outings to (Italian) neighbours resulted in:

Lancashire hot pot (called something else but that's what it was, made with
good, fatty mutton).

Barbecued lamb chops.

Deep fried fish and chips.

Porchetta - which is effectively hog roast.

"Arrosticini" - kebabs.

Deep fried cheese in batter.

Lots of preserved sausage, ham and full fat cheese. All of it well salted.

And of course the odd flagon of red wine.


CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.

It seems that way. I don't see Italians eating more healthily than Brits.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-03, Steve Firth wrote:

Deep fried cheese in batter.

Ooh, they used to do that in the canteen in the offices in Amsterdam. My
mouth's watering.

it is one of my favourites - made with caciotta, half cows milk, half
sheep.

My lovely neighbour Elena just saw me off on the slog to Stansted with some
nice stew on the grounds that I won't be able to eat properly for at least
a fortnight.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

LOL. I was in a coffee shop in Milan (the entire office went out for espresso
twice a day...) and the guy behind the counter asked me "Englessi?" (the
spelling may be a bit off) and when I replied in the affirmative he made
a disgusted face, the expressive "warding off" gesture with both hands and
said, in a disgusted tone of voice "Spaghetti toast!" (I agree with him,
as it happens...)


Wops have no manners and their cuisine (wow, more pasta) is a joke

Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-04, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-03, Steve Firth wrote:

Deep fried cheese in batter.

Ooh, they used to do that in the canteen in the offices in Amsterdam. My
mouth's watering.

it is one of my favourites - made with caciotta, half cows milk, half
sheep.

My lovely neighbour Elena just saw me off on the slog to Stansted with some
nice stew on the grounds that I won't be able to eat properly for at least
a fortnight.

LOL. I was in a coffee shop in Milan (the entire office went out for espresso
twice a day...) and the guy behind the counter asked me "Englessi?" (the
spelling may be a bit off) and when I replied in the affirmative he made
a disgusted face, the expressive "warding off" gesture with both hands and
said, in a disgusted tone of voice "Spaghetti toast!" (I agree with him,
as it happens...)

The Milanese can't talk about food. I still work up there from time to time
and a good friend has a perfectly preserved 60s style apartment overlooking
the Duomo. When I go Elena offers me a food parcel with a warning that food
in Milan is "orribile" because it is all "riso e polenta".

She's not far wrong but my friend knows a place that does a perfect
"fiorentino" steak and the Motel Giove out near Monza has (or had) one of
the best restaurants in Italy with a rather nice layout of apartments that
look like town houses with a lockup garage for your car on the ground floor
and a duplex suite with Spa bathroom over it. Jolly nice after a day of
staring at cars going "zoom".

[snip]

I liked working in Italy. As far as they were concerned "Mañana" was a
frenzied pace. I imagine trying to get anything done must be frustrating.

Oh somewhere between difficult and impossible. I pointed out to Mrs F that
we would have trouble with the builders. She said they were working hard to
take timber and bricks off the truck. I led her to the back of the house
where they used the bricks and timber to make a card table and two benches
with a handy brick-built sweat cooled beer chiller.

Mrs F still can't cope with social customs. We had to travel on Tuesday to
see a business partner. Arrive at 11:00, talk business for 30 minutes,
family for 30 minutes. Out to lunch at 12:00 back to the office at 15:00.
Total business content could have been done in a text message.

Farmers OTOH work grindingly hard. Elena's husband starts at dawn and works
until 10PM every day. Real hard physical graft in all weathers and in full
sun. And he's fast approaching 70. Still has time for a bottle of (his own)
red before bedtime though.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:27:01 AM UTC+1, Huge wrote:


I was in a coffee shop in Milan (the entire office went out for espresso
twice a day...) ...

I worked in Milan also, many years ago, and the habit there was for the entire staff to go out to the coffee shop at lunch time and stay there for the whole afternoon. At some point one person was nominated to collect all the badges and go back to the office and clock everyone back in.

Robert

"Jim Hawkins" wrote:
There appears to be increasing concern about the side-effects of
the statins, especially in the higher doses (40 to 80mg/day).
It would be nice to try out the various natural cholesterol-lowering
regimes.
Are there any self-assessment kits that allow one to measure
one's own cholesterol levels ?

The trick is to never allow any doctor to check your cholesterol. No test,
no statins. No humongous profits for drug companies for dubious benefits.

Tim

On 02/04/2013 23:18, Tim+ wrote:
No humongous profits for drug companies for dubious benefits.


Nail, hit, head.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk