Open main menu ☰
HealingWell
Search Close Search
Health Conditions
Allergies & Asthma Alzheimer's Disease Anxiety & Panic Disorders Arthritis Breast Cancer Chronic Fatigue Crohn's Disease Cystic Fibrosis Depression Diabetes Epilepsy
Fibromyalgia General Chronic Illness GERD & Acid Reflux Headaches & Migraines Hepatitis Irritable Bowel Syndrome Lupus Lyme Disease Multiple Sclerosis Parkinson's Disease Prostate Cancer

Chronic Illness Blog »
All Health Conditions »
Support Forums
Anxiety & Panic Disorders Bipolar Disorder Breast Cancer Chronic Pain Crohn's Disease Depression Diabetes Fibromyalgia GERD & Acid Reflux
Hepatitis Irritable Bowel Syndrome Lupus Lyme Disease Multiple Sclerosis Ostomies Prostate Cancer Rheumatoid Arthritis Ulcerative Colitis

All Support Forums »
Log In
Join Us
Close main menu ×
  • Home
  • Health Conditions
    • All Health Conditions
    • Chronic Illness Blog
    • Allergies & Asthma
    • Alzheimer's Disease
    • Anxiety & Panic Disorders
    • Arthritis
    • Breast Cancer
    • Chronic Fatigue
    • Crohn's Disease
    • Cystic Fibrosis
    • Depression
    • Diabetes
    • Epilepsy
    • Fibromyalgia
    • General Chronic Illness
    • GERD & Acid Reflux
    • Headaches & Migraines
    • Hepatitis
    • Irritable Bowel Syndrome
    • Lupus
    • Lyme Disease
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Parkinson's Disease
    • Prostate Cancer
  • Support Forums
    • All Support Forums
    • Anxiety & Panic Disorders
    • Bipolar Disorder
    • Breast Cancer
    • Chronic Pain
    • Crohn's Disease
    • Depression
    • Diabetes
    • Fibromyalgia
    • GERD & Acid Reflux
    • Hepatitis
    • Irritable Bowel Syndrome
    • Lupus
    • Lyme Disease
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Ostomies
    • Prostate Cancer
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Ulcerative Colitis
  • Log In
  • Join Us
  • Connect With Us
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • LinkedIn
Join Us
☰
Forum Home| Forum Rules| Moderators| Active Topics| Help| Log In

OT: statins, SEs vs benefits

Chronic Illness Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
>
OT: statins, SEs vs benefits  
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/4/2016 8:50 PM (GMT -7)
Isn't there some claim that statins improve prognosis for those of us with PC?

Well, maybe, but their main use is obviously to decrease risk of heart attacks and maybe strokes. There have always been plenty of people (some who would probably be called quacks by mainstream Docs) who have insisted that cholesterol has little to do with heart attack unless extremely high. And that lowering the #s did not really help much, and then you have bad effects that seemed like they just could not be good for ones over all health. Like muscle pain and weakness.

And of course there is the cost. One of these articles said a new injectable cholesterol lowering drug would run abot $14,000 per year.

Well, I just saw a couple of new studies both on effectiveness and the most common SE, pain and weakness.
Muscle pain study:
www.cbsnews.com/news/study-confirms-what-millions-taking-statins-have-said-for-years/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&ref=yfp
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27039291

Somebody said...
The patients in the study were given a statin or a sugar pill. about 42 percent who took a statin experienced muscle pain or weakness...............

. While the new injection route drug lowere chol more and only had 21% muscle pain/weakness,

Somebody said...
What are the costs per year when talking about the injectable non-statin drugs?

"It's about $14,000 a year," said Dr. Nissen. "So they are quite expensive."

Effectiveness of a new drug which impressively lowers bad and raises good cholesterol. I'm not sure if it is a statin or not, I think probably not, but it sure does a number on the "bad" and greatly increases the "good", which is supposed to be a good thing:
www.cbsnews.com/news/once-promising-cholesterol-drug-fails-to-improve-patients-heart-health/

Somebody said...


Despite its success in lowering LDL -- known as "bad" cholesterol -- while increasing levels of "good" cholesterol HDL, the drug evacetrapib is not effective in helping protect patients from major cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke, a large clinical trial finds.

The research, presented at the American College of Cardiology's 65th Annual Scientific Session on Sunday, explains why the drug's maker, Eli Lilly, halted the study in October.

"Here we've got an agent that more than doubles the levels of good cholesterol and lowers bad cholesterol and yet has no effect on clinical events," lead study author Dr. Stephen Nicholls, a professor at Australia's University of Adelaide and cardiologist at Royal Adelaide Hospital, said in a statement. "We were disappointed and surprised by the results."

The study involved more than 12,000 patients from approximately 540 global health centers at high risk for serious cardiovascular health problems. The participants were randomly selected to receive either 130 milligrams of evacetrapib or a placebo pill daily for at least 18 months. The patients also received standard medical therapy -- the majority of which included statins or other cholesterol-lowering drugs -- throughout the trial.

The research showed that, on average, patients taking evacetrapib lowered their "bad" cholesterol by 37 percent and increased their "good" cholesterol by 130 percent compared to the other patients taking the placebo. However, the drug's favorable effects on cholesterol did not translate into a reduced risk of heart attack, stroke, coronary artery bypass surgery, hospitalization for chest pain, or amount of time until cardiovascular death.

This marks the third failure in a class of drugs known as cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors, which are made to disrupt the natural process by which HDL cholesterol is converted into LDL cholesterol in the body. The first drug was abandoned after it was found to increase the risk of heart trouble and death. The second was deemed ineffective.

"There has been, and continues to be, a lot of confusion about what's going on with this class of drugs, since we don't yet have one that can be brought to the clinic to prevent heart attack and stroke in our patients," Nicholls said. "As we close out the trial, we're trying to understand how a drug that seems to do all the right things in terms of blood cholesterol levels doesn't then translate into reducing clinical events."

Though researchers don't know the answer to this question, some have hypotheses.

"As we learn more about this class of medications, perhaps it is not enough to raise HDL and lower LDL and see beneficial effects," Dr. Jeffrey Kuvin, a cardiologist at Tuft's Medical Center and the co-chair of the 2016 ACC meeting, told CBS News.

Another possible explanation, Nicholls said, is that existing treatments like statins are already so effective at improving heart health that it has become more difficult to further improve outcomes in high-risk patients. Or it may be that evacetrapib's active ingredient or the biological pathway it is designed to affect simply has no effect on cardiovascular risk.

Whatever the reason, experts say CETP's are looking less and less like a viable option to treat and prevent heart problems in high risk patients.

"As we gain further evidence with this class of medications," Kuvin said, "there is further skepticism as to whether or not these drugs are actually going to be effective in the treatment of cardiovascular disease."

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/4/2016 9:57:34 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
RCS
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2009
Posts : 1278
Posted 4/5/2016 5:10 AM (GMT -7)
Interesting on the statins.

Here's some news on vitamin D3 and the heart;
www.medicaldaily.com/heart-failure-vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements-380600

"A daily dose of vitamin D3 improved heart function in people with heart muscle weakness, said the University of Leeds researchers, led by Dr. Klaus K. Witte, a senior lecturer in cardiology. While patients who took placebos saw no changes, those who received vitamin supplements experienced up to a 34-percent improvement in heart pumping function."
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/5/2016 1:26 PM (GMT -7)

RCS said...
Interesting on the statins.

Here's some news on vitamin D3 and the heart;
www.medicaldaily.com/heart-failure-vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements-380600

"A daily dose of vitamin D3 improved heart function in people with heart muscle weakness, said the University of Leeds researchers, led by Dr. Klaus K. Witte, a senior lecturer in cardiology. While patients who took placebos saw no changes, those who received vitamin supplements experienced up to a 34-percent improvement in heart pumping function."

Thx, good to know! Actually, though it would be even better if it was PC related, still pretty darn impressive and interesting considering we all have hearts to deal with:

Somebody said...
The VINDICATE study involved 163 patients already being treated for heart failure using a proven and accepted treatment, including beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, and pacemakers. The researchers assigned study participants to take either vitamin D3 — though not a calcium-based product, which could harm heart failure patients — or placebo pills for one year. To measure potential changes in heart function, they used a technique known as ejection fraction, which involves scanning the heart with an echocardiogram and measuring how much blood pumps away from the heart with each beat.

In healthy people, the ejection fraction is usually between 60 and 70 percent. For the VINDICATE patients, the average ejection fraction was just 26 percent before the study began.

So what happened after a year on either vitamin D or placebo?

Patients taking vitamin D3 experienced an improvement in heart function, while the placebo patients remained unchanged. Patients taking vitamin D3 saw their heart pumping function improve by 8 percent, rising to 34 percent.

Witte and his co-authors say this represents a significant breakthrough for patients. Most importantly, vitamin D3 supplements may prevent some patients from needing an implantable cardioverter defibrillator device, which can detect irregular heart rhythms and shock the heart to restore normal rhythm. These devices are not only expensive, they also involve surgery, a risk most older people prefer not to take.

Source: Witte K, Gierula J, Paton MF et al. Vitamin D Supplementation Improves Cardiac Function in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. American College of Cardiology 65th Annual Scientific Session. 2016.

www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2016/03/23/18/25/mon-2pm-vindicate-vitamin-d-supplementation-improves-cardiac-function-in-patients-with-chronic-hf-acc-2016?w_nav=LC

Somebody said...
In this randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial, Klaus K. Witte, MD, FACC, and colleagues studied 223 patients with chronic heart failure due to secondary left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and vitamin D deficiency ((25(OH) vitamin D3 <50nmol/L (<20ng/mL)). 20ng/mL)). Participants were either allocated to one year of vitamin D3 supplementation (4000 IU (100μg) 25(OH)D3 daily) or matching non-calcium-based placebo. A total of 163 patients completed the study. The primary endpoint was change in six-minute walk distance from baseline to 12 months, and the secondary endpoint included the change in left ventricular ejection fraction at one year.

While vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the six minute walk test distance, it effectively restored normal levels of 25-OH vitamin D3 and was associated with improvements in cardiac function, resulting in an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction by 6.07 percent, from an average baseline of approximately 26 percent. After 12 months, patients who took vitamin D had greater improvement in echocardiographic measures of LV function, LV dimensions and volumes than patients who took a placebo.

According to the authors, these findings suggest that taking vitamin D supplements may lead to beneficial reverse remodeling. Patients with chronic heart failure are also frequently deficient in vitamin D and low levels are associated with more severe disease and worse outcomes in these patients.

“New therapies for serious chronic conditions including chronic heart failure are often expensive, increasingly technical and frequently fail to meet the rigorous demands of large phase 3 clinical trials,” the authors write. “Vitamin D might be a cheap and safe additional option for chronic heart failure patients and may have beneficial effects on multiple features of the syndrome.”
- See more at: http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2016/03/23/18/25/mon-2pm-vindicate-vitamin-d-supplementation-improves-cardiac-function-in-patients-with-chronic-hf-acc-2016?w_nav=LC#sthash.ftKvdiP2.dpuf

6% ejection fraction added to baseline 26%: isn't that about a 23% improvement, over 1/4 better? That sounds really worth while. I wonder by what amount the usual drugs improve EF?

Though not mentioned, I suspect there were also no apparent significant SEs, unlike so many of the expensive newer drugs. And who knows, it is also possible it might be good for various other health related things, though I would not dare to guess what. A significant improvement in heart function PLUS dirt cheap, though insurance probably won't cover it. I'll be watching to see if this make the headlines. Seems to me like it should. But I doubt we will see the prime time add "ask your doctor if vitamin D is right for you".

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/5/2016 2:52:03 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/5/2016 2:03 PM (GMT -7)
OK, I managed to find this one for a rough comparison, using beta blocker drugs to treat heart failure/low ejection fraction:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9133118

Somebody said...
The major effect of beta-blockers seems to be triggered by a reduction of the heart rate at rest resulting in an increase of the left ventricular ejection fraction on the average by 7-8%.......................Patients with heart failure who are treated with a beta-blocker experience initially a slight decrease of the left ventricular function. beta-blocker therapy should therefore be initiated only in patients with stable heart failure...................Despite a careful dose titration only 90% of the patients tolerate this regimen. ..........The two main reasons for withdrawal of the beta-blocker are deterioration of heart failure or symptomatic hypotension............

So, without knowing all of the details, looks like about the same amount of improvement with either beta blockers or vitamin D. Will it make the NBC nightly news? smilewinkgrin It should IMO.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/5/2016 6:01:03 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
Pratoman
Forum Moderator
Joined : Nov 2012
Posts : 6628
Posted 4/5/2016 3:53 PM (GMT -7)
Billybob, funny you should mention it. I read that study yesterday on a Heart Health Forum that I belong to . To make a long story short, cohort of 12,000 people, half got the new drug, half a placebo. The half that got the drug indeed saw their cholesterol , and LDL drop drastically, and the placebo group did not. But in the end, they both presented with incredibly similar rates of heart events and stroke. By the way, Dr Nissan,aka Captain Statin, is the same guy that was instrumental in preventing the CT Heart Scan from becoming a mainstream diagnostic tool, for decades, while hundreds of thousands who could have benefitted from it, died.gg watch the Widowmaker , a documentary on the topic, on Netflix.

My numbers may be a bit off, but that's the gist of it. Here is a link to a NYtimes article on the study...

www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/health/dashing-hopes-study-shows-cholesterol-drug-has-no-benefits.html?hpw&rref=health&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

I am at a point where I am starting to believe the "quacks" are not quacks. Do you know that the cause of 70% of sudden death heart attacks is NOT a calcium blockage? In fact it's a rupture in soft (new) plaque, that causes a clot, which then closes up the artery.

I have been following the methodology presented on that website, by the quacks. I think I'm not supposed to post other forum urls here, so if you want the website, just email me. It's a for pay site, $9.99 a month.

I'm still not 100% sure about their methodology, but it's making sense to me. I have been wheat free, grain, free and added sugar free for two months. No bread, pasta, rice, of any kind, no sugar, quinoa, faro, etc. Very low carb, higher fat (opposite of Ornish) These are things that cause inflammation in the arteries, which they claim are the real cause of coronary plaque. My triglycerides have come down in two months from 208, to 85 last week. These guys say LDL is not the problem, it's triglycerides, HDL, and other markers like LDL particle size, lipoprotein A, etc. I'm being tested for all of that,

It's a work in progress for me, I'm still learning. I'm on statins, one of my doctors would like to see me off them at some point but agrees that I need to be on them for now. The other says, take the Statin, don't worry about it, enjoy your life.

It's very murky , there is a lot that the medical profession still doesn't know for sure, and a lot that they won't admit is truth, because it's out of the mainstream. Example, stents (I had 2) are a bandaid. They don't fix the problem. And it's been shown that they do NOT reduce mortality rates from heart attacks, yet they keep putting stents in people. Why? Because the insurance company, paid the hospital $52,000 for my 45 minute procedure.
It's a mess. Like PC you have to be a skeptic, and your own advocate.
Unfortunately, there is no resource for heart disease, like Healingwell Prostate Forum

Sorry, enough rambling. For now.

Post Edited (Pratoman) : 4/5/2016 5:03:46 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
Pratoman
Forum Moderator
Joined : Nov 2012
Posts : 6628
Posted 4/5/2016 5:41 PM (GMT -7)
Or maybe they ARE all quacks, and I'm nuts, gullible, or both, and have become one of them. I don't know (seriously)

In any case, here is some more interesting reading on statins (which I take)

blog.drbrownstein.com/1201-2/

Post Edited (Pratoman) : 4/5/2016 6:44:08 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/5/2016 5:44 PM (GMT -7)
Prato, great post! Many good points!

So, Nissan, "aka Captain Statin, is the same guy that was instrumental in preventing the CT Heart Scan from becoming a mainstream diagnostic tool"? Now, I wonder why he would do that? Hmmmm. Thinking real hard. Just can't imagine why. He must have had some motive, giving him some kind of bias. My docs would still be pressuring me real hard to get on statins if I did not have that zero Calcium Score. Which they had fully expected to be the final proof that I had plenty of coronary artery disease, despite zero symptoms, low BP, no fam history (though fam history of cerebral aneurysms are plenty scary) and low triglycerides. Still, I had somewhat high cholesterol, and that is the number one issue for so many Docs. Knock it down at any cost.

Somebody said...
I am at a point where I am starting to believe the "quacks" are not quacks.

Come on in the pool where we can quack like a duck, Bro, the water is kind of stormy sometimes but occasionally you learn something interesting!

Somebody said...
Very low carb, higher fat (opposite of Ornish) These are things that cause inflammation in the arteries, which they claim are the real cause of coronary plaque. My triglycerides have come down in two months from 208, to 85

Well, well, well. So you do what the "quacks" say, ignoring conventional low fat/plenty of carb wisdom, and in 2 months or less you SLASH your TGLs 60%? Kind of like we have previously discussed happens almost every time? Do they even have one expensive, SE inducing drug that can even touch that?

Of course, whether or not it is actually a helpful thing to lower TGLs is another matter. But there are certainly plenty of big brains who say it is, and who say it is even more important than cholesterol.

Somebody said...
It's very murky , there is a lot that the medical profession still doesn't know for sure, and a lot that they won't admit is truth, because it's out of the mainstream. Example, stents (I had 2) are a bandaid. They don't fix the problem. And it's been shown that they do NOT reduce mortality rates from heart attacks, yet they keep putting stents in people. Why? Because the insurance company, paid the hospital $52,000 for my 45 minute procedure."

Well, even if stents are indeed just a bandaid, $52,000 for 45 minutes is good work if you can get it(did that include the docs fee?). So just like so much else, that explains a lot, doesn't it?

What do you think about the Vitamin D and heart failure study that RCS turned me on to? Not too shabby even compared to powerful beta blocker drugs. And I'm sure much safer and much less SEs. If it is indeed helpful for heart failure, I have a feeling it might be good for overall heart health. Maybe some other things also.
profile picture
Pratoman
Forum Moderator
Joined : Nov 2012
Posts : 6628
Posted 4/5/2016 5:50 PM (GMT -7)
The guys on that other heart forum are big proponents of Vitamin D.
I take 5000 iu a day, was doing it before that website suggested it. It took my D from about 23 to its current 60
Dx Age 64 Nov 2014, 4.3
BX 3 of 12 cores positive original pathologyG6, G6, G8 (3+5)
downgraded to 3+3=6 by Dr Epstein, JH
RALP with Dr Ash Tewari Jan 6, 2015
Post surgical pathology – G7 (3+4), ECE, Margins, LN, SV all negative
PSA @ 6 weeks 2/15, .<02, 4/15 <.02 7/15 <.02, 10/15 0.00 (new lab) , 1/16, 0.00
My Story: tinyurl.com/oo9x4aq
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/5/2016 6:00 PM (GMT -7)

Pratoman said...
Or maybe they ARE all quacks, and I'm nuts, gullible, or both, and have become one of them. I don't know (seriously)

In any case, here is some more interesting reading on statins (which I take)

blog.drbrownstein.com/1201-2/

Makes sense to me. (the linked article that is)
profile picture
PDL17
Veteran Member
Joined : Oct 2011
Posts : 590
Posted 4/5/2016 6:46 PM (GMT -7)
Statin pharmacology is very complicated. Not only do they lower LDL, but they also have pleotropic mechanisms that reduce inflammation and potentially coronary vessel integrity.
The lowering of cholesterol may actually be of minor benefit. Some (not all) researchers believe that cholesterol levels, to a certain extent, like homocysteine is a surrogate marker of disease but not the cause. For example, elevations in homocysteine is correlated with some cardiovascular disease. The logic was to take folic acid since it was well known to lower homocysteine. However, folic acid, used to benefit the heart is a bust.
Many drugs used to lower cholesterol and triglycerides work well on the numbers but often show no benefit in improving myocardial events or life expectancy. Statins, particularly the more potent ones (Lipitor and Crestor), are the only cholesterol-lowering drugs to show great results in lowering myocardial infarction, stroke and improved life expectancy.

I do think that myositis with statins has been underestimated. We hear the complaint all the time.
I would think benefit vs. risk in using statins for heart disease would be worth it. For off-label uses such as with prostate cancer, I'm not so sure.

Paul
profile picture
Pratoman
Forum Moderator
Joined : Nov 2012
Posts : 6628
Posted 4/5/2016 7:07 PM (GMT -7)
Paul, I'm curious about your comment that folic acid (B12?) for the heart is a bust, can you expound on that?

I ask because the heart health forum I am on recommends, I believe, folic acid supplements in certain situations

You seem to have a very good understanding of inflammation and the role it plays in coronary heart disease.
profile picture
PDL17
Veteran Member
Joined : Oct 2011
Posts : 590
Posted 4/5/2016 8:25 PM (GMT -7)
Folic acid significantly lowers homocysteine. However, it does not lower the risk of heart disease. Folic acid is safe but not effective for heart disease, unfortunately. I was on it for a short time before studies showed it to be ineffective. The same thing happened to me with vitamin E. In theory, a great way of reducing oxygen free radicals and inflammation. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out either. I've also been on lycopene, vitamin C, beta-carotene, pomegranate, and soy. All have failed subsequent scrutiny with randomized control trials. Even though I am a pharmacist, I tend to want to be proactive and have taken supplements that looked promising but none of which have panned out. Because of constantly being disappointed, the only supplement I take now is vitamin D. My physician put me on it since my blood level was very low. Otherwise, I have become a skeptic on supplements.

Thanks
Paul
profile picture
RCS
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2009
Posts : 1278
Posted 4/6/2016 4:53 AM (GMT -7)
PDL17,
Beyond statins, any thoughts on how to reduce inflammation ..... prescription and non-prescription?
profile picture
RCS
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2009
Posts : 1278
Posted 4/6/2016 5:15 AM (GMT -7)
I really do think triglycerides is the problem with clogging the arteries. Google images of blood with high triglycerides and you will be amazed at the milky (fatty) appearance of blood with high triglycerides.

I would think the stuff could clog my sewer pipes!
profile picture
don826
Veteran Member
Joined : May 2008
Posts : 1010
Posted 4/6/2016 5:20 AM (GMT -7)
I have been using statins for nearly 20 years and the best is the Lipitor (IMHO) or generic equivalent. I had the muscle pain and cramps and finally told my doctor that I wanted to lower the dose to the point that the pain went away. Went from 40mg to 20mg. Pain subsided cramps infrequent now. I also take CoQ10 and believe that has helped. By the way the total cholesterol rose about 10%. My last test, non fasting, was 175 total. I did not get the HDL or LDL fractions as it was a screening type test that was part of a larger battery of tests for another purpose.

Word of warning, stay away from 80mg or higher dose of simvastatin. Google FDA warning on the drug and dose. Can cause kidney damage and I believe it cause my decline in filtration to borderline after being on it for four years. Never checked kidney function was always focused on liver. Never any problem there with any of the statins.

I was taking curcumin for inflammation and believe that it worked. I was requested to stop taking it as a condition for participation in a trial. I washed out of the trial yesterday so I have resumed my curcumin. Both the CoQ10 and curcumin are non prescription and relatively inexpensive.

Don
Diagnosed 04/10/08 Age 58
Gleason 4 + 3 DRE palpable tumor on left side
100% of 12 cores positive for PCa range 35% to 85% Bone scan and chest x ray clear CT scan shows potential lymph node involvement in pelvic region
IGRT/IMRT with adjuvant HT (lupron) 2yrs
PSA:
02/08 21.5 at diagnosis
07/10 0.10 nadir
06/11 3.47 HT (Lupron started again in late July)
09/11 0.70
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/6/2016 6:43 AM (GMT -7)

PDL17 said...
Folic acid significantly lowers homocysteine. However, it does not lower the risk of heart disease. Folic acid is safe but not effective for heart disease, unfortunately. I was on it for a short time before studies showed it to be ineffective. The same thing happened to me with vitamin E. In theory, a great way of reducing oxygen free radicals and inflammation. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out either. I've also been on lycopene, vitamin C, beta-carotene, pomegranate, and soy. All have failed subsequent scrutiny with randomized control trials. Even though I am a pharmacist, I tend to want to be proactive and have taken supplements that looked promising but none of which have panned out. Because of constantly being disappointed, the only supplement I take now is vitamin D. My physician put me on it since my blood level was very low. Otherwise, I have become a skeptic on supplements.

Thanks
Paul

I have another recent thread about recent studies indicating that B vitamins, which I think consisted of B12, B6 and folic acid(I need to go look to make sure) had a significant effect on cutting brain shrinkage in patients with Alzheimer's or pre Alzheimer's. So might be of benefit even if using just the Folic acid to lower homocysteine was not beneficial for heart disease. Homocysteine may be more of a sign/symptom of underlying disease than the cause. The same may turn out to be true for other things like cholesterol. But in general, re: your skepticism of supplements, I do think whole food might be a better approach. But the research slowly goes on.
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/6/2016 8:26 AM (GMT -7)

RCS said...
I really do think triglycerides is the problem with clogging the arteries. Google images of blood with high triglycerides and you will be amazed at the milky (fatty) appearance of blood with high triglycerides.

I would think the stuff could clog my sewer pipes!

Well if that is so, and if that is a bad thing, I know how to drastically decrease TGLs with out any prescription drug or even supplement. It has worked for me in the past, and for several people I know, probably some on this forum, and modern studies repeatedly confirm it. But even today most docs and dieticians probably still recommend the opposite.

So whether or not it actually helps heart disease or not, I could not say. I am not aware of any clinical studies or at least can't think of any at the moment. The dietary changes it involves go against the conventional wisdom of recent decades, and I have been told for many years by many esteemed authorities that eating that way will give you a heart attack sooner or later, as well as make you fat. But if I want to cut my TGLs a lot, and probably raise my HDL while I am at it, and in my experience lower my BP dramatically without meds, and even loose weight, then a low carb diet easily does the trick for me and several folks I know, and again, studies confirm it. Cutting the carbs( the more I cut them, the greater the response) either leading to a decrease in overall calories, or replacing the carbs with various types of fat to maintain the calories, either way, seems to do the trick. Most especially when it comes to TGLs. But is all of that a good thing, and actually good for our hearts or our overall health such as avoiding diabetes? What about cancer? confused I suspect it is an overall good thing, but we need the studies.

When do you think we will see the RCTs where docs take some of their heart disease patients and put 1/2 on low carb( and even gasp high fat) diets vs the conventional diet recommended for decades now? turn It might be a while, since they would go in believing they were sentencing these patients to early death, and who is going to do that?

And if Y'all start researching low carb diets vs standard recommendations or low fat, please keep in mind that very often what these researchers are calling low carb barely- if at all- qualify for that term. They just can't seem to bring themselves to do that to people. So often what they mean is less than 100 net gms of carb, or < than 75. It is a start, and it helps, but it barely qualifies except in comparison to high carb. Or in comparison to the 200-300 probably still recommended. I think every one might be changing their recommendations slightly these days with all the new studies, but:

www.diabetes.org/mfa-recipes/about-our-meal-plans.html

Somebody said...
1550-1650 calories per day

Your calorie level may vary based on your age, gender, activity level and whether or not you need to lose weight.
Calories are spaced throughout the day between meals and two snacks.
We also include tips each month to add or cut total calories by 200.

Moderate-carbohydrate (about 45% of calories come from carbohydrate)

Carbohydrate intake is spread throughout the day.
Most meals have 45-60 grams of carbohydrate.
Most snacks have 10-25 grams of carbohydrate.

- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/mfa-recipes/about-our-meal-plans.html#sthash.YkqNqooR.dpuf

So even at this near starvation(for me any way! ) level of 1600 calories per day, 45% from carbs(didn't they recommend more than that until recently?) = 720 calories/ 4 cal per carb gm= 180 gms of carb per day! If this was based on a more reasonable 2000-2400 cal per day, that would be 225- 270 carb gms per day! So, compared to that, 100 gms would be quite low, but not exactly Atkins etc. But probably enough to start seeing some good benefits, just not as fast.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/6/2016 9:29:50 AM (GMT-6)

profile picture
logoslidat
Veteran Member
Joined : Sep 2009
Posts : 6410
Posted 4/6/2016 9:42 AM (GMT -7)
I burn 15-2000 calories a day with my fitness regime… I can not do this without carbohydrates…as much as possible I get carbs from fruit but do like the bagel. I recently went from 195{the last 20 years at that weight} and lost 15 lbs just by knocking off sweets. I eat strawberries, blueberries oranges walnuts tuna sardines, supplement with 4000d3 krill b12and a superb complex also 50 -100 mg viagra daily mainly for the argenine for my cable and and core workouts... killer sets. I also do 90 mins of cardio tween Rowing machine and Pony bike. The bike workout was taught to me by NewZealands National windsurfing champ Lawrence Carey who trains on Maui different times. A wonderful young man of maybe 22 who is a credit to his country and family. He keeps the rpm's above 50 i do 40 doing Hi intensity interval training. I do not count surfing as cardio, though on a hard day I will cut by bike tng by 30 mins.This post is 60% evidence of knowledge and 40% evidence of fame as is my claim for authorship of terms just presented. Yeah I toot my own horn..Honk Honk. Oh yeah I take 600mg ibuprofen and 40mg lipitor daily I do take day off when needed…usually every 10-12 days. If surf is up Im out there regardless of fatigue…Period
I am not blowing smoke here of any kine... scool
open surgery,1 nerve bundle spared 10/09 gl9 {4+3-tert 5}last psa0.15 holding steady
73 all posts arguable as in a court of law.dots can not be connected until seen-living the dream

Post Edited (Bozolidat) : 4/6/2016 10:52:53 AM (GMT-6)

profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/6/2016 10:42 AM (GMT -7)
Boz, you sound like a serious physical specimen with serious conditioning!
PSA 10.9 ~112013
Bx on 112013 at age 64 yrs 11 months, with 5 of 12 pos with one G9(5+4), 1 PNI, T2B.
RALP with lymph nodes at Vanderbilt 021914. (nodes clear, SV+, still G9 but down graded to 4+5, cut wide, but 1 tiny foci right at the edge of margin ) Pros. 106.7 gms!
At 15 months, not wearing a pad most days, mostly dry
PSA <.01 on 6/11, 8/20/14 and 3/4/15, up to .01 on 9/1/15, .01 3/10/16
profile picture
Pratoman
Forum Moderator
Joined : Nov 2012
Posts : 6628
Posted 4/6/2016 11:30 AM (GMT -7)
I've probably mentioned it already, but at the risk of repeating myself, I've never had a problem with cholesterol, except a slightly low HDL. IVE ALWAYS HOWEVER, HAD HIGH TRIGLYCIDES. VERY HIGH. And no I've got coronary artery disease. Draw what conclusions you want, from a cohort of n=1

Re diet, the last 9weeks, I've cut down to 75 grms of net carbs a day. No wheat or grains whatsoever, and no added sugar. Result is TG has dropped from 208 to 85. My fat intake is now up to 50% of total calories with about 20% of that, or about 15 grams a day (i think) saturated fat. So mostly good fats. I've dropped from182 to 169 in those 9 weeks. Seldom hungry. I walk 30-40 minutes a day, and intersperse 2 minutes of running at a time, into my walks.

I don't know what all this has done for my inflammation markers, but I suspect they are improved. I'll know more about that in June.

But I guess we'll know more about the ultimate endpoint when I'm dead. I'll tell my wife to post the final result
Dx Age 64 Nov 2014, 4.3
BX 3 of 12 cores positive original pathologyG6, G6, G8 (3+5)
downgraded to 3+3=6 by Dr Epstein, JH
RALP with Dr Ash Tewari Jan 6, 2015
Post surgical pathology – G7 (3+4), ECE, Margins, LN, SV all negative
PSA @ 6 weeks 2/15, .<02, 4/15 <.02 7/15 <.02, 10/15 0.00 (new lab) , 1/16, 0.00
My Story: tinyurl.com/oo9x4aq
profile picture
RCS
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2009
Posts : 1278
Posted 4/6/2016 2:55 PM (GMT -7)
Billybob,

Actually the carb-triglyceride relationship has been written about for some time. Here is a 2000 paper you may find interesting.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/2/412.full?ijkey=34cf92dd47dd2ac896d0e975e1f108ef31aa5b16

"Current trends in health promotion emphasize the importance of reducing dietary fat intake. However, as dietary fat is reduced, the dietary carbohydrate content typically rises and the desired reduction in plasma cholesterol concentrations is frequently accompanied by an elevation of plasma triacylglycerol. We review the phenomenon of carbohydrate-induced hypertriacylglycerolemia, the health effects of which are among the most controversial and important issues in public health nutrition today. We first focus on how seminal observations made in the late 1950s and early 1960s became the basis for subsequent important research questions and areas of scientific study. The second focus of this paper is on the current knowledge of biological mechanisms that contribute to carbohydrate-induced hypertriacylglycerolemia."
profile picture
logoslidat
Veteran Member
Joined : Sep 2009
Posts : 6410
Posted 4/6/2016 4:43 PM (GMT -7)
trudat…BillyBob…ya never know how long the window stays open. Me…I'm hoping for a slamming of the window, i.e. Stay at it full bore…then…know as I am known…lidat….
open surgery,1 nerve bundle spared 10/09 gl9 {4+3-tert 5}last psa0.15 holding steady
73 all posts arguable as in a court of law.dots can not be connected until seen-living the dream
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/6/2016 5:05 PM (GMT -7)

Pratoman said...
..................... My fat intake is now up to 50% of total calories with about 20% of that, or about 15 grams a day (i think) saturated fat. So mostly good fats. I've dropped from182 to 169 in those 9 weeks. Seldom hungry. I walk 30-40 minutes a day, and intersperse 2 minutes of running at a time, into my walks.

I don't know what all this has done for my inflammation markers, but I suspect they are improved. I'll know more about that in June.

But I guess we'll know more about the ultimate endpoint when I'm dead. I'll tell my wife to post the final result

Be sure to sign up for an autopsy and have them mail us the results so we can know if anything did any good, then if so we can do it and live a little longer! smilewinkgrin

From your post above, I think the Seldom hungry. tells a large part of the story. That is the key. People will not voluntarily starve, or very rarely will they do so for long. I always have a lot of trouble dropping my food addictions and giving up certain tastes, it is always very hard for me to get started. But in the past, when I get past the first few days or at least couple of weeks of low carb with at least adequate fat, I invariably realize I am no longer hungry. I typically no longer think much about food, and not infrequently realize close to supper that I forgot to eat lunch. Is there any other approach that can have all of the well known benefits without even being hungry and maybe even obsessing about food?

But though I have done very well with it a few times over the years, taking those first steps is always a bear.
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 3534
Posted 4/6/2016 5:22 PM (GMT -7)

RCS said...
Billybob,

Actually the carb-triglyceride relationship has been written about for some time. Here is a 2000 paper you may find interesting.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/2/412.full?ijkey=34cf92dd47dd2ac896d0e975e1f108ef31aa5b16

"Current trends in health promotion emphasize the importance of reducing dietary fat intake. However, as dietary fat is reduced, the dietary carbohydrate content typically rises and the desired reduction in plasma cholesterol concentrations is frequently accompanied by an elevation of plasma triacylglycerol. We review the phenomenon of carbohydrate-induced hypertriacylglycerolemia, the health effects of which are among the most controversial and important issues in public health nutrition today. We first focus on how seminal observations made in the late 1950s and early 1960s became the basis for subsequent important research questions and areas of scientific study. The second focus of this paper is on the current knowledge of biological mechanisms that contribute to carbohydrate-induced hypertriacylglycerolemia."

Oh, yes, RCS, you are right and I well know it has. I have known about it since at least 1998 or 99 when after eating low carb with plenty of fat and protein for 6 months, not only did I drop 42 lbs (no hunger), drop BP from 140/90 to 102/60, raise HDL a lot, and start getting morning wood for the first time in many years(no pills needed), but I cut my TGLs from well over 200 to as low as 49. Just like the quacks told me I would. Based on studies that already existed.

This is really not anything new, although there are a lot more studies now to confirm it. But even with all of the new studies, how many doctors and dieticians are recommending any kind of low carb- and/or the ultimate horror high fat, to patients? Even to those who could benefit most, diabetics?
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply

Forum Information

Currently it is Friday, February 15, 2019 6:12 PM (GMT -7)
There are a total of 3,041,814 posts in 332,377 threads.
View Active Topics

Who's Online

This forum has 163232 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, Dee34.
174 Guest(s), 13 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
logoslidat, Lapis_29, PDL17, Nytngale, island time, Michael_T, Girlie, The_Swan, getting by, poopydoop, ChelleTheWife, F8, Blackjack




HealingWell

About Us  |   Advertise  |   Subscribe  |   Privacy & Disclaimer
Connect With Us
FacebookFacebook TwitterTwitter PinterestPinterest LinkedInLinkedIn
© 1997-2019 HealingWell.com LLC All Rights Reserved.