FakeCanadian wrote:Thanks wade4veg. Two things:
- My 'sense' is I have lost muscle mass and strength over the 3 years I've been on atorvastatin, particularly the past year. I know my 'sense' is highly subjective and, even if valid, could be attributable to many things, including I suppose simple aging. (I'm 58.)
I'm 65 and have noticeable loss of muscle mass... and that was happening well before I began taking a statin. Depending on what one does to counteract it, is is quite noticeable.
Unsure what kind of exercise program you are on. You have to do a fair amount to just maintain mass over the next 10 years.
I notice it most in my upper body. I need to up my exercise in that area, to go along with all my cardio (cycling, hiking, jogging)
FakeCanadian wrote:- With TC and LDL consistently around 100 and 45 respectively, I wonder if there's any need for me to be on a statin. Am I running the risk, how ever small, of side effects pointlessly? Unfortunately I began taking statin about the same time I adopted Esselstyn's diet, so I don't know where my lipids would settle absent any statin. If they rose to over 150 and/or 80, I'd be happy to continue the statin, no problem. And based on what I've read is the average impact of my statin dose on TC and LDL, I believe my levels may well rise a bit above these benchmarks. (Note that I have known, multiple, severe coronary stenoses and so had a quadruple bypass Oct 2012.)
I'm taking only 10 mg atorvastatin, quite a small dose, which I presume makes the odds of side effects even smaller than average. I once proposed to my Doc that I go to 5 mg, given my lipid levels. He advised against that on the ground that I might lose the "other benefits" (besides cholesterol reduction) of the statin.
I'm on 40 mg atorvastatin and have only considered going down to 30 mg or 20 mg.....to see what would happen.
Only thinking of doing that because the atorvastatin has raised my fasting blood sugar from normal of about 86, to 99 on my last test.
Yes, they say it is a worthwhile trade off, but I'm uncomfortable with blood sugar above 90 over years and years.
Unsure if dropping down to 20 mg would bring me back to the low 90's at a minimum.
Last TC was 103, and LDL was only 35.
I am almost certain my TC would be under 150 on my current full McDougall diet. Even when I was eating about 15% fat, my TC was down at 160 and below, but not never under 150.
However I have only one dangerous narrowing in my mid LAD and have never had even a stent. I'm trying to see if I can halt any progression that would lead to a stent. So my trade off, should I lower my dose to 20 mg would be to get my blood sugar down, while keeping the TC well under 150 and LDL under 50 .
I understand your concern, but given your history, having multiple vessels involved, and given your low dose, I think I'd stick with your current 10 mg, unless something real shows up. I certainly wouldn't switch based only on your current fear of what might happen.
