Statins and diabetes

yaizaj said:
hello is not for awaits the party to all but the yeast of red rice has k monacoline k and has the same adverse effects as statins and above it is more expensive.

Ayayay, I imagined it:#

Thank you phosphorero for your compliments.

yaizaj said:
hello is not for awaits the party to all but the yeast of red rice has k monacoline k and has the same adverse effects as statins and above it is more expensive.

K monacolin has the same adverse effects as statins because, simply, it is a statin.Chemically it is the same, and that is why it has the same adverse effects.On June 22 (2022) we had to withdraw from the sale to the public in the pharmacies all the presentations that were marketed with more than 3 mg per capsule, that is, almost all, because the European Agency of the Medication noticed it andreduced to a maximum of 3 mg/day the amount of monacoline k per daily shot.I think I remember that most of them had about 10 mg.

The reduction of cholesterol synthesis produced by statinof coenzyme q10.The main function of COQ10 is in the production of energy inside the cells and protect ourselves against oxidation in many of the chemical reactions that occur in our metabolism.In addition, this oxidative damage is higher when the glucose level is higher.Yes, damn it, it always touches us.

There is some discussion about whether many of the side effects of statins are due to reduce COQ10 levels.In fact, many of these supplements with K monacolin also carry COQ10, which is face.In addition, obtaining the monacoline K from a rice yeast is more expensive than manufacturing a statin of synthesis.But many people want to read in the box that is a natural product, although in this case the final result is the same.Therefore, in the end, the price is higher than we are used to.

I would encourage people in statin treatment to take 100 mg daily coenzyme Q10.Yes, I know that it is not prescribed, but unfortunately on many occasions it is not done, simply, because it is not financed and is expensive.Other times it is because there is no solid evidence, but I think that in these cases it must be the patient who decides whether to assume that expense or not, provided that, of course, there is no possible damage to the patient.

salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have HDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

It is the LDL that according to the protocols, it should not exceed 100 (the Q vulgarly is called bad cholesterol), the HDL, the good, the higher the better.
Apo a is better than all that, I refer, I think like you, and I do have health training, you have to value many things, if there is already a known cardiovascular event, it is another song, but as primary prevention, I do notI see anything clear.

ricki21 said:
In addition to diabetes, I have a family history of heart disease and cholesterol that does not fall with diet or exercise.I prefer to take the statins, which prescribed the endocrine a few years ago, to play Russian roulette.
ATTACHED Article that speaks of the heart problems that diabetic people can develop.Each one is free to do what he creates, but the risk exists.

Link

But by high glycemia, not for cholesterol.This is the usual: what is before, the egg or the chicken?We have more risk of having dB, because having glycemias above 5.5, q is the top in non -diabetics, it makes time pass, there is an endothelial dysfunction of the blood vessels and cardiovascular events occur, but the causeFirst is not cholesterol.
Good gyped and the lowest possible glycemic variability, that is the issue.If that is achieved, and it can be although of course requires formation and guidelines, cholesterol is secondary.

Totally agree.I am a health and nothing clear about the statins in DB, it is different if it is by secondary prevention or multiple family history of cardiovascular events at the young age or if there is a family dyslipidemia with a genetic component but if not, the truth is that I disagreeof the current protocol.

Sorry, say, according to the Famoso Protocol, in people with cardiovascular events or diabetes, it is assumed that LDL has to be below 80 ...

meginer said:

salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have HDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

It is the LDL that according to the protocols, it should not exceed 100 (the Q vulgarly is called bad cholesterol), the HDL, the good, the higher the better.
Apo a is better than all that, I refer, I think like you, and I do have health training, you have to value many things, if there is already a known cardiovascular event, it is another song, but as primary prevention, I do notI see anything clear.

TRUE.I always dance them (LDL and HDL) I have edited the "post" to make it right.
Thank you very much, Meginer.For me it is a conflict about statin.The endocrine guided me and I am not taking it after seeing that there are opposing opinions.I have read in more than one place that as primary prevention it is not useful.

When DB2 diagnosed me at the same time, they prescribed pills for cholesterol.

salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have LDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

meginer said:
forgive>
In March, I was told that LDL for my high risk as a smoker below 40, was 75, the high HDL and the total in 186.
They have changed me to another medication.

Let's see in October what I am ...

salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have LDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

Good night, I think that without having health training, as you say, it is a bit daring to say what you have said.
The most logical thing is to leave professionals to do their job and when you have doubts to ask them.
These opinions are read by many people who want to know about the disease and it is enough to suffer from it to add doubts only based on personal opinion.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty.If doctors only read Dr.google this forum would close due to lack of diabetics, because we would all be exitus.
All the best.

salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have LDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medication to a main diabetic adverse effect is producing insulin resistance seems to me.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

_______________________________________________________________________________
It is true that it is for a lifetime (according to cases), as it is also true that there is no absolutely harmless medication.All can have side effects.
In my case, I was prescribed by statins and acetylsalicylic acid after suffering an ischemic stroke, fortunately mild.
As recommended by the neurologist, in cases with this type of history, it is advisable to have cholesterol below 40 and try to keep the blood liquid.
It has all the logic, and does not obviate the fact of maintaining a healthy, psychically and socially healthy life.
If only with that, both my blood glucose and cholesterol, it was assumed that I would not take medication.I am the first defender that the body has capable of author.
However, there are also unfortunately organisms to which that genetic lottery did not touch us and we have to depend a little on chemistry and pharmaceutical.I try not to eat my head much with medications and prospects and think about the benefit-perjudice balance.And I assure you that I do not feel like trying to see what happens if I do not take the statins or aspirin, because the damage of suffering another stroke prematurely would not be reversed.
I have said.

Postdata: Finding this forum has been the best that has happened to me in 27 years of diabetes.To be able to share information with others enriches and comforts.Thank you!

Carlost said:

salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have LDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

Good night, I think that without having health training, as you say, it is a bit daring to say what you have said.
The most logical thing is to leave professionals to do their job and when you have doubts to ask them.
These opinions are read by many people who want to know about the disease and it is enough to suffer from it to add doubts only based on personal opinion.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty.If doctors only read Dr.google this forum would close due to lack of diabetics, because we would all be exitus.
Greetings.

You are free to disagree with my opinion, for that the forums are for.Do not underestimate the rest of the foreros thinking that they will be negatively influenced by what I write, especially when I emphasize that it is not a professional advice but a personal reflection on a controversial medication.My only intention is to open debate and know the views of other members of this community.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty, to participate in this forum, it is only necessary to be “member” and the rest… .Mastercard.;)

salad said:

Carlost said:

salad said:
salad said:
is a medicine for a lifetime, so II understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have LDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and that if that happens, statin to sing.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

Good night, I think that without having health training, as you say, it is a bit daring to say what you have said.
The most logical thing is to leave professionals to do their job and when you have doubts to ask them.
These opinions are read by many people who want to know about the disease and it is enough to suffer from it to add doubts only based on personal opinion.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty.If doctors only read Dr.google this forum would close due to lack of diabetics, because we would all be exitus.
Greetings.

You are free to disagree with my opinion, for that the forums are for.Do not underestimate the rest of the foreros thinking that they will be negatively influenced by what I write, especially when I emphasize that it is not a professional advice but a personal reflection on a controversial medication.My only intention is to open debate and know the views of other members of this community.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty, to participate in this forum, it is only necessary to be “member” and the rest… .Mastercard.;)

Your comments seem great to me, @ENSALADA, for that we are here, exposing our experiences and opinions, if not I would not be in this forum.I continue with my personal experience:
In March I had fired the 3 transaminases (AST, ALT and GGT) and the Digestologist commissioned me a new analytical at 3 months and a fibroscan of the liver, which has come out normal.Well, by my own decision, because it is my life that is at stake, I decided to stop taking the daily simvastatin of 20 mg that I took.I just repeated the analysis at 3 months and curiously I have normalized the 3 tranaminases and the other parameters that have to do with the liver have all normal.Indeed, there is no evidence that the reason for the high tranaminases is simvastatin, but seems likely.So far I have arrived on my own initiative.Now I have a visit with the digestologist and endocrine so that they make a rigorous analysis of the facts and make decisions.I will keep telling you ...

salad said:

Carlost said:
Carlost said:

salad said:
salad said:
salad said:
salad said:
is a medication forAll life, so I understand that, sooner or later it will produce some adverse effect.
The "protocol" says that diabetics cannot have LDL cholesterol above 100 (really demanding requirement) and thatThat happens, statin to song.Without investigating more.Without knowing if your arteries are clean or have a plate, not counting other particles to see the level of "Basurilla" that circulates through the blood, such as the apob.Without assessing your physical activity, your diet, etc.
Giving a medicine to a diabetic whose main adverse effect is to produce insulin resistance seems to me demential.We have a higher cardiovascular risk but it is because of sugar, not cholesterol, so let's focus on controlling sugar to approach as much as possible to the levels of a healthy person.
All this is a personal reflection that I make from the information that I collect out there for my innate skepticism and my critical spirit.I have no health formation, so do not take it as a wise advice but as an issue to "rethink."

Good night, I think that without having health training, as you say, it is a bit daring to say what you have said.
The most logical thing is to leave professionals to do their job and when you have doubts to ask them.
These opinions are read by many people who want to know about the disease and it is enough to suffer from it to add doubts only based on personal opinion.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty.If doctors only read Dr.google this forum would close due to lack of diabetics, because we would all be exitus.
Greetings.

You are free to disagree with my opinion, for that the forums are for.Do not underestimate the rest of the foreros thinking that they will be negatively influenced by what I write, especially when I emphasize that it is not a professional advice but a personal reflection on a controversial medication.My only intention is to open debate and know the views of other members of this community.
To exercise medicine in Spain you have to study six years of career and another four specialty, to participate in this forum, it is only necessary to be “member” and the rest… .Mastercard.;)

Your comments seem great to me, @ENSALADA, for that we are here, exposing our experiences and opinions, if not I would not be in this forum.I continue with my personal experience:
In March I had fired the 3 transaminases (AST, ALT and GGT) and the Digestologist commissioned me a new analytical at 3 months and a fibroscan of the liver, which has come out normal.Well, by my own decision, because it is my life that is at stake, I decided to stop taking the daily simvastatin of 20 mg that I took.I just repeated the analysis at 3 months and curiously I have normalized the 3 tranaminases and the other parameters that have to do with the liver have all normal.Indeed, there is no evidence that the reason for the high tranaminases is simvastatin, but seems likely.So far I have arrived on my own initiative.Now I have a visit with the digestologist and endocrine so that they make a rigorous analysis of the facts and make decisions.I will keep telling you ...

That effect appears in the Atorvastatin prospect (yours is another, but it will be cousin) as "frequent: it can affect one in 10 people" and literally says:
"Blood analysis results that can show abnormal liver functioning"
Look at subtlety;It does not say it produces abnormal functioning of the liver, but results of the analysis that can show abnormal functioning.What does this mean?That the liver works great and the results of the analysis are false alarm?Or is it pure rhetoric so as not to say openly that they will alter the functioning of the liver?
@fosphorero I'm glad that your indicators of the liver functioning are now normal.You say that you left the statin for three months, how did you behave cholesterol?Have you risen significantly?

salad said:
That effect appears in the prospect of atorvastatin (yours is another, but it will be cousin-brother) as "frequent: it can affect one in 10 people" and literally says:
"Blood analysis results that can show abnormal liver functioning"
Look at subtlety;It does not say it produces abnormal functioning of the liver, but results of the analysis that can show abnormal functioning.What does this mean?That the liver works great and the results of the analysis are false alarm?Or is it pure rhetoric so as not to say openly that they will alter the functioning of the liver?
@fosphorero I'm glad that your indicators of the liver functioning are now normal.You say that you left the statin for three months, how did you behave cholesterol?Have you risen significantly?

@ENSALADA yes I have cholesterol values ​​before and after stopping simvutative:
Taking 20 mg of simvastatin a day: LDL: 93 HDL: 46
Two months after stopping simvastatin: LDL: 121 HDL: 52

If I stop taking the medication in a month I am in the clouds.It is genetic, family heritage, family hypercholestemia, I think they call it.My own body manufactures it ... so or medication or cholesterol through the clouds ...

cgs said:
I do stop taking the medication in a month I am in the clouds.It is genetic, family heritage, family hypercholestemia, I think they call it.My own body manufactures it ... so or medication or cholesterol through the clouds ...

phosphorero said:

salad said:
that effect appears in the atorvastatin prospect (yours is another, but it will be cousin-brother) as "frequent:It can affect one in 10 people "and says literally:
"Blood analysis results that can show abnormal liver functioning"
Look at subtlety;It does not say it produces abnormal functioning of the liver, but results of the analysis that can show abnormal functioning.What does this mean?That the liver works great and the results of the analysis are false alarm?Or is it pure rhetoric so as not to say openly that they will alter the functioning of the liver?
@fosphorero I'm glad that your indicators of the liver functioning are now normal.You say that you left the statin for three months, how did you behave cholesterol?Have you risen significantly?

I still can't tell you, I am in the hands of digestology and endocrine to make me more controls and tell me the medication that I must take

@ENSALADA yes I have choleol values ​​before and after stopping simvutative:
Taking 20 mg of simvastatin a day: LDL: 93 HDL: 46
Two months after stopping simvastatin: LDL: 121 HDL: 52

Statins are a necessary measure depending on what cases.Many people do not take it, make them bad cholesterol through the clouds.They say, it is DiabeTogena, and my case can be one of them.I had an angina and put the maximum amounts.From there, I went from having fasting sugar to 108 to debut in diabetes.Today I think destabilizes me in some things and increases sugar by turning crazy and needing some insulin, but at least I have no choice but to take it.

I have come to be with 14 bad cholesterol, but still, the cardiologists do not get off the car.

Weeks ago I was fine with Synjardi and suddenly the diabetes with glyc of 9 went crazy.

juansevillano said:
statins are a necessary measure according to what cases.Many people do not take it, make them bad cholesterol through the clouds.They say, it is DiabeTogena, and my case can be one of them.I had an angina and put the maximum amounts.From there, I went from having fasting sugar to 108 to debut in diabetes.Today I think destabilizes me in some things and increases sugar by turning crazy and needing some insulin, but at least I have no choice but to take it.

I have come to be with 14 bad cholesterol, but still, the cardiologists do not get off the car.

Weeks ago I was fine with Synjardi and suddenly the diabetes with glyc of 9 went crazy.

You are absolutely right, in fact I have been free of free of the simvastatin for 3 months, but obviously I am not going to play it, I have next consultations with the digestology and the endocrine, plus a new analytical, and I will do what theyThey tell me.
What I did 3 months ago when stopping the statin, it has been much more strict with the diet and upload the physical exercise dose, 2 hours crushing me in the gym every day

Good morning
Yesterday, to my header, reviewing the last analytics, I asked him for a parameter the creatincinase that had left me very high, 317.04 u/i.He told me that it was a consequence of the statins.I am currently taking 10 mg provision, on the recommendation of the endocrine, to keep the LDL figures below 100. He told me that what they were causing me was the destruction of the muscle, and asked me if I had muscle pains.I told him that something had, but I don't know if it was attributable to that.He told me to suspend his shot for several months, to see the possible cause/effect relationship.
I ask you.Has Aguien had a similar experience?

Greetings.