Statin agents and muscle aches

11. October 2006 William Davis (2)
How common are muscle aches with the statin drugs?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the drug manufacturers, they will tell you no more than 2% of people who take them. They back this up with the experience in tens of thousands of people in published clinical trials.

What if we ask people who take them outside of clinical trials. How many then? I estimate, from my large experience, over 80%! In other words, muscle aches are inevitable in nearly everyone who takes them. The longer you take them, the higher your dose, the more likely muscle aches are going to be.

Why the disconnect between published data and real-world experience? I really don't know. In some instances, the differences are dramatic. The ASTEROID trial, for instance, in which Crestor, 40 mg, was given for two years, only resulted in 8% of people dropping out because of side-effects. My experience: everybody--nobody can tolerate this dose for any length of time.

Let me qualify what "muscle aches" mean. It means achiness and/or weakness, usually mild, occasionally moderate to severe, worse upon awakening and less with use. It can affect many muscles or it can involve only one. Rarely is it incapacitating but it is commonly annoying and frightening. It commonly shows up as gradually diminishing strength with exercise. Strength usually returns promptly upon stopping the offending drug.

"Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation has been a godsend for us. At least 4 out of 5 people who require statins and develop muscle aches respond favorably, but it requires 100 mg per day. The preparation must be oil-based to work, not powder in a capsule which exerts no effect. Some people get by with less; some require as much as 300 mg per day. I've had favorable experiences with the CoQ10 from Sam's Club, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, and Life Extension (www.LEF.org).

The Track Your Plaque target for LDL cholesterol is 60 mg/dl. Many people do indeed use statins to achieve this level, the level of LDL that amplifies your chances of heart disease reversal, i.e., reduction of heart scan score. The only drawback that I'm aware of with CoQ10 replacement is cost. Beyond this, it's a benign supplement that even supplies higher energy for some people who take it.
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • Terri SL

    10/11/2006 10:11:00 PM |

    Statin side effects are, in my personal experience, vastly under-reported.  What Dr. in practice takes the time to fill out FDA complaint forms or contacts independent researchers about a pts. side effects?  What pt. even knows that they can do so, whether their Dr. wants them to or not?  No surprise about that 80% if you've taken statins!

    I've personally taken two different statins (Pravachol, Zocor/Vytorin) and developed horrendous muscle aches even while taking CoQ-10 200 mgs. daily in divided dose.  I also experienced mental fuzziness, gait instability and near complete GI shutdown, when Dr. doubled statin dosage against my protests.  Stop the drug = complete reversal within ~three days!

    What seems to be consistent is the dosage of the statin... the higher the dose, or the more potent the statin (Lipitor, Crestor), the greater the chance of adverse side effects.  The other consistency is that Drs. out there in practice are _not_ recommending CoQ-10 to their patients on statins, or at least that has been my experience.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:52:24 PM |

    "Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Add comment

Loading
The LDL-Fructose Disconnect

The LDL-Fructose Disconnect

26. February 2010 William Davis (8)
I believe that we can all agree that the commonly obtained Friedewald LDL cholesterol (what I call "fictitious" LDL cholesterol) is wildly inaccurate. 100%--yes, 100% inaccuracy--is not at all uncommon.

This flagrant inaccuracy, unacceptable in virtually every other discipline (imagine your airplane flight to New York lands in Pittsburgh--close enough, isn't it?), is highlighted in the University of California study by Stanhope et al I discussed previously.

32 participants consumed either a diet enriched with either fructose or glucose. Compared to the effect of glucose, after 10 weeks fructose:

Increased LDL cholesterol (calculated) by 7.6%

Increased Apoprotein B (a measure of the number of LDL particles) by 24%

Increased small dense LDL by 41%

Increased oxidized LDL by 12.6%


In other words, conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates the undesirable effects of fructose. The divergence between calculated LDL and small LDL is especially dramatic. (By the way, this same divergence applies to the studies suggesting that calculated LDL cholesterol is reduced by low fat diets--While calculated LDL may indeed be reduced, small LDL goes way up, a striking divergence.)

This is yet another reason to not rely on this "fictitious" LDL cholesterol value that, inaccuracies notwithstanding, serves as the foundation for a $27 billion per year industry.
Tags :

Comments (8) -

  • Peter

    2/26/2010 5:29:27 PM |

    I keep hoping nutritional advice will get simpler, but it seems like to know what to have for dinner we need a lot of blood tests and a very savvy doctor to interpret them.

  • sdkidsbooks

    2/26/2010 7:51:04 PM |

    Dr. D,

    Get the ldl-fructose connection but still confused about the small particle ldl/Lp(a) and eating fats.  Is it beneficial or not to include "good" fats like olive oil, coconut oil,butter, grass-fed meats, etc. when you have a the small ldl/Lp(a)pattern?  Being a woman and not the skinny male, I do think my pattern is genetic and I'm doing all of your recommendations for diet/supplements and want to be sure I am not making things worse by including fats in my diet.

    Thanks.

    Jan

  • shel

    2/27/2010 12:00:23 AM |

    ~Peter

    amen.

    regarding fructose, maybe eating fruit instead of sugary junk for dessert and whatnot is the way to go. i can't bring myself to believe that, in the context of a truly simple whole-food diet, an amount of fruit each day is going to contribute to future ills.

    ~Dr Davis, i wonder if someone who eats a simple paleo diet free of sweetner, added fats and oils, dairy, legumes and grass seeds, and eats plenty of fruit, fatty grass fed meat, fish, greens, and some tubers has an increased risk of s-ldl compared to an average nutritionally ignorant patient who eats a typical SAD and is now trying to "clean it up" a bit.

    just musing aloud.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/27/2010 2:35:53 AM |

    Jan and Shel--

    Yes, fats are good. We've just got to be selective in our fats.

    My recent comments about "genetic small LDL" were not meant to scare everyone off of fat, but just to make the simple point that there is a subset of people with small LDL whose pattern responds somewhat differently than most other people.

  • shel

    2/27/2010 4:01:09 AM |

    ...sorry. i meant to say "...has a 'lowered' risk of s-ldl compared to..."

  • Rick

    2/27/2010 4:54:42 AM |

    I notice that you don't include actual measured TOTAL LDL cholesterol. If this is substantially different from the calculated total LDL cholesterol, then your point about the inaccuracy of the Friedewald calculation is proven. As it is, it seems to me that you've merely shown that it may not be very useful (because size, density, and degree of oxidation may be more important), rather than actually inaccurate.

  • L

    2/27/2010 11:56:05 AM |

    the stanhope study is only useful for those who are already fat and getting fatter and considering supplementing their already excessive intake with fructose sweetened beverages.

    self experiment 2 months ago lasting 5 weeks: as much fruit as i wanted and more (i wanted to make sure i got at least my normal intake of approx. 2300 cals) and whey protein to get about 100 g protein/day. my calorie intake per day came to averarge approx. 2700 cals. maybe if i account for fiber the actual calories would be closer to normal.  with that amount of fruit i was consuming i was constantly full (uncomfortbably so at times). i was basically force feeding. i didn't gain weight, i still have six pack so there was no undesirable body recompostion. pure fructose consumption may have no associated feedback mechanism  and induce hunger as stanhope study states, but we can't say fruit does the same thing. i think the addition of fruit to diet maybe helpful to those with weight issues as it could displace more calorie dense stuff sweetened with sugar and has added fat(eg doughnuts, cookies). did i screw up my lipids? don't know.  may be when a study comes along that induces bad things using only fruit as the fructose source i'll know. my point: may be we shouldn't worry about SOME fruit in the diet. may be if i continued experiment longer i would get fat. i'll never know because the diet was unsustainable. turds were monstrous, but passable with more effort than i'm accustomed to or desire.

  • Neonomide

    3/4/2010 9:22:42 AM |

    Professor Lustig hates fructose yet claims that it`s toxic effetcs are blunted by fiber in fruits versus sweetened beverages. Obviously the speed of ingestion is somewhat critical in case of fructose.

Add comment

Loading
"Black holes" on heart scan

"Black holes" on heart scan

11. November 2006 William Davis (1)

Lots of smokers, especially younger smokers, rationalize their habit by telling themselves that they'll stop if and when any hint of adverse health effects develop.

The problem is that, even in the first decade of smoking, dramatic and profound effects can develop--but you won't know it.

One of the most graphic examples of this I see every day in people who have heart scans. While CT heart scans are, of course, for identification of coronary plaque/coronary disease, they're also great for visualizing the lungs.

This man is a light smoker. The lungs are the black tissues (that's normal) on either side of the (white) heart in the center. Now, note the holes in the lung tissue. That's what they literally are: holes left by the destrucive, tissue-eating effects of cigarette smoking.

How common are the holes (or emphysematous "blebs", as they're called in medical lingo)? Very common. You'll even see them in 30-somethings who've smoked only a few years.

These are holes that have nothing in them. The lung tissue that was destroyed to create the hole will never grow back, even when smoking stops. The holes in this example are actually small to average in size. I've seen much bigger. And this only represents the early stages of lung tissue destruction. A long-time heavy smoker shows all other sorts of abnormalities.

Whenever I show these "black holes" to people who smoke, they are horrified and I've actually gotten many people to quit. Take the opportunity to quit as soon as you can if you smoke.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • Bix

    11/13/2006 12:28:00 PM |

    Holy cow!  That's unbelievable.  One more reason to quit.

Add comment

Loading