egruberman
Well-known Member
I'd say you are an outlier. I saw a 10% reduction in LDL with ezetimibe mono-therapy.i think just keeping LDL down to a reasonable level is huge, which can be done easily with ezetimibe, mine went from 135 to 70 in 1 month while on an extremely high saturated fat diet consisting of 1.5kg of sausage/hamburger etc per day
i also got rhabdo from a microdose of a statin EoD a few years ago. like 2.5mg resovostatin EoD, it happened within 2 weeks of starting it
Also an outlier in this case. Side effects like you're describing are pretty rare, especially so at that dose.
statins are overkill imo.
Cholesterol is important for a lot of things in the body and crushing cholesterol cannot be healthy or normal. Health is never this simple.
ASCVD risk has a linear relationship to LDL/ApoB exposure over the course of years. There is no documented harm that I can find from keeping LDL below 60mg/dL. There are a few conditions which cause very low cholesterol levels and there are health problems as a result, but that occurs at levels well below what can be achieved with pharmaceutical intervention.
it cannot be good to have cholesterol super low
Again, this is speculation and not based on the literature.
Not to mention whatever side effects the statins themselves could cause, besides just from having lower blood cholesterol,
Beyond muscle-related issues, there is the potential for insulin resistance.
statins seem well tolerated on paper, but they obviously never give them to healthy people let alone body builders doing weight training to failure 5 days per week, so i wouldnt be surprised if they would cause kidney / muscle issues.
So you're asserting that unhealthy people are better able to tolerate statins than healthy people?
i dont even want my LDL that low
First of all, you'll have to quantify what you consider to be "low". Secondly, as a result, you are increasing your lifetime risk of ASCVD. Could be that you won the genetic lottery and that won't matter. Could be that you die 10 years earlier than you might have otherwise.
This was supposed to be the controversial opinions thread without rebuttals, but you posted one anyway. What's worse is that your rebuttal included nothing more than your ill-informed opinions founded on weak rationalization. There are few things about which the evidence is more clear.