CPAPtalk.com

And from everything we've been learning lately, it's important to find good, valid and most recent stuff on women and cardiac problems - they're learning that we're quite different from men in many respects.

amen to that, sister. I didn't even have chest pain during my MI.

Violet West wrote:wish I could edit. So, C Q 10 apparently helps with some things, but not others. Helps with heart failure -- good. Causes mile insomnia -- bad. Decreases effectiveness of blood thinners (which I'm on) -- very bad. Very hard to find good, non conflicting info

I don't know where you got your information about Co-Q10, but I have a couple comments.

1. Co-Q10 is kind of a supplement in that you buy it, but the body (liver actually) produces it every day of our lives. However, as we age the body loses its ability to produce Co-Q10 at the levels it did when we were younger. It is critical for muscles, and guess which muscle is the most important one? Co-Q10 is produced in the liver in the same "tree" if you understand, as it produces cholesterol. Therefore, when a statin is taken to reduce cholesterol it also chokes off production of Co-Q10 as a side effect. This is one of the reasons that statins are notorious for causing muscle pain as I understand it.
2. I have been taking Co-Q10 for years because I believe that it is beneficial even though I cannot tolerate statins or its cousins.
3. It has never caused insomnia for me.
4. Cannot comment on being a blood thinner.

Doctor Stephen Sinatra was mentioned earlier. He is retired now and has been for several years. He still has a website where he issues (more like reissues) articles that he has written over the years. His primary business now is writing a book now and then and selling his supplement line. His last book that he co-wrote with Dr. Johnny Bowen, PhD. is called the Great Cholesterol Myth. In it, Co-Q10 is one of the top supplements that he recommends for all readers (and former patients). Magnesium is another one that he highly recommends as do other cardiovascular doctors. Very good book. BTW - - Even though he used to be a speaker for a drug company telling his audiences that statins were great, until as he writes in his book, someone came up to him and asked if he had actually ever read the studies about statins. The doctor admitted he had not, and the person told him that he should. After actually studying the medication that he was being paid to say wonderful things about, he did a complete 180 and stopped recommending statins except for a very limited group of people.

This subject is a mess to try to figure out. To much money involved, and the truth has been buried so deep that it is impossible for most of us to get to the bottom line.

Good luck!

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full

This BMJ article was a review of 19 cohort studies with nearly 70,000 people. It concluded:

Our review provides the first comprehensive analysis of the literature about the association between LDL-C and mortality in the elderly. Since the main goal of prevention of disease is prolongation of life, all-cause mortality is the most important outcome, and is also the most easily defined outcome and least subject to bias. The cholesterol hypothesis predicts that LDL-C will be associated with increased all-cause and CV mortality. Our review has shown either a lack of an association or an inverse association between LDL-C and both all-cause and CV mortality. The cholesterol hypothesis seems to be in conflict with most of Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation, because of its lack of consistency, biological gradient and coherence. Our review provides the basis for more research about the cause of atherosclerosis and CVD and also for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for cardiovascular prevention, in particular because the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated.

An inverse relationship between LDL-C and all cause AND cardiovascular mortality. Think about it.

Please read this book; available on Kindle and most other. Very written and very entertaining.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choleste ... 1844546101

Pesser wrote:Please read this book; available on Kindle and most other. Very written and very entertaining.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choleste ... 1844546101

I haven't read his book, but just discovered Dr. Kendrick's blog. It, likewise, looks informative and entertaining.

Janknitz wrote: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full

Thanks for the link, Jan.

Jay Aitchsee wrote:

Pesser wrote:Please read this book; available on Kindle and most other. Very written and very entertaining.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choleste ... 1844546101

I haven't read his book, but just discovered Dr. Kendrick's blog. It, likewise, looks informative and entertaining.

Janknitz wrote: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full

Thanks for the link, Jan.

I highly recommend reading Dr. Kendrick's book titled " Doctoring Data" (shown at the link provided above). It will show you how data can be manipulated to mean almost anything, and it is nearly every day by the medical industry.

sptrout wrote:

Jay Aitchsee wrote:

Pesser wrote:Please read this book; available on Kindle and most other. Very written and very entertaining.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Choleste ... 1844546101

I haven't read his book, but just discovered Dr. Kendrick's blog. It, likewise, looks informative and entertaining.

Janknitz wrote: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full

Thanks for the link, Jan.

I highly recommend reading Dr. Kendrick's book titled " Doctoring Data" (shown at the link provided above). It will show you how data can be manipulated to mean almost anything, and it is nearly every day by the medical industry.

I read "doctoring data" too. In any other field these drug companies and all doctors would be put in jail. They're using relative risk. You can only use relative risk if you are proposing to add materials to a bridge and want to see how much stress points have changed the chances of collasp.

I read "doctoring data" too. In any other field these drug companies and all doctors would be put in jail. They're using relative risk. You can only use relative risk if you are proposing to add materials to a bridge and want to see how much stress points have changed the chances of collasp.

The scariest part of this is that the doctors who prescribe statins for primary prevention don't really understand what relative risk is, and they don't read these studies critically. They just see that a certain drug "reduces risk of a heart attack by 30%" so therefore they prescribe it. They have no clue that's not actual risk, or that the side effects are as prevalent as they are. They get their information from medical journals supported by ads from the pharmaceutical companies with articles based on studies funded by these pharmaceutical companies who also sponsor their continuing education. At every turn, the doctor gets his or her info from the pharmaceutical companies--there just aren't many independent resources available and even if there were, doctors have so little time to think outside the box.

These are the people we are trusting with our health and well-being. It's not a question of a doctor's integrity, but it is something we, as savvy medical consumers, should consider before ever popping a pill in our mouths, especially for "preventative" care. The whole statin industry has grown up around a problem you don't even have, yet you take a prescription medication for it (that has not really proven to be effective for the purpose you are taking it).

Scary, scary, scary!

Janknitz wrote:They just see that a certain drug "reduces risk of a heart attack by 30%" so therefore they prescribe it

Yeah, we talked about this a bit back on page 3. Maybe worse than doctors are the press. They'll pick something out of a study like "a diet of rutabagas was found to carry a 50% greater risk of heart disease than a diet of parsnips" and even though the risk associated with the parsnip diet was only something like 0.001%, the next thing you know we have headlines screaming "EATING RUTABAGAS INREASES RISK OF HEART DISEASE!!" and a nationwide movement starts to ban rutabagas in all forms.

Personally, I don't care. I like rutabagas and I'm not giving them up. I especially like saying rutabaga and taking one to the cashier at the grocery who invariably has to ask, "what's that?"

Jay Aitchsee wrote:

Janknitz wrote:They just see that a certain drug "reduces risk of a heart attack by 30%" so therefore they prescribe it

Yeah, we talked about this a bit back on page 3. Maybe worse than doctors are the press. They'll pick something out of a study like "a diet of rutabagas was found to carry a 50% greater risk of heart disease than a diet of parsnips" and even though the risk associated with the parsnip diet was only something like 0.001%, the next thing you know we have headlines screaming "EATING RUTABAGAS INREASES RISK OF HEART DISEASE!!" and a nationwide movement starts to ban rutabagas in all forms.

Personally, I don't care. I like rutabagas and I'm not giving them up. I especially like saying rutabaga and taking one to the cashier at the grocery who invariably has to ask, "what's that?"

Good one I'm a big fan of parsnips oven roasted in a little butter <drool> No other root veg tastes quite the same. Also, if you want to go a little crazy with the parsnips, grate some fresh nutmeg over them with a splash of orange juice.

I bet my kids are the only ones under 30 in this entire town who have tasted rutabagas and parsnips. But because my husband tried to pass them off as potatoes, they both decided they don't like "those weird potatoes" and now, they eye with suspicion any potato like object and want confirmation that it's really a potato before they will eat it.

Just out of curiosity, have any of you checked out the statistical mess regarding high blood pressure medication. That’s a real riot. There has never been any study that shows that high blood pressure can cause heart attacks. There are using relative risk. When the same studies are subjected to absolute risk the “risk” disappears.

Pesser wrote:Just out of curiosity, have any of you checked out the statistical mess regarding high blood pressure medication. That’s a real riot. There has never been any study that shows that high blood pressure can cause heart attacks. There are using relative risk. When the same studies are subjected to absolute risk the “risk” disappears.

I think the hbp thing is more apt to cause heart failure, and stroke, not heart attack...

High blood pressure does cause enlargement of the heart. It also makes me feel like crap. Though for many people it is a silent disease for me I know exactly where my pressure is.

ETA: I have however seen studies that the newer meds are no more effective then the old diuretics.