I have taken statins for my cholesterol for years and they have worked very well to lower my ldl. However, my CPK has also been elevated at times and I have had to go off the medicine until it drops. My doctor just took me off the statins again because my CPK was 646. I had only been back on them for three months. I have also had issues with muscle weakness/cramping. First, how bad is a 646 CPK? Second, how can I manage my cholesterol without a statin?
Here's an article that discusses LDL cholesterol:
Cholesterol - 4 Steps to Lower LDL Cholesterol
All the best,
Lisa Nelson RD
How to Lower Cholesterol in 8 Simple Steps
my cholesterol is 7 is that high ?
I assume you are from the UK or canada and if so your 7 reading converts to about 271 in US numbers. while that is considered high for young people there are studies and data showing that for elderly that number translates to the highest life expectancy...especially for women.
the following excerpt is very eye opening:
Hypercholesterolemia is a made up condition now said to mean that total serum cholesterol is above 200 mg/dL or LDL-C is over 125 mg/dL. This was done to advance the sales of cholesterol-lowering drugs, and Cheerios® incidentally benefited. A 2004 observational study from the University of Innsbruck, Austria, on 150,000 subjects showed that low cholesterol levels predict premature death in men of all ages, and in women over the age of 50. In the 1990 Quebec Cardiovascular Study on 4576 men aged 35-64 years to start, serum total cholesterol levels were not associated with either cardiovascular disease or all-cause mortality. Even in dialysis patients, all-cause mortality was highest at the lowest total cholesterol levels, being 30% lower when total cholesterol was approximately 240 mg/dL compared with TC <160. Also, mortality was 17% lower at low-density-lipoprotein (LDL-C) approximately 190 mg/dL compared with LDL-C <130 in a 2004 study.Among the elderly the effects of low serum total cholesterol and low LDL-C were found to be deadly. In a study on residents of northern Manhattan, NY, 2,277 subjects were followed for 10 years with results reported in 2005. Two-thirds were female and 1/3 of the total were Hispanic, African American and white. Subjects were 65-98 years old at baseline, mean age 76. The chance of dying was twice as great in the lowest quartile of total cholesterol or LDL-C levels, while HDL-C and triglyceride levels were not related to all-cause mortality in this age group. Women had higher baseline total cholesterol and LDL-C levels (206 and 124) than men (191 and 117), yet the women lived longer. Men with the same total cholesterol and LDL-C levels as women lived as long. Of the subjects, 1/5 were taking statin drugs to lower total cholesterol and LDL-C, which would have pushed them into the lowest quartile. This is an excellent confirmation that high total cholesterol and LDL-C ( low density lipoprotein cholesterol ) levels are beneficial, certainly in the elderly who are most likely to be prescribed a statin drug. The emphasis on the value of lowering LDL-C, rather than lowering total cholesterol, taken by Big Pharma in the last few years, is invalidated by this study. LDL-C is not bad cholesterol; it is an essential form! Dr. Bernard Forette and a team of French researchers from Paris reported in 1989 that women of mean age 82 with high cholesterol and followed for 5 years lived the longest. When the data of Forette are graphed, the age-adjusted data show a minimal risk of dying out to total cholesterol = 320 mg/dL for elderly women. The minimum death rate occurred with a total cholesterol level of 272 mg/dL, far higher than the current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendations of approximately 200 mg/dL for everyone.The death rate was 5.2 times higher for women who had very low cholesterol, specifically, 155 mg/dL. The death rate was 1.8 times higher for women who had very high cholesterol, specifically, 348 mg/dL, and also 1.8 times higher at 200 mg/dL.
full article here:
read this article: