Study: Statins reduce performance in runners

A few things here:

It's not just master's runners on statins. In fact, I know of teens that are being advised to start on the meds as young as 16.

I was put on Vytorin at 45 and after just 6 months, my cholesterol dropped from 252 to 170. I also lost the use of my hands and developed a frozen shoulder. I am now, 14 years later, working with a cardiologist to implement plant sterols and niacin therapy into my already highly modified diet. I was up to 307 last week. But, at least I have the use of my muscles. Doctor asks, which would I prefer, an "episode" in the next 10 years or some muscle discomfort?

You know, there are more important things than being able to run an 18:30 5k in your 50's...like being alive. Nobody ever said statins didn't have side effects.

Azaleas wrote:

You know, there are more important things than being able to run an 18:30 5k in your 50's...like being alive. Nobody ever said statins didn't have side effects.

well sure. But just between us girls, doctors prescribe these things like candy - probably a third of the population, I'm guessing? Maybe 10 million of those people could stop eating red meat and avoid statins.

Of course some people need the medicine to stay alive.

But these days, you get a check up, your cholesterol is 200, your doctor starts talking about statins instead of behavior modification.

Muscle issues associated with statins have not been a secret. They are high up on the published list of possible side effects. And I know folks who have stopped taking statins because of issues in this area. I've been taking Lipitor for 10+ years and have not had this problem ( though I do "suffer" from another side effect). My cholesterol has dropped from 320 (after dietary modifications) to 180 at last check. Of course, I'm not a competitive runner anymore, but still get out most days for 4-7 miles. Live long and prosper.

Listen, I'm no wacko paleo nut, but statins DESTROY mitochondrial function over time.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=1833

I could post a laundry list of studies.

Want to hurt endurance performance, hurt your mitochondria.

Guess what, it gets worse over time. The only reason more isn't made of this is because so few runners taking statins keep running later in life. Start statins in your late thirties and see how fast you are at 50.

Don't care?

Don't know about you, but I'm five years from fifty and I'm not done setting PR's.

These studies do not unambiguously show that statins affect performance, far from it. The evidence presented is extremely weak. Furthermore, it is difficult to reconcile this with the fact that 10s of thousands of people have been in statin clinical trials and reports about muscular side effects of those taking statins have never been statistically higher than those on placebos.

The evidence is weak at this point.

Any knowledge of the advisability of supplementing with CoQ10 enzyme when taking statins?

Junk Master wrote:

Listen, I'm no wacko paleo nut, but statins DESTROY mitochondrial function over time.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=1833

I could post a laundry list of studies.

Want to hurt endurance performance, hurt your mitochondria.

Guess what, it gets worse over time. The only reason more isn't made of this is because so few runners taking statins keep running later in life. Start statins in your late thirties and see how fast you are at 50.

Don't care?

Don't know about you, but I'm five years from fifty and I'm not done setting PR's.

If you had really high cholesterol an was unable to control it through diet and exercise, would you choose setting prs in your 50s or possibly not living into your 60s?

Quite simply because with no history of heart disease in my family and high HDL levels, the link between high LDL and heart disease is more tenuous than the link between statins and mitochondrial disfunction.

Another study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096178/

Plenty more if you google it.

Do I believe that supplementing with CoQ10 can mitigate some of the adverse effect? Possibly.

If you had really high cholesterol an was unable to control it through diet and exercise, would you choose setting prs in your 50s or possibly not living into your 60s?

___

Why take such an extreme viewpoint? Of course the drugs do what they are supposed to do, and are life savers for those unable to self correct.

But

I suspect most of the millions of people who take these drugs do so because doctors don't believe the patient will modify his eating/exercise behavior. Which tells me that there are many people running poorly because of these drugs when they don't have to.

I hear stories about people who hit 45 or 50 or whatever and their running goes off a cliff...I bet some of these guys just started taking statins and are unnecessarily suffering, out of ignorance.

Dude, this is a classic side effect of statins. This, elevation of liver enzymes, and very recently hyperglycemia are all well known side effects. The benefits that statins give people are tremendous, and go far beyond just lowering cholesterol. They also markedly reduce inflammation, which is thought now to be the main pathogenic mechanism behind most diseases. People on statins have lowered risk for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. DO you know anyone with these? I hope you never have to. Statins are so robust in their health effects that it prompted leading research physician David Agnus to claim that all people over 40 should be on statins unless there is a very good reason not to be.

You're angry medicines have side effects? so am I. BUt what f'ing world do you live in. Ever heard of Le Chatlier's principle? This can be easily extrapolated to medicine, especially pharmacology, and demonstrates that there will ALWAYS be side effects, for every medicine, always. Always. How is the science incomplete? Because they don't want to wait 40 years in phase IV clinical trials to figure out any little side effect? DO you know how hard it is to get FDA approval? why do you think drugs are so expensive? You know how many lives we've saved from NOT waiting 40 years to see all the effects? Don't put this on doctors. You're just finally figuring out that "health" isn't some cut and dry term and that drugs are not the magic bullets that TV commercials and society have lead you to believe. If a doctor doesn't inform you of the side effects, or doesn't make absolutely sure you fully understand them, they're seriously risking malpractice.

good reply. interesting.

As a healthy person outside the health industry, it is easy for me to take potshots at doctors and drug companies, that's for sure.

But that said...

I think in 100 years historians will be absolutely gobsmacked and unable to stop laughing at the amount of medicine people take in this country. 30% of kids are on medicine for a chronic condition?

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Growing-numbers-of-children-on-medication-514614.php

What percent of kids are on ritalin or the like? 20%? More? I dunno. How many adults are on anti-depressants? 10%?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-03-antidepressants_N.htm

What percent of people over 50 take statins? half?

What percent of old people take massive doses every day? 75%?

This sort of massive medication is new, and I think the pendulum will swing back at some point. I hope anyway.

I get your point tho that modern medicine has saved millions of lives, I do.

Did you read the study, or just the title and skim the summary?

"Although serum levels of coenzyme Q10 routinely decrease with statin therapy, not all studies confirm the potential mitochondrial dysfunction induced by statins. In humans, Laaksonen et al9 found no change in high-energy phosphate levels and coenzyme Q10 levels in muscle biopsies from patients before and after treatment with simvastatin, 20 mg/d for 6 months. The results did not differ from the muscle biopsy findings of matched controls taken at the same time."

Are you just pubmedding these things and scanning headlines or something? This was a review article that concludes that CoQ10 supplementation is inconclusive, and as an aside mentions that statins interfere with mevalonate synthesis, and possibly mt function although some studies don't even agree there. Its still in its scientific infancy. The study suggests they, hey, MAYBE if you're old, AND your an athlete, AND you're on statins, we're guessing that PERHAPS you might benefit from CoQ10.

"An elderly population of athletes receiving HMA Co-A reductase inhibitors would APPEAR to be ideally suited to experiencing the greatest benefit from coenzyme Q10 supplementation, given the high risk of mitochondrial dysfunction from coenzyme Q10 deficiencies in this group."

In science writing, they teach us to write the potential implications at the end to wow the reader but make sure that we indicate that this is hand waving. I can randomly pubmed a whole bunch of things and find zillions of articles which make half mention of my own opinions too. Be a scientist and give real DEFINITIVE evidence and not hand waving. Wait, there isnt any for your claims.

No doubt medicine is being over prescribed. Healthcare is currently shifting to preventative medicine and lifestyle changes. This old way of thinking came from Alexander Flemming's discovery of penicillin, and that this one drug could get rid of a variety of illnesses. This is the so called "germ theory" of medicine, and it is becoming obsolete. It proposes finding magic bullets for illnesses and treating with medication. The pendulum will swing, as you so rightly propose, and again because of Le Chatlier. It makes one think that perhaps the greeks were not so far off from defining health as a balance, no one thing is bad, and no one thing is good,but a balance of things is good. This isn't absolute, just a nice thought. Thanks for being open minded. Statins are great drugs that can benefit people who've lived unbalanced lives into their old age. For us, the younger generation, we may not need to rely on them as much.

Maybe, just maybe statins are not for everybody. This is annecdotal, an N of 1, that'll be dismissed while you're on high horse know it alls here whiiinnnnieeeee but here goes.

I have moderately high cholestrol (200 to 230s usually) and family history (dad died in his 50s). 10 years ago my family doc said why not try statins? I said, I'll see you in a year. A year later I came back and said maybe let's talk. He completely turned it around and said, well you're doing everything right, running, low blood pressure, good weight, decent diet: you'd be and addict. So let's hold off.

Now, different location/doctor. Saying the same thing. I did get a CT screeing, 0 plaque build up.

There still may be some risk but I'm happy not to take this medication.

Why would anyone dismiss this? Anecdotal evidence (even n=1) is often a starting point for research. It sounds like you and your physician agreed on a solid preventative medicine plan including screening. I would be on my high horse (but i prefer a soapbox) knowing it all if you were claiming that everyone should be doing what you did. Good luck with the cholesterol sounds like everything is fine.

Why do people keep on posting their total cholesterol levels? It is a pretty meaningless number. What is your LDL? What is your HDL? If your doing everything right in terms of diet and exercise and your LDL is still high and your HDL low then given your family history that is a terrible sign. CT screen is not a perfect indicator. The large plaques are not the ones that kill you. The small unstable plaques are the danger. Your arteries do not "clog" instead small plaques break off and cause clots.

It is true that statins are not for everybody they are for people with uncontrollable LDL levels despite healthy living and with a family history of heart disease.

Why not just use Niacin? It's superior to statins in many respects. Great for Alzheimer's too.

Oh wait, it's dirt cheap.