site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3173 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for February 22, 2023

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

  • Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

  • Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

  • Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

  • Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm in my 40s. My LDL-c is rising despite an absurd effort on lifestyle diet/exercise stuff. It's now at about 130. I'm trying to convince my doctor to put me on statins to reduce it but he just reiterates lifestyle. He appears to be following guidelines. But what's the risk to lowering LDL-c anyway in spite of the guidelines? Trying to understand if he is resisting this outside of "if I deviate from guidelines and something bad happens I get sued and I'm not going to do research to figure out if it's worth it in your case".

What kind of guidelines are those? 130 is well outside of the reference interval, assuming you mean mg/dl. As far as I understand Statins are indicated for values above 85. Being more than 50% above that and still not recommending Statins sounds very strange.

I'm healthy and fit (BMI of ~23 and BF <15%) but I got put on statins when my LDL levels got 5.2/93.6.

Edit: Ignore this, I converted things wrong, see below.

Wow, what country do you live in? Do you have any specific risk factors?

I live in Sweden, no risk factors.

Edit: I used the wrong conversion table! Sorry!

My LDL when I got put on statins was 200 mg/dl, not 94.

The upper bound of the reference interval is about 180, not 130.

I don’t know enough about Statins to have a real opinion on it, but do you use fish oil? It reliably lowers triglycerides and seems to have a beneficial effect on cholesterol (it tends to raise hdl a lot more than ldl so even if you’re ldl rises the hdl to ldl ratios are improved https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-fish-oil/art-20364810).

Also if you decide you just want it any way it’s really easy to get something like lipitoir prescribed, I have used this https://plushcare.com/lipitor-atorvastatin-prescription/ for ozempic so I don’t think you would have any trouble with a statin.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats