# Heart meds



## Kenneth (Mar 31, 2013)

Was wondering if anyone here would know of alternative meds for heart patients that actually work ?
Although I am still working , at times it is a struggle and my job is physically demanding .
Couple of problems come to mind here , one is that a lot of heart meds deteriate muscles , leg muscles seem to be the biggest problem . 
I know , it doesn't make sense as the heart is a muscle .
My doctor is very open and talks to me , not down to me . When I complained about strength loss in legs , he told me it was coming from my meds .
Alternative treatment is a concern as to me being able to continue to work and a needed knowledge for shtf scenario I hope we never have to endure . 
But with current economics and government encroaching in our lives it may be an issue we will have to face .
Thank you, Kenneth


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

There are certainly alternative treatments but what problems do you actually have with your heart?


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

What medication are you trying to find an alternative to?


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 31, 2013)

Enalipril , clopidogrel , cravedilol , and Crestor . So far out of all the meds they have given me ,these seem to be working the best fo me . I have had a triple bypass and five stynts . 
Blockages and one failure .
On one heart attack my blood pressure got so high I started bleeding from my ear . 
Since the last one I seem to be doing a better . Blood work comes back good . 
Kenneth


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

This is dangerous territory my friend. The best advice anyone can give you is more information about your condition, not what to take. Cardiac muscle is worlds different from skeletal or smooth muscle. The best thing you can do is have an honest talk with your cardiologist. Ask how much dammage or motion remains in your heart. what are the valves like? How much blood is being pushed forward instead of pushing backwards into the heart(ejection fraction)? The medications are proven to help decrease the risk of having another severe cardiac event or stroke. Clopidogrel is responsible for the bleeding - it keeps your stents from clotting off. carvedilol is your betablocker, which protects your heart from trying to pump to hard to meet the demands for increased oxygen. Your skeletal muscles will tire faster since the heart wont try to keep up with the increased demand for oxygen. If it did, your heart would do it at it's own expense. It would increase heart rate providing oxygen to your other muscles while starving itself and worsening your condition. Bblockers act like a govenor for your heart, but make you feel crappy if you over exert yourself.Crestor cements arterial plaques onto the blood vessel wall decreasing the chances of a plaque dislodging and sealing off another coronary vessel or a plaque in a large vessel dislodging into the brain causing a stroke. Enalipril controls the squeeze of the blood vessels in a way to reduce high blood pressure. All in all, if your only on rate control and pressure control, then things might be looking good. Its not uncommon to have to control pressures with up to three medications. Diet and lifestyle modifications DO go a long way. You'll need to monitor and realize exactly what your safe exertion point is. The problem after a heart attack is that dammaged muscle may never recover and the remaining muscle has to over exert itself to maintain. The cardiologist can help you find this point during your stress tests which will help you figure out what you need to avoid further heart dammage.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

The question I have is, why do you want an alternate to your medications? If you don't like the drugs you are taking, talk to your doctor, mine worked with me I expect yours will also. If you are worried that your dugs might become unavailable you have some options. First, talk to your doctor and express the stress you are feeling about not having a reserve. He may be willing to give you a copy of your prescription that you can send to Canada so that you can purchase a reserve supply. Your insurance may allow you to get your quarterly prescription filled two to four weeks early. This will allow you to build up a reserve over a longer time. 

You may also be able to find some supplements that will allow you to reduce the amount of some prescriptions, or in a worse case scenario i.e. you can't get your prescriptions, provide some benefit. "Prescription for Nutritional Healing" by Balch is a good book to start with. This statement in no way indicates disagreement with what drfacefixer said. Sometimes your options may be fewer than others.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Kenneth KEEP TAKING YOUR MEDICINE, this is not a common cold or a scrape you can put some home made ointment on, this is heart related and is serious s**t. Do yourself a favor and listen to Dr. H and Caribou and stick with your prescription meds. Also talk to your Dr. he can help you more than anyone.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Here's my take: Enjoy the benefits of living in a modern society and take your drugs because they both keep you alive and improve the quality of your life. When the SHTF parts of society will either crumble or stumble. If the pharma pipeline stumbles, then you have to address shortages of the drug and your ability to pay for that drug. If the pharma pipline crumbles, then and only then, should you be looking around for alternative, and sub-par, methods of dealing with your heart health issues. What you have to deal with here is your own personal burden, or limitation, and the solution is not going to be a perfect substitute for the suite of drugs that you're taking and in fact there might not actually be a solution, an alternative, in that if society crumbles then all that society provides also goes down the drain and we're living off the land and heart drugs which keep people alive don't grow on trees, easy for the picking.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 31, 2013)

Ok , thanks for the concern and great info . I guess I didn't make my question clear . 
I am asking what alternatives there might be in a scenario of total collapse , no medical system functioning . 
Thank you , Kenneth


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 31, 2013)

Bobbb said:


> Here's my take: Enjoy the benefits of living in a modern society and take your drugs because they both keep you alive and improve the quality of your life. When the SHTF parts of society will either crumble or stumble. If the pharma pipeline stumbles, then you have to address shortages of the drug and your ability to pay for that drug. If the pharma pipline crumbles, then and only then, should you be looking around for alternative, and sub-par, methods of dealing with your heart health issues. What you have to deal with here is your own personal burden, or limitation, and the solution is not going to be a perfect substitute for the suite of drugs that you're taking and in fact there might not actually be a solution, an alternative, in that if society crumbles then all that society provides also goes down the drain and we're living off the land and heart drugs which keep people alive don't grow on trees, easy for the picking.


Ok , thank you , I have a tendency to jump the gun,din't read all your post , you answered my question , Kenneth


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Kenneth said:


> I am asking what alternatives there might be in a scenario of total collapse , no medical system functioning .
> Thank you , Kenneth


I'd look back at history and your doctors should be able to help you here. How did patients with your ailments fare back in 1900? or 1800? If society completely collapses then you'll likely face the same path that our ancestors faced when dealing with heart problems and with no medical industry infrastructure in place to help them.

I don't think that there are herbal remedies which are going to be good substitutes but I can't state that as a fact. If I were in your shoes I'd be putting effort into extending the buffer time between your drugs coming to you as regularly as they do now and the time when those drugs can't be had it all, in other words, stockpiling my own supplies. The drugs will lose effectiveness as they age but if the alternative is to use no drug at all and my life depended on having those drugs, then I'd elect to use old drugs from my stockpile in the hopes that they're still somewhat effective and pray that they haven't turned toxic is some fashion thus doing more damage than good.


----------



## Mortblanc (Apr 20, 2013)

What we are looking at here is the reason that life expectancy was 56 until the development of the new heart meds available today.

Today have the attack, get the stents and angioplasty, sometimes bypass, and get a 10-20 year extension of borrowed time.

It always amazes me when people fuss about "having to take meds". They don't have to take them.

and if there was a natural alternative it would have been in use and saved all the 50 year olds that died early in those past eras.

I had my attack 10 years ago. I consider myself fortunate to have escaped the need for bypass and am on minimal meds. However, without the meds I have severe angina.

My big gripe is that the doctors will not give me an unlimited purchase ability. 6 months at a time and I have to come in for a checkup to get the scripts. I often feel like a puppet on a string.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Mortblanc said:


> What we are looking at here is the reason that life expectancy was 56 until the development of the new heart meds available today.
> 
> Today have the attack, get the stents and angioplasty, sometimes bypass, and get a 10-20 year extension of borrowed time.
> 
> ...


There is a reason for that. If you come back every 6 months your doing better than a fair amount that lose compliance and aren't seen again until they have another event. Stocking up on meds more than 6 months first off are not covered by most insurance. Secondly, it looks neglectful on part of the doctor to not follow up while having your on these meds. I can't tell you how many times(a lot) I had a patient switched to another med for better control or for pre operative optimization. If you purchased a years supply of the meds you take now, you're 1) planning for your condition/situation not to change. 2) adding possible cost to treatment should modifications be made 3) likely not to be compliant with any new treatment plan since you're already sold. There is a huge area of waste that the profession is trying to cut down on by prescribing less when trying a patient on new meds. It used to be that I might start you off on a 30 day supply of metoprolol.if you come back the first week with too many side effects and can't take it, I just cost you and the insurance 3 weeks of medications that goes in the trash.

Remember, insurance and the medical world isn't setup to accommodate everyone desiring to plan 2 years into the future. And I'm definitely glad for that.


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Bobbb said:


> I don't think that there are herbal remedies which are going to be good substitutes but I can't state that as a fact. If I were in your shoes I'd be putting effort into extending the buffer time between your drugs coming to you as regularly as they do now and the time when those drugs can't be had it all, in other words, stockpiling my own supplies. The drugs will lose effectiveness as they age but if the alternative is to use no drug at all and my life depended on having those drugs, then I'd elect to use old drugs from my stockpile in the hopes that they're still somewhat effective and pray that they haven't turned toxic is some fashion thus doing more damage than good.


Their are many alternatives ... (but not many that will heed what it takes. IMO)

I would start by talking with my doctor about lifestyle changes that could help. While I'm at it I would ask about diet and exercise that could be used to improve where one is at now.

There are many herbs that can help ... but they are not an overnight cure. And once the shtf hits there will be little time to research and find what one needs ... (again IMO)

Best of luck to the OP.


----------



## stayingthegame (Mar 22, 2011)

learn how the heart works. learn how your heart is not functioning. yes there are herbals that "can " help but because you can never be sure of their strength you don't know exactly how much you are getting. with certain conditions your med doses are VERY important. so in a shtf many will die simply because the things they take are not sufficient to keep them alive. my dh needs insulin and heart meds. the insulin I can't make so diet will be the treatment of choice but with his heart I know what herbs will help his heart beat better but it will still be a shot in the dark each time I will have to dose him.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 31, 2013)

A lot of good input from all of you . Very interesting read . Mortblank , hope all goes good for you . Thank all of you , I certainly will look at the avenues presented to me , Kenneth


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Crestor - pure poison... do some reading on statins, muscle weakness and muscle pain.

Statin statistics... 25% reduction in heart attacks - true. 2% risk of side affects - also true. HOWEVER they do NOT use the same population base. It's statistics gone wild.

Statins strip CoQ10 out of the body, which is the element you muscles use for energy. Strongest muscle in the body... the heart. There's a substantial increase in death, if you suffer a heart attack while on statins.

There's a HUGE increase in prostate cancer among men that take statins.

/soapbox


----------



## d_saum (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm not a doctor and my advice is worth what you are paying for it... but I'd look into green smoothies. You can pack a whole lot of vegetables in with some fruit and get a ridiculous amount of healthy nutrients and vitamins in one serving. Do your own research obviously, but I've been drinking them for about 2 weeks now, and I'm feeling MUCH better and cannot wait for my next check up at the doctors office. 

Obviously.. this would not be a replacement for your meds, but hopefully it'd help you towards getting off them, or needing less of them. I'm a BIG believer in the benefits of raw fruits and vegetables. 

PS. Just out of curiosity, what is your current diet like? What's your age? Height? Weight? Etc..


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

partdeux said:


> Crestor - pure poison... do some reading on statins, muscle weakness and muscle pain.
> 
> Statin statistics... 25% reduction in heart attacks - true. 2% risk of side affects - also true. HOWEVER they do NOT use the same population base. It's statistics gone wild.
> 
> ...


Great info!

My new doctor when I told him that I was taking Crestor just told me to stop. He as never given me a good reason!

Thanks!


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

partdeux said:


> Crestor - pure poison... do some reading on statins, muscle weakness and muscle pain.
> 
> Statin statistics... 25% reduction in heart attacks - true. 2% risk of side affects - also true. HOWEVER they do NOT use the same population base. It's statistics gone wild.
> 
> ...


Senior, you need to recheck that last statement.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

drfacefixer said:


> Senior, you need to recheck that last statement.


soapbox ?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

partdeux said:


> soapbox ?


Likely having something to do with this:

Following adjustment for other potential risk factors, statin use was associated with a significant reduction in prostate cancer risk (odds ratio = 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.69). Furthermore, in analyses stratified by Gleason score, the inverse association with statin use was maintained only among men with Gleason scores of ≥7 (odds ratio = 0.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.11, 0.53). The results of this case-control study suggest that statins may reduce the risk of total prostate cancer and, specifically, more aggressive prostate cancer.​


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Next ... After I reviewed the statistics on the Heart Prevention Study (zocor), I began to understand how badly the stats are manipulated to prove a desirable outcome.


> RESULTS:
> 
> We examined 388 prostate cancer cases and 1,552 controls. *We found that ever-use of any statin was associated with a significant increase in prostate cancer risk *(OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.09-2.19). Compared with no use of statins, the adjusted ORs (95%CI) were 1.17 (0.60-2.28) for the group with cumulative dose ≤29.44 DDD, 1.59 (1.02-2.48) for the group with cumulative dose between 29.44 DDD and 321.33 DDD, and 1.86 (1.03-3.37) for the group with the highest cumulative dose (≥321.33 DDD). Also, there was a significant trend toward increasing prostate cancer risk with increasing cumulative dose (χ(2) for linear trend = 7.23, P = 0.007).
> 
> *source*


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

partdeux said:


> Next ... After I reviewed the statistics on the Heart Prevention Study (zocor), I began to understand how badly the stats are manipulated to prove a desirable outcome.


I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that all the stats are manipulated.(trained eyes can see through it) There are hundreds of studies (of various topics) with conflicting outcomes. One has to rate the findings based on the quality of the studies and give weight to those that control the variables best for the specific hypothesis. Bias and confounding are two of the biggest weaknesses with retrospective studies.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

drfacefixer said:


> I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that all the stats are manipulated.(trained eyes can see through it) There are hundreds of studies (of various topics) with conflicting outcomes. One has to rate the findings based on the quality of the studies and give weight to those that control the variables best for the specific hypothesis. Bias and confounding are two of the biggest weaknesses with retrospective studies.


HPS was considered one of the best run studies...

Bear with me, I don't recall the exact stats, but I'm pretty close. It will be a couple of days before I could lay my hands on the details.

People had a 25% reduction in heart attacks, while on Zocor, from the placebo. That is in fact a true statement, as they divided the number of people that had heart attacks on zocor by the number of people that had heart attacks on placebo. 10,000 participants on zocor, 10,000 on the placebo. 900 people had heart attacks on the placebo, 700 on Zocor (these are the numbers I don't have exactly, but you get the idea)

BUT, we must consider side effects... while taking statins, you have a 2% risk of side effects. Here's where the fuzzy statistics really starts to rear it's ugly head. The entire population set was considered for side effects, not the relational population set.

If you consider the entire population in the effectiveness, you get something like a 3% improvement... hardly worth the effort. Even better, if you consider only the participants with side effects, you have a 25% increase in risk of side effects.

There was also an interesting point of the size of the study. IRC, the study started out at something like 45,000 participants, and during the exceptionally long lead in, over 25,000 participants were dropped from the study, with a huge percentage due to side effects.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Not all doctors are created equal. I've had good doctors that were not right for me. Not all treatments work equally on every patient. Pick a doctor you trust and work with him to find the best treatment for yourself. If you don't trust the doctors then do your own homework. If you do trust your doctor, do your homework anyway. You get the benefit of good decisions and you pay the price for poor ones. Take responsibility for your own health.

To get back to the OP. There are supplements that may help you today in conjunction with your prescriptions. They may also provide some assistance without the prescription drugs. To put this in perspective, if you are taking three prescriptions and all of a sudden you can only get one, that one will provide some benefit but not as much as all three. 

Some of the supplements that my cardiologists have suggested are CoQ-10, fish oil, garlic, cinnamon, and magnesium. These provide me with a benefit in and of themselves. I still am prescribed, and take, prescription drugs. So, can you find something off the shelf or out of the garden to replace your prescription drugs with? Probably not. You may be able to come up with something that will provide a significant, though lesser, benefit.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

I dont have time to discuss point by point of each study, but i'll tell you that I'm not even trying to defend statins other than to say they aren't "pure poison". They have benefits and there are real side effects that have to be balanced. Myopathies are actually higher than you suggested. There is frequency of 2 to 11 percent for myalgias, 0.5 percent for myositis, and less than 0.1 percent for rhabdomyolysis.[ An assessment of statin safety by muscle experts. Thompson PD, Clarkson PM, Rosenson RS, National Lipid Association Statin Safety Task Force Muscle Safety Expert Panel Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):69C. ]

The memory issue is somewhat exaggerated on the internet. 
A review of adverse events reported to the US Food and Drug Administration between November 1997 and February 2002 found 60 reports of patients who had memory loss associated with statins . Fourteen of 25 patients had improvement when the statin was discontinued, and four had recurrence of memory loss on rechallenge. The statins involved were simvastatin (36 patients), atorvastatin (23 patients), and pravastatin (1 patient).

As for cancer, ten-year follow-up of the 4S trial and the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) and 11-year follow-up of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) showed no increases in cancer deaths.

It may be a knee jerk reaction to start people on meds by some practitioners but this is America land of plenty. When doctors mention weight or diet to patients, It sadly doesn't get the patients to listen as much as a negative lab value or eye opening associated symptom does.

Now, would I take them? no. I did the research and decided I would try the hard road. When i was border line elevated LDL, I chose to cut out most all meats other than fish high in omega3, lean chicken(once a week) and more or less adopt a vegan diet. (vegetarian relies too heavily on dairy for my tastes). I also managed to squeeze in at least a 4 mi run 5 days a week. It's fresh salads loaded with powerfoods sans dressing for lunch and desserts now usually come from a zujirushi bread machine. Will the average person, do this to lower their lipids and triglycerides? probably not. Can patients that have heart damage exercise as vigorously as they would need too after the wakeup call of a heart attack? probably not for a while. In that case controlling diet becomes even more of an importance and it's usually just not enough for this population.

I would totally advocate for lifestyle change and a strict dietary approach to control hyperlipidemia first and foremost in the average population. If you've suffered one heart attack and your goal is not to half another and maintain what heart health you've got, I would go with a trial of statins that are proven to lower that risk. If you aren't having side affects, you are in the majority and its beneficial. If you have side effects, then you have to either choose to not medically treat the cardiac risk factors or switch to another lower agents (although these have a higher frequency of SE than the statins).

Most drugs are overused. I don't blame the majority of doctors and I don't blame the drug companies. I blame the demands of us as the patients these days.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

fish oil, garlic, cinnamon are awesome powerfoods. I'm not a hater of supplements either, you just have to remember too much of a good thing can be bad too. We are finding that out now with vitamin E supplements.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

drfacefixer said:


> fish oil, garlic, cinnamon are awesome powerfoods. I'm not a hater of supplements either, you just have to remember too much of a good thing can be bad too. We are finding that out now with vitamin E supplements.


What's the story on vitamin E?


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Vitamin E still has a great safety profile. The past it's been thought to be one of the body's great antioxidant scavenger. Initial studies were demonstrating a myriad of issues associated with vitamin E deficiencies. In vivo, its shown to protect against cell membrane oxidation and destruction. As we learned more about the genetics of cancer, oncogenes, free radical damage, thoughts were links saying vitamin E is the guy that can prevent this all. There is also well known diseases associated with vit E deficiencies. Signs and symptoms of vitamin E deficiency include hemolysis, neuromuscular disorders, ataxia, and peripheral neuropathy. Because of an abundance of tocopherols in the human diet, vitamin E deficiency is rare except in individuals with pancreatic insufficiency or other conditions causing substantial fat malabsorption, or protein-energy malnutrition. 

But studies kept showing it to be less a power house than it was thought prior. It does amazing chemistry outside the body, but current evidence does not support a role for vitamin E supplementation in the prevention or treatment of cancers, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Weak evidence suggests a possible role in slowing the progression of Alzheimer disease, tardive dyskinesia, and macular degeneration. In premature infants, vitamin E supplementation may reduce the risk of periventricular hemorrhage, but also increases the risk of sepsis. 

Chronic intake of doses of great than 400IU daily, have been associated with hemmorage. Animal models have demonstrated impaired absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A and K with large vitamin E supplements. 

All in all, in research just hasn't shown it to be the cancer fighting, heart saving vitamin that scientists initially thought it was. They saw drastic issues in vit E deficient cases, but supplementing additional vitamin E, didn't seem to have additional protective value in prevention of disease. Unless your taking high doses, then there might be weak benefits.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

drfacefixer said:


> Vitamin E still has a great safety profile. The past it's been thought to be one of the body's great antioxidant scavenger.


One of the thoughts on Vit E is that it quickly becomes rancid, which severely reduces is potential effectiveness.

I'm more of a everything in moderation, and limit "artificial" supplements.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

drfacefixer said:


> 11-year follow-up of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) showed no increases in cancer deaths.


I would absolutely love to see the raw data from the HPS follow up.

found the followup on medscape, and I'm appalled at the continuing misuse of statistics. It is bad math to divide statistical percentages to create a comparison. Even more importantly, using their bad math, the long term post trial cardio results are approaching meaningless.

Not only that, but did they look at the entire population of original participants and if they were still continuing on the original plan? Knowing British propensity to feed everybody statins, I'd bet a majority of placebo takers are now on statins, which totally makes the follow-up data totally useless.

Sorry, I may not be medically trained, but do have more than a little experience in industrial research. This bad statistics.


----------

