Armolipid + for high cholesterol

Posted , 7 users are following.

Hi can anyone provide  information on Armolipid plus which I understand helps to lower cholesterol.

I have been taking simvastatin for over 20 years now nad am having lots of leg pain. A friend has been advised to take Armolipid + as opposed to sattins.

Any feedback will be appreciated please: length of time to take the, side effects, effectiveness etc.

Thanks

0 likes, 14 replies

14 Replies

  • Posted

    I can only point you to this randomised controlled study carried out in Italy and published nearly 4 years ago. 

    "Clinical evidence of efficacy of red yeast rice and berberine in a large controlled study versus diet.

    Bruno Trimarco, Claudio Benvenuti, [...], and Salvatore Crispo"

    They found that total cholesterol fell by about 10% in 4 weeks and 20% in 4 months and HDL cholesterol rose in that time.

    If you google the title of the paper you can read it in full if you are up to understanding it (it is very medical and statistical). However, the side effect of muscle pain was much less than with statins and other side effects didn't seem to be too bad either. It was a good size study with nearly 1800 subjects altogether, half on diet and half on diet plus armolipid. It is only one study even if it is significant - but having read it I would certainly try it out if I still needed to reduce my cholesterol. I did have raised cholesterol due to taking prednisolone but 10 days of atorvastatin left me almost unable to walk - I stopped taking it and my cholesterol is now at the upper end of normal after being able to reduce the pred dose and losing 17kg of weight. 

    Hope this helps.

    • Posted

      Thank you so much EileenH for your reply.  

      I have just read the paper and whilst very medical and statistical I think the findings were very encouraging and i will ceratinly continue taking Armolipid plus for a few weeks.

      My friend was told only to take this for 60 days but I cannot find any information to support this reasoning.

      your reply has certainly helped me thank you - the reason i could not find information on the Internet was due to me seraching for Armolipd+ as opposed to the ingredients.

      Thank you again for taking time to reply.

  • Posted

    Just because somthing will lower your cholesterol does NOT make it a good thing to do.

    What IS important is the effect on your health of doing so.

    The financial world had the PPI mis-selling scandal.

    The medical world will have the statins scandle I feel sure (it will dwarf the PPI mis-selling scandal)

    You might find the following information enlightening (unless you are one of the few people left who believe that doctors are all knowing gods)

    In a study published earlier this year, higher levels of both total cholesterol and LDL-C were found to be associated with a reduced risk of death in individuals aged 85 followed for 10 years.

    In another study published last year, researchers assessed the levels of cholesterol and risk of death in almost 120,000 adults living in Denmark. The researchers found that having higher than recommended levels of total cholesterol was associated with a reduced risk of death.

    For instance, in men aged 60-70, compared with those of total cholesterol levels of less than 5.0 mmol/l, those with total cholesterol levels of 5.00-5.99 had a 32 per cent reduced risk of death. For those with levels 6.0-7.99 mmol/l, risk of death was 33 per cent lower. Even in individuals with levels with 8.00 mmol/l and above, risk of death was no higher than it was for those with levels less than 5.0 mmol/l.

    The results were similar for women too. In women aged 60-70, levels of 5.0-5.99 and 6.0-7.99 were associated with a 43 and 41 per cent reduced risk of death respectively.

    In individuals aged 70 and over, the results were similar, except here, levels of total cholesterol of 8.00 mmol/l or more were associated with a reduced risk of death too (in both men and women).

    In short, we are misguided if we assumed that higher levels of cholesterol are a sign of increased death risk. In older individuals, there is evidence that the reverse is true.

    • Posted

      The whole 'statins are good at preventing death from coronary deceases' scenario is a logical fallacy.

      Apart from knowing that statins will reduce LDL, there is no real scientific evidence that they do anything else, at least not for people who are actually healthy.

      One's chances of dying within the next then rears will increase with age, regardless of statins.

      I think the medical hierarchy in the UK has hit a blind spot when they continue promoting statins as a preventative drug.  They are still trying to play down the really severe side effects many people have.

      The problem is, that many people will not make the connection between their increasing aches and the statins drug. The adverse effects build up, and people think it is a by product of getting older.

      The adverse effects of statins are under, not over reported.

       

    • Posted

      Taking statins IS associated with a reduced rate of recurrence of cardiovascular events - but because of something else they do, not just "reduced cholesterol". Men benefit from taking statins, whether they have had a previous cardiovascular event or not. Women who have had a heart attack or stroke also benefit. Women who haven't, don't.

      If they give you no problems - there is no reason not to take them. If they DO cause side effects - don't worry and don't take them.

    • Posted

      I am not debating the usefulness of statins as treatment when appropriate.

      I am debating the promotion af statins as a preventative action, assessed my some Qrisk forms.

      I cannot see any clear evidence that they actually prevent heart attacks and/or strokes. Where is the data?

      And, what is the best level of serum cholesterol? The UK seems to set it at below 4 for people with diabetes and potential risks for heart decease.

      I was prescribed statins because I was in the 'high risk' group as my father died of a heart attack at the age of 57. I think now that it was assumed that he was genetically inclined to heart decease - which I know is not true - and that there may be a hereditary factor.

      I took the statins because I had no reason to doubt the necessity of them for me.

      I developed type 2 diabetes two years after commencing statins treatment. I did not make an association with the drug.

      My mother had type 2 diabetes, but neither had both my grandmothers or my dad, hence, the hereditary factor is inconclusive.

      I only woke up to the damage statins were doing to me after about 7 years of taking them, because of the controversy within the medical profession regarding their usefulness as a preventative drug.

      My side effects manifested themselves gradually, hence I did not mention them.

      I stopped taking statins about 8 months ago, and I have regained most of my muscle structure, I can breath in deeply again, and my nightmares disappeared.

      Let's look at my serum cholesterol levels

      With statins 28/10/2013   LDL1.7, HDL2.2, Tric1.1 Serum Chol. 4.4

      without statins Oct2014   LDL3.1, HDL1.7,  Tric.9   Serum Chol. 5.2

      Had I  not done some research, I would have accepted my GP's offer to start statins again.

      I think that it is  irresponsible of NICE to instruct GP's to 'offer' statins to any patient within very rigid Qrisk assesments. GP's simply do not know enough about the subject, but the majority of patients wil probably 'take up the offer'

       

    • Posted

      I have been researching what the actual benefit of Statins is. My cardiologist told me she doesn't care how high my cholesterol is and that she wants me on Statins because it helps prevent plaque from breaking, which is apparently the major cause of coronary events. Again apparently it isn't known how Statins achieve this. Does anyone know anything about this?

  • Posted

    Many thanks to you all for your replies which have made very interesting reading.

    There are pros and cons for everything we do but I am have decided to stop taking simvastatin and continue with Armolipid plus.

    I will keep you posted!

    Thanks again.

     

    • Posted

      Reducing levels of cholesterol in and of its self is NOT a good idea (in fact there is mounting evidence that it is a VERY VERY bad idea).  What is essential is to try and eliminate inflammation. DRUGS are not the way to do this, (red yeast rice IS a statin [drug] ).  ONLY diet can achieve this.  Eliminate wheat, seed oils, refined sugars, ALL preservatives, MSG and e numbers etc etc.
  • Posted

    Hi all, it is over 4 months now since I stopped taking Simvastatin 40mg, see my original post.  

    I started taking Armolipid plus and the results are amazing - no leg/muscle pains, cholesterol levels are similar as when on statins.

    Another question  please:

    Does anyone know how long I should take Armolipid Plus, I was told 90 days but I cannot find any documentary evidence?

    I wondered if I should continue taking these daily?

    Any feedback would be greatly appreciated please.

    Thanks

    • Posted

      Hello, I am just considering to start using armolipid. To your question a known family acquaintance is advised by italian doctor not to stop taking it. Her age is 67. I am 44 and want to know if is there any side effect taking armolipid. Is this considered a drug or herbal integrator. Thanks for your advice.
    • Posted

      Hi Altin11021973

      I do not take Armolipid now as I did not have a reduction in my cholesterol level.

      I now take Ezetrol 10mg which is a drug and prescribed but it is not a statin.  I have been taking 1 tablet per day for 5 months with no side effects and my cholesterol has reduced.

      Hope this helps and good luck.

  • Posted

    Hello Mojuan,

    I would like to know the composition and effects of this medication called ARMOD LIPID PLUS.  I have been looking for information  on the Internet without any success. Could you tell anything, scientifically showed, if is possible,  about it, please? Maybe there are more people who are taking this.

    Thanks  

    • Posted

      Hello Maria

      Unfortunately I di not take them for long as they didnt seem to help, I now take Ezetrol 10mg which is not a statin and I do not have any side effects thank goodness.

      Good luck

      MoJuan

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the community is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.