Statins may impede the benefits of exercise

[JudoJosh]

Simvastatin impairs exercise training adaptations.
Abstract
[h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h]Determine if simvastatin impairs exercise training adaptations.
[h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h]Statins are commonly prescribed in combination with therapeutic lifestyle changes, including exercise, to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Statin use has been linked to skeletal muscle myopathy and impaired mitochondrial function, but it is unclear whether statin use alters adaptations to exercise training.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h]We examined the effects of simvastatin on changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and skeletal muscle mitochondrial content in response to aerobic exercise training. Sedentary overweight or obese adults with at least 2 metabolic syndrome risk factors (defined according to National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel III criteria) were randomized to 12 weeks of aerobic exercise training or to exercise in combination with simvastatin (40 mg per day). The primary outcomes were cardiorespiratory fitness and skeletal muscle (vastus lateralis) mitochondrial content (citrate synthase enzyme activity).
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]Thirty-seven participants (exercise plus statins; n=18; exercise only; n=19) completed the study. Cardiorespiratory fitness increased by 10% (P<0.05) in response to exercise training alone, but was blunted by the addition of simvastatin resulting in only a 1.5% increase (P<0.005 for group by time interaction). Similarly, skeletal muscle citrate synthase activity increased by 13% in the exercise only group (P <0.05), but decreased by 4.5% in the simvastatin plus exercise group (P<0.05 for group by time interaction).
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h]Simvastatin attenuates increases in cardiorespiratory fitness and skeletal muscle mitochondrial content when combined with exercise training in overweight or obese patients at risk of the metabolic syndrome.

 

[Lutztenways]

Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on those old guys with the spare tire at the gym who curl the 8 lb weights. They've been sabotaged by the false paradigms of western medicine. Prescribed Zocor (read: poison) and exercise at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, Doctors aren't bad people, but they don't let you be one until you've proven that you accept big pharma's doctrine.

 

[Resolve]

I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with mitochondrial oxidation.

 

[JudoJosh]

hmmm

[h=1]Statins and dietary and serum cholesterol are associated with increased lean mass following resistance training.[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h][h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h]Age-related muscle loss (sarcopenia) is a prevalent condition associated with disability and mortality. Exercise and optimal nutrition are interventions to prevent and treat sarcopenia, yet little is known, outside of protein, of the effect of common nutrition recommendations and medication use on exercise-related muscle gain.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h]Forty-nine community-dwelling, 60- to 69-year-old men and women completed 2 weeks of nutrition education (American Dietetic Association recommendations) followed by 12 weeks of high intensity resistance exercise training (RET) with postexercise protein supplementation and 3x/wk dietary logs.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]We observed a dose-response relationship between dietary cholesterol (from food logs) and gains in lean mass that was not affected by variability in protein intake. Serum cholesterol and the serum cholesterol lowering agent statin were also independently associated with greater increases in lean mass. Dietary cholesterol was not associated with serum cholesterol or the significant reduction in blood pressure observed, but trends were observed for altered plasma C-reactive protein.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h]These data suggest that dietary and serum cholesterol contribute to the skeletal muscles' response to RET in this generally healthy older population and that some statins may improve this response.

 

[JudoJosh]

I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with mitochondrial oxidation.

Via FT

Our findings suggest that simvastatin may mitigate improvements in fitness in response to exercise training by impairing increases in skeletal muscle mitochondrial content and function. In support of these data, physiologic doses of simvastatin disrupt mitochondrial respiration, increase oxidative stress, and activate mitochondrial apoptotic pathways in isolated skeletal muscle fibers (27). Similar observations have been reported in studies of muscle fibers taken from patients using statins (28), and high dose simvastatin (80 mg per day) has been shown to decrease skeletal muscle mitochondrial content in the absence of exercise (29,30). Statins have also been shown to reduce skeletal muscle force production (31), running capacity (17,18) and voluntary running volume (31) in rodents. Collectively, these data indicate that statins may induce mitochondrial oxidative stress which activates pathways of apoptosis or autophagy, mitigating increases in mitochondrial content and oxidative capacity in response to exercise training.

 

[Resolve]

Good find. I'm not surprised. Cholesterol plays a lot more into Redox reactions in the cell than many realize. It can actually function as a make-shift antioxidant when others aren't available, but oxidation and inflammation can stimulates its production, resulting in increased trig levels.

 

[mr.cooper69]

Doctors aren't bad people, but they don't let you be one until you've proven that you accept big pharma's doctrine.

Another totally ill-informed post...so much for the supplement science section

 

[Resolve]

Another totally ill-informed post...so much for the supplement science section

...Well the point of a forum is discussion. Nothing wrong with being wrong, you just have to be willing to own up to it when you are. There's a lot of misinformation out there, the whole point of the supp science section is to identify and discuss such concepts and inform the less educated users. Everybody's got something to learn still.

 

[mr.cooper69]

...Well the point of a forum is discussion. Nothing wrong with being wrong, you just have to be willing to own up to it when you are. There's a lot of misinformation out there, the whole point of the supp science section is to identify and discuss such concepts and inform the less educated users. Everybody's got something to learn still.

These discussions about conspiracy theories are not science. The purpose of this section is to scientifically investigate tools to improve one's lifestyle: diet, exercise, drugs, and supplements. This section was not designed to constantly voice opinions about the healthcare system. There is a chat section for that, where politics can be discussed. By virtue of this section's name, discussion should be evidence-based.

Regardless of my personal opinion on the US healthcare system, I still believe that we should try to focus on the content of the threads. I like the approach you took in addressing the "why?" of the OP. Thats what this section is all about: generating discussion and finding answers. If we can actually keep it on topic, I'm sure the whole forum will benefit.

 

[Resolve]

These discussions about conspiracy theories are not science. The purpose of this section is to scientifically investigate tools to improve one's lifestyle: diet, exercise, drugs, and supplements. This section was not designed to constantly voice opinions about the healthcare system. There is a chat section for that, where politics can be discussed. By virtue of this section's name, discussion should be evidence-based.

Regardless of my personal opinion on the US healthcare system, I still believe that we should try to focus on the content of the threads. I like the approach you took in addressing the "why?" of the OP. Thats what this section is all about: generating discussion and finding answers. If we can actually keep it on topic, I'm sure the whole forum will benefit.

But not everybody has the education to differentiate between what us and is not science. My point is merely that we should focus on education and correction, not derision. I absolutely agree discussion should be evidence based, i just have been in science long enough to know that you're never gonna have 100% on topic comments. Even in academic settings, ignorance ccomes to light. You just correct it for everyones mutual bemwfit and move on.

 

[JudoJosh]

I believe Coops intent was to prevent what happened in the DHEA thread and some other thread which I cant remember. There has been a recent trend where threads start to diverge off into a anti-medicine/pharmaceutical/doctors and the governemnt is out to get you type rants. This forum is not the place for it. We have a political forum where they can go on and on about how Obama and Monsanto is trying to kill us. This forum was specifically set up for us to discuss the mechanisms behind things.

 

[Resolve]

I believe Coops intent was to prevent what happened in the DHEA thread and some other thread which I cant remember. There has been a recent trend where threads start to diverge off into a anti-medicine/pharmaceutical/doctors and the governemnt is out to get you type rants. This forum is not the place for it. We have a political forum where they can go on and on about how Obama and Monsanto is trying to kill us. This forum was specifically set up for us to discuss the mechanisms behind things.

Sure, and that a legitimate concern. I'm just saying you can point the guy in the right direction and move on.

 

[Lutztenways]

My apologies for breaking the rules of this sub-forum. I certainly understood even before posting that my contribution was not evidence based and I'm embarrassed that my non-scientific comment became an issue and actually led to the addition of several even more totally off-topic tangents about my posting behavior.

Resolve, thank you for a clear example of professionalism and forum conduct for which we can all strive.

 

[Ballesteri]

Don't get me wrong, Doctors aren't bad people, but they don't let you be one until you've proven that you accept big pharma's doctrine.

Another totally ill-informed post...so much for the supplement science section

My apologies for breaking the rules of this sub-forum. I certainly understood even before posting that my contribution was not evidence based and I'm embarrassed that my non-scientific comment became an issue and actually led to the addition of several even more totally off-topic tangents about my posting behavior.

Resolve, thank you for a clear example of professionalism and forum conduct for which we can all strive.

Oh come on Coop you can't take yourself that seriously surely.... My brother is a doctor and my background is in alternative medicine, we have these discussions all the time with nod and wink comments such as Lutz posted and it does nothing but add a little flavor to the discussion. I am not saying the section is for rants as Josh is talking about but on a forum like this Lutz should not be made to apologize.

 

[mr.cooper69]

My apologies for breaking the rules of this sub-forum. I certainly understood even before posting that my contribution was not evidence based and I'm embarrassed that my non-scientific comment became an issue and actually led to the addition of several even more totally off-topic tangents about my posting behavior.

Resolve, thank you for a clear example of professionalism and forum conduct for which we can all strive.

Sorry if I came off as harsh...it was more a culmination of all the other posts (from others) in this section. Plus of course, I wasn't having the best of days.

Oh come on Coop you can't take yourself that seriously surely.... My brother is a doctor and my background is in alternative medicine, we have these discussions all the time with nod and wink comments such as Lutz posted and it does nothing but add a little flavor to the discussion. I am not saying the section is for rants as Josh is talking about but on a forum like this Lutz should not be made to apologize.

Did I ask for him to apologize? All I said was that there are other outlets for this discussion. I don't blame Lutzen for his sole comment; rather, I'm speaking about this section as a whole. If you look at the last few threads, they've degenerated into conspiracy theories galore. I can understand "nod and wink" comments, but some of those people were more serious/horrified than you could imagine. Objective discussion simply won't occur if you go in with the mindset that everything synthetic is poison and everything natural is effective.