[ltbarcly3]

It's not though.

To get a statin you have to go to the doctor, get a blood test, get a prescription for the statin, and start taking it, get blood retested, adjust dose (possibly), etc. Then you have to go to the pharmacy, pay for it and take it every single day.

To exercise you literally have to walk for 30 minutes. That's it.

[hombre_fatal]

Walking for 30 min isn't going to do it either.

If you have high cholesterol, you probably have to change your diet to put any real dent in it, like reduce consumption of your favorite foods.

Meanwhile a low dose statin can drop your cholesterol by 30%.

[ltbarcly3]

Walking for 30 minutes/day when you previously walked 0 minutes/day will have a dramatically larger mortality reduction than taking a statin.

For the record adding a statin reduced my (genetically very high) cholesterol by over 50%, and I will almost certainly take it for the rest of my life. Diet and exercise changes led me to lose over 80lbs, required 0 doctor visits, cost $0, and has completely changed my life and my likely health trajectory.

So yes take statins, but no statins aren't 'easy' unless you are very well integrated into a health care system and actively having checkups where your cholesterol levels are being checked and reviewed, which is only true of a very low % of people in the US, even those with gold plated healthcare coverage.

[cthalupa]

> Walking for 30 minutes/day when you previously walked 0 minutes/day will have a dramatically larger mortality reduction than taking a statin.

It might for all-cause mortality, but it is unlikely to reduce ASCVD mortality more than a statin, or statin + ezetimibe would. Even if your high LDL isn't genetic, once you've done the damage to your arteries, it is basically going to stay there, and treatment targets for preventing further damage at that point (or some regression, if you get really aggressive with combo therapy and get down below 50) aren't often possible with lifestyle changes alone.

[ltbarcly3]

Yes, if you take my statement comparing A and B for the result C, then completely change B, and also completely change C, it might no longer be true.

[cthalupa]

Sure, but the primary point of the discussion for the article we're all discussing is around ASCVD, so switching to all-cause mortality is kind of moving the goalposts.

People at risk for ASCVD should also realistically just be doing both. It shouldn't be an either/or.

[ltbarcly3]

My response was pointing out you weren't actually responding to me, you were making some other point. My point was fully on topic within the context of the sub-thread.

All of this is fine, having your response take the shape of a rebuttal was silly.

[zargon]

If someone goes from not exercising at all to walking 30 minutes a day, it will make a definite dent in blood pressure. Changing diet will add another dent. Walking for 90 minutes a day will make a bigger dent than 30. The degree of the changes reflects the degree of the results.