Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#101

Post by brational »

carbocation wrote: post #30

Somehow LDL-cholesterol has come up in this thread about inflammation. The article here offers a highly speculative opinion regarding the role of inflammation across many diseases. The luminaries in cardiology cited in this article ran trials which many of us consider to show that, rather than inflammation being important, any reason to start statins is a good reason. The genetic data currently supports very little r…

>The treatment of statins is very much like the treatment of vaccines

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. There's not really anyone in the healthcare industry that would argue against vaccines but there are plenty professionals with qualification (mds, pharmacists, etc) that are against the broad use of statins.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#102

Post by briHass »

carbocation wrote: post #89
briHass wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is crystalline evidence supporting the connection between LDL-cholesterol levels and mortality The connection is very far from crystalline ([1],[2]) The strong association only seems to appear when considering groups with super high LDL-C levels, likely due to FHC. In any case, the typical approach, statins, has very little positive affect on individuals without pre-existing heart disease ([3],[4]) If vaccines…

In controlled, randomized trials and in genetically-driven studies (the two most powerful tools that we have to assess causality), almost all factors that reduce LDL-cholesterol lead to reduced ischemic heart disease and death. Your commentary about statins being primary useful for secondary prevention (in those who have already had a heart attack) was true until a couple decades ago, but there is now evidence demons…

The real question is, though, is drug therapy something that should be pushed on otherwise healthy (non-FHC/high risk) individuals in order to reduce mortality. The PCSK9 research paper you linked has the percentage dead after 15 years (starting at an average of 55 yr/o) at 10.7% for those without the mutation and 8.3% for those with it.

Assuming they actually work identically to the mutation, maybe one could argue that the $$$ cost of the new PCSK9 targeting drugs will be worth it to save 2.4%, but we have zero long term data on their safety. There is certainly some evidence [1] that the risk for diabetes could be higher...much like the current statins.

I don't think we have anything even approaching a complete picture on the interplay between CHD, cholesterol, and overall mortality. Until the picture becomes clearer, it doesn't seem prudent to push drug therapy as strongly as it typically is.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20026049

The coincidence of statins falling out of patent and the rush to develop PCSK9 drugs is not lost on me.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#103

Post by Joof »

Swizec wrote: post #6
DiabloD3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, there is no research stating that lowering dietary cholesterol leads to lowered blood levels and the reversal of fatty liver disease. There is research stating that fatty liver disease exists due to long term over-production of cholesterol in the liver, caused by low dietary cholesterol, and increasing dietary cholesterol can lead to the reversal of fatty liver disease; and such research isn't really…

> much of it is around a decade old now Has your doctor done any research/training about cholesterol in the last 10 years? I'm being snarky. But I think it's important to consider the lifecycle of doctor careers. If you go to a liver or cholesterol specialist, then I'm sure they will be up to date with even findings from the last year. But I wouldn't expect a GP to be up to date on what every field within medicine ha…

I think you would be saved by rephrasing to indicate a particular computer scientist. People are getting overly pedantic.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#104

Post by Joof »

Swizec wrote: post #6
DiabloD3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, there is no research stating that lowering dietary cholesterol leads to lowered blood levels and the reversal of fatty liver disease. There is research stating that fatty liver disease exists due to long term over-production of cholesterol in the liver, caused by low dietary cholesterol, and increasing dietary cholesterol can lead to the reversal of fatty liver disease; and such research isn't really…

> much of it is around a decade old now Has your doctor done any research/training about cholesterol in the last 10 years? I'm being snarky. But I think it's important to consider the lifecycle of doctor careers. If you go to a liver or cholesterol specialist, then I'm sure they will be up to date with even findings from the last year. But I wouldn't expect a GP to be up to date on what every field within medicine ha…

I think you would be saved by rephrasing to indicate a particular computer scientist. People are getting overly pedantic.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#105

Post by briHass »

atomical wrote: post #70
boothead wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem so: http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-p... I think that's essentially what a diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia means. Likewise people seem to vary widely in their ability to handle high carb diets. I guess a cookie cutter approach doesn't really work across the board.

It's curious you don't find this author biased.

That's an interesting statement considering you like to use links from nutritionfacts.org, written and run by a questionable [1][2] indivdual, Michael Gregor with an obvious bias towards vegetarian/vegan diets.

[1]https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-il...

[2] http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_doc_exposed_as_schlock/

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#106

Post by metamet »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #88
metamet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whole-foods plant-based There should be a lot of veggies, of course, but people seem to think that meat is evil and bad for you. There's a lot of very good reasons to eat lean meats, fish and grass-fed ruminants.

Well, there are plenty of recent studies that suggest that high-protein diets, and ones with a lot of meat in particular, are associated with increases in the rates of several cancers. But to just to play devil's advocate, why eat meat when you don't need to? I've seen some studies suggesting eating fish has health benefits (though there's the problem of pollution in the oceans), but I can't say I have seen anything…

The only issue with red meat would be the carcinogens that come from burning or charring. Saturated fat isn't the evil the FDA once thought it was.

There are also a ton of studies that suggest that one of the leading indicators for wellness and longevity is total lean mass, and protein is a fundamental building block for this. There simply isn't a way to eat a whole foods diet and put on muscle mass--you have to supplement with a bunch of pea protein and the like. And vegan/vegetarian diets are notoriously high in carbohydrates and low in fat and protein. Not necessarily a great recipe for wellness.

Add to that the androgenic affects that meat (and dairy) produce, and there isn't much that compares. And part of the reason why meat carries some association with cancer is its growth producing effects.

Of course, overeating and being sedentary is one of the worst things you can, regardless of if it's meat or not.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#107

Post by jpmattia »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #99
jpmattia wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What disappoints me the most here is now that I feel like it's all on me to determine what my real risk levels are and what's appropriate to treat this. A convoluted set of circumstances led me to a quick detour in grad school, to sit in on Anatomy at Harvard Med. This included the dissection portion, in which four med students hunch over the cadaver for 3-4 hours at a time. It lead to some of the best medical conv…

Agree 100%. The corollary is that, if you must play, make sure that you yourself are the best expert of your medical history, symptomology, and candidate hypotheses about what may be going on with your health. This is difficult, and perhaps futile, but the sad truth is that due to time issues (and probably information overload) it's your job to a) bootstrap the MD with whatever is relevant about your condition, and b…

One resource I would add to your list: http://www.uptodate.com/

Since few MDs can actually stay on top of the latest developments for all the different items that cross their desks, UpToDate serves as a curated summary of many medical conditions, and is updated every 6 months (? maybe 9, it's been a while) for each topic.

It is a subscription service, and if you are dealing with anything in between problematic-to-serious, it is well worth subscribing for a month. If the language is difficult in whatever article seems relevant to you, it is worth figuring out the language because it will provide a good jumping-off point to go examine the literature on which it is based (which is likely your next stop, for serious conditions.)

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#108

Post by noondip »

boothead wrote: post #67
atomical wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-mi... "The cholesterol in eggs not only worsens the effects of saturated fat, but has a dramatic effect on the level of cholesterol and fat circulating in our bloodstream during the day." I can't reply to the comment below me, but he does cite all the studies in his videos.

I just had a click round that website. It's just the kind of place that I avoid like the plague. It seems hopelessly biased, as does the author. I didn't come across one link to an scientific study, and it was immediately obvious that there's a serious anti animal products agenda going on and no disclaimer. Avoid.

It's quite apparent you didn't actually look through the website, or you are just a low-carb shill (if so, please see http://www.atkinsexposed.org - the same dietary nonsense seems to be repackaged by each generation). The NutritionFacts website is literally about published peer-reviewed research, not the author's own personal opinion, nor some "agenda" (pushed by whom, Big Broccoli?)

In case you aren't trolling, try disabling your ad-blocker. Each page has citations with direct links to the studies mentioned in each video.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#109

Post by shanusmagnus »

jpmattia wrote: post #107
shanusmagnus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100%. The corollary is that, if you must play, make sure that you yourself are the best expert of your medical history, symptomology, and candidate hypotheses about what may be going on with your health. This is difficult, and perhaps futile, but the sad truth is that due to time issues (and probably information overload) it's your job to a) bootstrap the MD with whatever is relevant about your condition, and b…

One resource I would add to your list: http://www.uptodate.com/ Since few MDs can actually stay on top of the latest developments for all the different items that cross their desks, UpToDate serves as a curated summary of many medical conditions, and is updated every 6 months (? maybe 9, it's been a while) for each topic. It is a subscription service, and if you are dealing with anything in between problematic-to-ser…

Great resource that I never would have known to look for. Thanks!

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#110

Post by noondip »

jawilson2 wrote: post #84
copperx wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently visited my GP and I had a high cholesterol reading. He suggested me to reduce sugars and white flours, get a reading in a month, and depending on that he'll decide whether to prescribe statins. It surprised me that he didn't mention reducing saturated fats or meat consumption. It made me wonder whether refined carbohydrates play a role in high cholesterol. I think I'll have to take a look at the research.

I've collected a lot of research on low-carb diets. In my previous job as a neurology professor, I had access to all of the most medical journals, and was able to save a lot. I have been on a ketogenic diet for 2 years now, and my LDL cholesterol went from 180 to 130, my HDL from 28 to 80, and my triglycerides from 140 to 75. Plus, I lost 70 pounds, no migraines for 2 years, and my anxiety and depression have all but…

Please see the PDF document on http://www.atkinsexposed.org/ and let me know how it relates to your research.
Post reply on HN