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

Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

harvardmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#231

Post by RobertRoberts »

tim333 wrote: post #157
RobertRoberts wrote: post #7

How can a symptom be the "cause" of a disease? Gingivitis is "inflammation of the gums", but it's "caused" by bacteria, plaque, tarter, etc... inflammation is the description of what is happening (ie, symptom) not the "cause".

The gum disease thing is actually one of the best bits of evidence for the inflammation does bad stuff hypothesis: >People with gum disease (also known as periodontal disease) have two to three times the risk of having a heart attack, stroke, or other serious cardiovascular event. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/gum-disease-and-... The idea is bacteria in the gums cause inflammation (red swollen flesh, mo…

The symptoms of gum disease (a generic term) can be inflammation (I am not a dentist). But suppressing the symptom of inflammation doesn't cure gum disease.

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#232

Post by RobertRoberts »

iron0013 wrote: post #197
RobertRoberts wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you cure the "cause" then the symptoms go away too.

Well, sometimes, but sometimes it's like closing the barn door after the cattle have escaped--too late!

Eventually you will get the cattle back and it's best to have the door fixed when you do. If you don't the cattle will just run back out.

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#233

Post by RobertRoberts »

naasking wrote: post #181
mhkool wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "root cause" was not invented for nothing. One should always try to find the root cause since if you do not find it you are fighting a symptom instead of a cause. There is a huge amount of research about what causes inflammation so it is correct to say that inflammation is a symptom not a cause.

> There is a huge amount of research about what causes inflammation so it is correct to say that inflammation is a symptom not a cause. It is not necessarily just a symptom, that's the point. So no, it's not necessarily correct because sometimes inflammation is exactly the cause.

I think because a symptom can be part of a cascade of problems doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss the root cause as the most important thing. As far as I know suppressing inflammation is a temporary stop-gap, not a cure.

Can you demonstrate where inflammation does not have a root cause?

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#234

Post by RobertRoberts »

refurb wrote: post #163
RobertRoberts wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that a faulty immune system is the cause in MS, and inflammation is the symptom... can you clarify your example?

Sure, the immune system is at fault, but it’s the inflammation that causes the damage. Since we don’t have great tools to tweak the immune system, if we prevent inflammation, we can stop the disease.

It seems illogical to attempt to redefine inflammation from a symptom to a cause because of the inability to cure the known cause.

Suppressing inflammation is still temporary relief, not a cure for the root cause.

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#235

Post by bsmith »

redwards510 wrote: post #44
bsmith wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome that it worked so well for you while it did. Tip for others who may try this: don't forget to lower your macros (and, in turn, calories) an appropriate amount as your weight drops. The same diet that maintains keto at 250 lbs won't keep you in keto at 190. For much, much more: https://peterattiamd.com/

Keto is the absence of carbs. So the same diet that maintains keto at 250 will keep you in keto at 190, since it is what you eat, not how much you are eating. But you are absolutely correct that one must change their caloric intake as they lose weight if they want to keep losing weight.

While on the surface this may seem true, this is actually totally false. For example, if you eat too much protein in one meal (even with no carbs) it will still throw the body out of ketosis. The science of staying in keto is way more nuanced than "no carbs" (which is nutritionally impossible, anyway). Again, read the blog I linked to if you want to know more.

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#236

Post by frankzinger »

mleonhard wrote: post #116

Is this a PR piece paid for by Novartis, the makers of Canakinumab? Wikipedia says the drug costs $8k/week and the initial study showed no survival benefit. Then "further analysis" showed a big benefit. Something seems off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canakinumab

No, the article isn't about this drug at all. It gets mentioned at the beginning, mostly. The rest talks about biology. The main takewaways for me, after having read it in its entirety, were:

  * exercise regularly
  * don't overeat
  * ensure you're getting enough omega-3 (EDA and DHA,
    from fish/fish oil/algae) and arachidonic acid 
    (beef/chicken/eggs)

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#237

Post by frankzinger »

baxtr wrote: post #102

> People already know what they should be doing—but for most, that knowledge doesn’t change behavior. Humans are hard-wired to conserve energy (see “Born to Rest,” September-October 2016, page 9), for example, and to prefer foods that are fatty, salty, and sugary. This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease. Really?…

> Really? What about side effects? Why not work on becoming smart instead of telling people to eat pills?

From the end of the article:

“To treat excessive inflammation, whether it is chronic or the result of an acute tissue injury, we don’t want to block the inflammatory response. We want to stimulate the resolution pathways.”

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#238

Post by frankzinger »

frankzinger wrote: post #237
baxtr wrote: post #102

> People already know what they should be doing—but for most, that knowledge doesn’t change behavior. Humans are hard-wired to conserve energy (see “Born to Rest,” September-October 2016, page 9), for example, and to prefer foods that are fatty, salty, and sugary. This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease. Really?…

> Really? What about side effects? Why not work on becoming smart instead of telling people to eat pills? From the end of the article: “To treat excessive inflammation, whether it is chronic or the result of an acute tissue injury, we don’t want to block the inflammatory response. We want to stimulate the resolution pathways.”

I realise my comment wasn't very clear. The way the article recommends to stimulate the resolution pathways does imply the possibility of such drugs in the future, but primarily they explain that consuming chicken, beef, eggs, fish, and fish oil or algae (for omega-3 EDA and DHA) will promote the synthesis of these substances in one's body.

Overall they are definitely not promoting the use of drugs over lifestyle improvements. They talk about lifestyle improvements throughout the article and this was my primary takeaway: exercise regularly; don't overeat; eat those things mentioned above.

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#239

Post by the_economist »

copperx wrote: post #218
the_economist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a 5-day fast last month. Water only, 120 hours. In the 30 days since I completed the fast, my fasting blood glucose has dropped from ~80-90 down to 65-75. I'm concerned about the accuracy of my Freestyle Libre, but it was previously consistent with professional labs. Anyway, a long term fast like the one I did may help improve your insulin resistance; it seems it did for me.

As someone with a fasting glucose of 95-99 (my GP isn't concerned, I'm not a diabetic), I wonder why would you want to reduce fasting glucose if it's not even in the prediabetic range?

https://chriskresser.com/when-your-normal-blood-sugar-isnt-n...

In this study, people with FBG levels above 95 had more than 3x the risk of developing future diabetes than people with FBG levels below 90: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(08)00231-3/fulltex...

This study showed progressively increasing risk of heart disease in men with FBG levels above 85 mg/dL, as compared to those with FBG levels of 81 mg/dL or lower: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16207847

Re: Inflammation might be the root of preventable disease

#240

Post by the_economist »

Kirth wrote: post #138
the_economist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a 5-day fast last month. Water only, 120 hours. In the 30 days since I completed the fast, my fasting blood glucose has dropped from ~80-90 down to 65-75. I'm concerned about the accuracy of my Freestyle Libre, but it was previously consistent with professional labs. Anyway, a long term fast like the one I did may help improve your insulin resistance; it seems it did for me.

Did you notice any other effects from your fast?

I haven't had a full panel of biomarkers tested since the fast. I will post here when I do.

The only obvious changes have been 1. Smoother, younger looking skin with fewer blemishes 2. I look ripped

Post reply on HN