Evolving evidence. In a massive study, C-reactive protein didn’t boost the risk of heart attacks.
Credit: Wikipedia
Posted on 07/04/2009 10:05:03 PM PDT by neverdem
Evolving evidence. In a massive study, C-reactive protein didn’t boost the risk of heart attacks.
Credit: Wikipedia
A new study may be the last word in a controversy that's plagued cardiovascular disease research for years: whether a marker of inflammation known as C-reactive protein (CRP) drives heart attacks and strokes. In a survey of more than 128,000 people, researchers have found that genes that raise CRP levels don't make cardiovascular disease more likely. Although the study arrives at the same conclusion as earlier work, its massive size makes it statistically the most powerful test yet of this question and tough to refute, say experts.
Produced by the liver, CRP has long been eyed as a suspect in heart disease. In part, that's because of observational studies, which regularly find that higher CRP levels are associated with later heart trouble. CRP is also a vague indicator of many health problems that hike the risk of heart attacks and strokes, including obesity and type 2 diabetes. But these kinds of associations don't mean that CRP is actually causing heart attacks. Indeed, last fall, Danish researchers reported that genes that raise CRP don't appear to cause cardiovascular disease (ScienceNOW, 29 October 2008).
Now, a team of three dozen researchers from the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and elsewhere have teamed up to examine the question again. They drew on numerous health studies, which have banked DNA from tens of thousands of participants. Like the earlier Danish group, this one, led by epidemiologist Paul Elliott of Imperial College London, began with a simple premise: If high CRP levels cause heart attacks, then genes that raise CRP levels should also raise the risk of heart attacks. The researchers studied three variants that each raised CRP by about 20%. Then they tested whether having at least one of these variants made cardiovascular disease more likely in more than 28,000 people with disease and in 100,000 people without. The result: The genes had no effect on heart disease, the group reports tomorrow in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
"It's fairly well nailed shut" now, says James de Lemos, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "It's hard for me to imagine CRP is causal." Instead, he and others believe, the protein may be linked to other molecules that are driving disease--or it may simply indicate inflammation of the arteries that's already present, not disease that's yet to come.
Given the new data, Mark Pepys, a CRP expert at University College London, says it doesn't make sense to look for a drug that targets CRP to prevent heart attacks. Whether CRP is a useful way to gauge the risk of later disease is up in the air, he says, because it's unclear whether CRP levels add helpful information beyond the usual measures, such as family history and obesity.
This latest CRP study also raises questions about a clinical trial published last year called JUPITER. In that study, people with normal cholesterol levels received medication that lowered cholesterol levels as well as CRP, and their hearts benefited (ScienceNOW, 10 November 2008). Some argued that the trial prevented disease because CRP levels dropped, but others said that the real benefit was due to lowering cholesterol in those whose levels are normal to begin with. Increasingly, the latter point appears to be the case, says Elliott.
It seems to me complex carbohydrates, trans fats, hydrogenated oils, and other such things cause heart disease.
Simple carbs (plus all the other items you mentioned).
I think the big thing is genetics.
Moderate daily consumption of olive oil significantly suppresses the formation of unwanted blood clots, whether in the heart, lung, brain, or elsewhere. The effect only lasts for a day or so, so the dietary intake must be kept up.
Another paradoxical discovery is that while fat people do get more heart attacks, those heart attacks are likely to be less severe than those suffered by thin people.
ping
Anything that looks that much like a big hairy donut has to be dangerous.
Trans fats are usually partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.
Complex carbohydrates are usually your friends. Here's a good summary with references as recent as 2008.
Carbohydrates: Good Carbs Guide the Way
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.
***********************
Since about three years ago, I have chosen to cook exclusively with olive oil. Beyond the health benefits, I love the taste.
Another paradoxical discovery is that while fat people do get more heart attacks, those heart attacks are likely to be less severe than those suffered by thin people.
******************
That's interesting. It does seem odd, but I have long wondered if extreme thinness is a health risk.
Thanks for the info, I just printed it out for my husband, he is the Type 2 diabetic and he is having trouble with his blood sugar.
(Pssst, I hope you read your article.)
It has a something that's a chronic error ~ the difficulty with fructose ~ or fruit sugar. Ordinarily these sugars are so wrapped up in fibers they aren't a real problem. When fruits and vegetables are turned into juice, the sugar is no longer well wrapped and you might as well be eating sugar by the spoonful.
I eat several pieces of fresh fruit every day - A banana, some raisins, one or more peaches, nectarines, or plums, perhaps an orange, and usually two or three apples - depending on which ones are in season. And my glucose averages below 100, both morning and late evening.
Remember, the primary diabetic problem is control of glucose levels. Sugar, from whatever sources, is turned into glucose in the liver ~ just like we were big ol' bumble bees!
I've been working at this for half a decade and I think I've gotten my daily swings down to about 110 points ~ can't imagine an "average" of 100.
BTW, bananas are NEVER recommended to diabetics. There’s no fiber in the fleshy part you eat and that sugar is just sitting there ready to be turned into glucose. I think the glycemic level for bananas is the same as white bread, orange juice and cane sugar ~ to wit: 100.
I described myself earlier. Five years ago, after 3 years of progressive loss of feeling in my feet and legs, but NORMAL fasting glucose levels, my Dr found that my A1c was nearly 8. He handed me a copy of a diabetic diet, and a prescription for a meter. I was supposed to just measure glucose twice a day to establish a baseline. The following evening I had the featured dish at a chinese restaurant - sweet & sour something, over a heaping mound of rice - and a glucose reading of 244 two hours after the meeting!
So I did some research, and decided that the diabetic diet was filled with carbohydrates - and I would be better served with a low-glycemic diet - and it has CONTROLLED my glucose for 5 years, with NO medications for diabetes. My A1c is normal, and my glucose (2-4 hours after eating) is normal as well. But the neuropathy (confirmed by nerve conduction tests - persists, although it has stopped getting worse.
According to some, I am not diabetic like my mother was, but I know that sugar, (including orange juice or soft drinks,) rice, or potatoes in any quantity will send my glucose above 200 again, and pasta or bread are almost as bad. I suppose that would be the hundred-point swing you describe - but I don’t do those things any more.
The problem is I used to get 200+ swings ABOVE 110.
Helps you sleep Fur Shur.
My A1C, however, is in the "normal range".
More recently the researchers have been suggesting the swings "ain't no thang" when it comes to heart condition and we may be better off not worrying about them.
I will not trust any study unless they say whether the difference was in relative risk or absolute risk. Since this study recommends lowering cholesterol even in people with normal (defined as whatever they say it is today), makes me wonder if this study was funded by a drug company that sells statins. Stastistics can be so used and abused.
Have to agree that the body treats all carbs as carbs. Yes, “good” carbs are processed more slowly, but they are still carbs.
I know neverdem has seen this, but for others, this might be of interest to you, although it flies in the face of conventional wisdom:
Thisis a straightforward, real science blog -
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/figure-flaw-paradox-does-it-really.html - Does it really matter how your figure measures up?
Another good real science site: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=3232247&page=1 - If there is no benefit, why tolerate any risk?
Also, suggest the book Overdosed America (except for his lame support of gov’t health care), and the books by Dr. Nortin Hadler, MD.
Bacterial inflammation causes most heart attacks.
Consumption of carbohydrates raises blood glucose levels, thus boosting the bacterial count, and increasing the risk. Sugar is the enemy, regardless of what disease you are dealing with.
I have always thought of cholesterol as being an indicator of inflammation, like how WBC is a marker for infection, if you artificially lower the cholesterol the inflammation is sill present its just that there is less cholesterol to stick to the inflamed walls of the arteries
Don't fall for that trap, unless you already know how to read braille.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.