Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Refutes Protein's Role in Heart Attacks
ScienceNOW Daily News ^ | 30 June 2009 | Jennifer Couzin-Frankel

Posted on 07/04/2009 10:05:03 PM PDT by neverdem

Enlarge ImagePicture of protein

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: cad; chd; creactiveprotein; crp; health; heartdisease
Genetic Loci Associated With C-Reactive Protein Levels and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease

FReebie

1 posted on 07/04/2009 10:05:03 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It seems to me complex carbohydrates, trans fats, hydrogenated oils, and other such things cause heart disease.


2 posted on 07/04/2009 10:09:46 PM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Simple carbs (plus all the other items you mentioned).


3 posted on 07/04/2009 10:33:05 PM PDT by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

I think the big thing is genetics.


4 posted on 07/04/2009 10:45:34 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

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.


5 posted on 07/04/2009 11:06:44 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Don't blame me -- I use Linux.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

ping


6 posted on 07/05/2009 2:28:05 AM PDT by Bellflower (The end of this age is near but the beginning of the next glorious one is coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Anything that looks that much like a big hairy donut has to be dangerous.


7 posted on 07/05/2009 5:17:18 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL; austinmark; FreedomCalls; IslandJeff; JRochelle; MarMema; Txsleuth; Newtoidaho; ...
It seems to me complex carbohydrates, trans fats, hydrogenated oils, and other such things cause heart disease.

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.

8 posted on 07/05/2009 12:18:08 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
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.

***********************

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.

9 posted on 07/05/2009 12:24:22 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


10 posted on 07/05/2009 12:34:36 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The simple/complex dichotomy has long been abandoned. The article you point to says so but then it goes on into the more modern glycemic index approach to judging carbohydrate sources.

(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.

11 posted on 07/05/2009 1:25:49 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


12 posted on 07/05/2009 2:44:37 PM PDT by MainFrame65 (The US Senate: World's greatest PREVARICATIVE body!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
On the other hand do you inject insulin, or are you a Type II diabetic, or maybe you don't have diabetes at all.

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.

13 posted on 07/05/2009 2:52:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65

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.


14 posted on 07/05/2009 2:53:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


15 posted on 07/05/2009 4:06:31 PM PDT by MainFrame65 (The US Senate: World's greatest PREVARICATIVE body!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
Gee whiz, I don't do any of those things anymore either ~ but I can get a 100 point swing even after restricting my diet to raw hamburger or baked ham for a week or two (and it ain't all that bad ~ I think I may be a bit more carnivorous than other people).

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.

16 posted on 07/05/2009 5:36:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; muawiyah; MainFrame65; Ditter; trisham; Bellflower; HiTech RedNeck; LukeL; ...

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.


17 posted on 07/05/2009 6:45:19 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
"It seems to me complex carbohydrates, trans fats, hydrogenated oils, and other such things cause heart disease."

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.

18 posted on 07/05/2009 7:20:31 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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


19 posted on 07/05/2009 7:25:42 PM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; MainFrame65
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.

Don't fall for that trap, unless you already know how to read braille.

20 posted on 07/05/2009 7:29:21 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Cholestral is a general indication that your collagen is being decimated.

The liver detects the collagen breakdown products, and increases cholestral output to plug the holes (kind of like putting “Slime” in your bicycle tires).


21 posted on 07/05/2009 7:34:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The blood vessel growth that leads to blindness is not related to the “swings” ~ just to allowing yourself to run along at 284 ml/dl for years and years.


22 posted on 07/05/2009 8:08:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
The thing about "fat" is we need it. That's why our bodies make so doggone much of it.
23 posted on 07/05/2009 8:10:59 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Since about three years ago, I have chosen to cook exclusively with olive oil. Beyond the health benefits, I love the taste.

i use olive oil a lot, but i do not usually cook with it... it reaches its burning point too quickly, and this changes it's chemical make up... other good oils are avocado seed oil--healthier than olive oil in some ways... flaxseed/linseed oil... i also like to cook with real butter from time to time--in small amounts... no margarine! i do like olive oil for sautees and other low-heat uses... and for dressing up our vegetables... we try to follow a "mediterranean diet" for the most part... my husband lost 17 pounds in 8-10 weeks eating this way...

24 posted on 07/05/2009 8:36:08 PM PDT by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Just like with environmental science, there is a group of scientists/physicians that have been pushed somewhat underground by the establishment over cholesterol.

check out http://www.thincs.org/ for an interesting alternative take on cholesterol.


25 posted on 07/05/2009 9:39:08 PM PDT by Columbo (Just one more thing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65

Benfotiamine, a form of B1 works well for neuropathy, and is quite safe.


26 posted on 07/05/2009 10:05:03 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The simple/complex dichotomy has long been abandoned. The article you point to says so but then it goes on into the more modern glycemic index approach to judging carbohydrate sources.

Any good references would be appreciated. Glucose excursions appear to be also dependent on various amylase enzymes.

(Pssst, I hope you read your article.)

What kind of knucklehead do you think I am?

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.

Any good references would be appreciated.

27 posted on 07/06/2009 12:21:37 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Try almost anything you can find when you search simultaneously for “diabetes” “australia” “glycemic”.


28 posted on 07/06/2009 6:21:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

I have been using benfotiamine for nearly a year, and my neurologist has checked my thiamine blood level three times.

Before I started BF, it was barely within low normal level. I started taking 3x 150mg capsules a day, and the next measurement was twice normal. Then I cut back to one per day, and it returned to the top end of normal. And all that time I had been taking a daily multivitanin that included 100% of the thiamine MDR.


29 posted on 07/06/2009 6:52:10 AM PDT by MainFrame65 (The US Senate: World's greatest PREVARICATIVE body!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65

If you’re serious about fixing it, I have more suggestions.

I wonder if Allithiamine might help you. It is a true lipid soluble form of B1. Sometimes, it can help where Thiamine/Benfotiamine doesn’t.

Do you take B12 at all ?

If you want more suggestions perhaps you should post on ImmInst.org. Generally very helpful.


30 posted on 07/06/2009 8:35:54 AM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Thiamine, b6, and b12 are all at good levels now - the daily BF and multivitamin contribute to that. My neuropathy seems to be static at this point, and might even have regressed a little - hard to tell, because I have lost 60 pounds over the past 10 months, and am exercising strenuously - 1000+ calories on treadmill and arc trainer - for over an hour a day. I will see my neurologist in another month or so, and expect him to do another nerve conduction test that will let me know if I am making any progress.

By the way, my glucose thia morning was 85.


31 posted on 07/06/2009 9:58:48 AM PDT by MainFrame65 (The US Senate: World's greatest PREVARICATIVE body!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65

Congratulations on the fasting glucose.

Looks like you have things well under control.

Just pointing out that there are lots of (safe) things to try if your neuropathy doesn’t go away.

Good Luck!


32 posted on 07/06/2009 1:55:42 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson