Heart disease

Also, I have read many credible articles that do say that inflammation plays a huge role in heart disease. He's also suggesting that cholesterol is not the actual problem, as to why heart attacks occur.

This Johnny. He's discounting the cholesterol theory in favour of the inflammation theory.

Inflammation has always been the cause. Certain LDL particles (sdLDL) get caught up between the cell walls, oxidize and create inflamation. The body sends out macrophages from our immune system, just basically white blood cells to help repair the lesions but eventually get overrun with more LDL particles creating foam cells and when that happens it's pretty much the road to atherosclerosis.

Also, I have read many credible articles that do say that inflammation plays a huge role in heart disease. He's also suggesting that cholesterol is not the actual problem, as to why heart attacks occur.

This Johnny. He's discounting the cholesterol theory in favour of the inflammation theory.

Inflammation has always been the cause. Certain LDL particles (sdLDL) get caught up between the cell walls, oxidize and create inflamation. The body sends out macrophages from our immune system, just basically white blood cells to help repair the lesions but eventually get overrun with more LDL particles creating foam cells and when that happens it's pretty much the road to atherosclerosis.

Yes. So it looks like inflammation, not high cholesterol is the cause. We'll always produce and ingest cholesterol.

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

A VAP, Vertical Auto Profile tests for particle density and when you do some research, you'll soon find it pretty interesting I'm sure, I know I have.

I know the test can be done, but whether it becomes a standard paid by the Canuck/Ontario govt. is another story.

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

A VAP, Vertical Auto Profile tests for particle density and when you do some research, you'll soon find it pretty interesting I'm sure, I know I have.

I know the test can be done, but whether it becomes a standard paid by the Canuck/Ontario govt. is another story.

LOL.....hell no, we pay for that. I'm from Ontario as well and I get the test done regularily, well every 6 months for the last 5 years. You could get a CAT scan and check for calcification....no calcification, no problems. I've done that as well.

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Sugar lowers cholesterol levels.

According to this, sugar lowers good cholesterol, which isn't a good thing.
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100420/high-sugar-diet-linked-lower-good-cholesterol

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

Chances are a lot of things you eat are cleaned with or contain ammonia. It's a common agent, and many foods contain it naturally.

Didn't know that...

That's my impression to N, but if someone is saying the data is there to indicate certain dietary choices lead to chronic inflammation I'm rather interested. Of Amy Sue h data exists I want to see it.

You might be interested in this article. A New Dietary Inflammatory Index Predicts Interval Changes in Serum High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777480/#!po=22.0000
It's available on PMC for free and it provides details of how the dietary inflammation score was calculated ie. how foods etc. were weighted.

Abstract: Inflammation is associated with a number of chronic conditions, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Reducing inflammation may help prevent or treat these conditions. Diet has consistently been shown to modulate inflammation. To facilitate research into the inflammatory effect of diet on health in humans, we sought to develop and validate an Inflammatory Index designed to assess the inflammatory potential of individuals' diets. An Inflammatory Index was developed based on the results of an extensive literature search. Using data from a longitudinal observational study that carefully measured diet and the inflammatory marker, serum high-sensitivity (hs) C-reactive protein (CRP), in ~600 adults for 1 y, we conducted analyses to test the effect of Inflammatory Index score on hs-CRP as a continuous and dichotomous (≤3 mg/L, >3 mg/L) indicator of inflammatory response, while controlling for important potential confounders. Results based on continuous measures of hs-CRP suggested that an increasing Inflammatory Index score (representing movement toward an antiinflammatory diet) was associated with a decrease in hs-CRP. Analyses using hs-CRP as a dichotomous variable showed that an antiinflammatory diet was associated with a decrease in the odds of an elevated hs-CRP (P = 0.049). The results are consistent with the ability of the Inflammatory Index to predict hs-CRP and provide additional evidence that diet plays a role in the regulation of inflammation, even after careful control of a wide variety of potential confounders.

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Well, he does say that losing weight also significantly lower cholesterol, as well, if I'm not mistaken. That's true, there are no references, but I do think that diet plays a huge role, as well as genetics, since so many of my patients say they take their meds religiously, and stick to a much healthier diet, and still come back.

Then as a nurse, you'd know that patients aren't always honest about compliance and diet/exercise habits at home. Those patients that say they are, aren't a reliable source of information either, even though they should be for their own sake.

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Well, he does say that losing weight also significantly lower cholesterol, as well, if I'm not mistaken. That's true, there are no references, but I do think that diet plays a huge role, as well as genetics, since so many of my patients say they take their meds religiously, and stick to a much healthier diet, and still come back.

Then as a nurse, you'd know that patients aren't always honest about compliance and diet/exercise habits at home. Those patients that say they are, aren't a reliable source of information either, even though they should be for their own sake.

Yeah, those patients are filthy liars. No way those meds might actually be useless.