Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Apr-29-15, 08:13
SabreCat50 SabreCat50 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 162
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 220/188/170 Male 6 ft 1 in
BF:
Progress: 64%
Location: Oakland, Florida, USA
Default New Study Strengthens the Case that LDL Causes Heart Disease

From Dr. Stephan Guyenet: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.c...e-that-ldl.html

Quote:
There is little remaining doubt in the scientific/medical community that high levels of LDL, so-called "bad cholesterol", cause heart disease. Yet in some alternative health circles, the debate continues. A new study adds substantially to the evidence that LDL plays a causal role in heart disease.

Introduction

Fat and cholesterol are transported through our blood via carriers called lipoprotein particles. The primary cholesterol-carrying lipoprotein particle in humans is low-density lipoprotein, or LDL. LDL delivers cholesterol to the body's tissues, where it's used to regulate cell membrane fluidity, synthesize hormones, and play many other important roles in the body [4/27 note: see comment section for information on LDL's role in reverse cholesterol transport]. Yet, we don't need very much LDL to fulfill this function, and most traditionally-living cultures have lower LDL levels than the modern average.

There is a huge mountain of evidence from multiple lines of investigation that high levels of LDL contribute to the thickening and degeneration of arteries called atherosclerosis. LDL particles get trapped in the blood vessel lining, depositing cholesterol and activating immune cells called macrophages. Somewhere along the line, the LDL becomes oxidized. Macrophages accumulate the oxidized LDL, grow into giant "foam cells", and eventually die, releasing their cargo of cholesterol and fat into the artery wall. Arterial lesions swell, and the tissue inside them becomes fibrous, calcified, and necrotic. Blood flow through the artery is restricted. Sometimes, the lesion bursts, causing a clot that stops blood flow to the heart, brain, or other tissues. This is a heart attack, stroke, or other embolism.

There are certainly contributors to cardiovascular risk besides LDL particles. HDL particles, for example, are probably protective*. Also, cigarette smoking greatly increases the risk of having a heart attack, and this increase in risk is largely independent of effects on blood lipids. Similarly, the protective effects of exercise are partially independent of blood lipids. Yet nothing changes the fact that, all things being equal, higher lifetime LDL = higher risk.

In some corners of the alternative health community, the idea persists that LDL is unrelated to cardiovascular risk. I think this is wrong, and frankly, dangerous.

Statin drugs, as we know, reduce LDL cholesterol and also reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk groups. Some people have argued that statins have effects besides LDL lowering that could explain their protective action. It's not an unreasonable idea. Yet a new class of cholesterol-lowering drug promises to erase any remaining doubt that lowering LDL protects against heart attack risk.

Enter PCSK9

PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) is an enzyme that regulates levels of the LDL receptor. The less PCSK9 there is in a liver cell, the more LDL receptor that cell will express, and the more LDL cholesterol it will remove from the blood. In short, lower PCSK9 = lower LDL. Researchers have known since 2006 that people with naturally occurring mutations that inactivate PCSK9 have a much lower risk of cardiovascular events (1). Therefore, PCSK9 was considered an extremely valuable drug target.

Well, a decade has passed, and we now have drugs that inhibit PCSK9. They are antibodies that, once injected, bind and inactivate the enzyme. Turns out, these drugs can lower LDL by about half, which beats statins. Yet PCSK9 inhibitors have not gone completely through the drug development pipeline, so all we have are preliminary studies on whether or not they actually protect against heart attacks and stroke. A new meta-analysis cobbles together all of the preliminary reports, allowing us to get a better idea of whether or not these drugs actually work.

The study

Eliano Navarese and colleagues collected data from 24 phase II and phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trials of PCSK9 inhibitors (2). These trials included data from over 10,000 patients. Navarese and colleagues compiled the data on efficacy and safety, and analyzed it statistically.

The results

PCSK9 inhibitors reduced LDL cholesterol by nearly half (49.5%). They also reduced heart attacks by more than half (51%), and all-cause mortality by more than half (55%).

PCSK9 inhibitors didn't increase the rate of serious adverse events.

Interpretation

We now have two independent drug therapies, statins and PCSK9 inhibitors, that substantially reduce LDL levels by completely different mechanisms. Both appear to reduce cardiovascular risk, although we'll need additional randomized, controlled trials to be 100% certain about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors (the trials in this meta-analysis were generally short and weren't designed to measure effects on cardiovascular events or mortality).

The mountain of evidence implicating LDL in cardiovascular disease just got larger. I hope this will be a wake-up call for people who don't think LDL is important.


* Some people have questioned this, based on the results of the CETP inhibitor trials, which increased HDL cholesterol but didn't reduce cardiovascular risk. This is not a very convincing argument against the importance of HDL, and here's why: there's no reason to expect that pumping HDL particles full of extra cholesterol would reduce cardiovascular risk. One of HDL's jobs is to take cholesterol out of the artery wall and bring it to the liver for disposal. Artificially increasing the cholesterol cargo of the particle, as CETP inhibitors do, isn't going to help HDL take more cholesterol out of the artery-- if anything, it should reduce its capacity to do so. It's essentially "treating a number", with no regard for the biological mechanism of action of the HDL particle. We don't yet understand how to increase the ability of the HDL particle to transport cholesterol out of the artery, but if we can enhance that process, we will probably have another effective means of protecting against heart disease.


What do you think?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Apr-29-15, 08:34
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is online now
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I think you should read the comments. He's taken to task in the very first one. :-)
Quote:
Causing LDL "causal" is a bit of a stretch. Sort of like saying the barrel of a gun was the cause of death. It's the bullet travelling through the barrel that does the damage.

Of course reducing the number of barrels would reduce the number of bullets...

You've documented well in the past how different environments and diets seem to affect CVD risk. And there's mounting evidence for just such a connection:

"Oxidized LDL Regulates Macrophage Gene Expression through Ligand Activation of PPARγ"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...092867400815743

"Lowering dietary linoleic acid reduces bioactive oxidized linoleic acid metabolites in humans"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...952327812001469
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Apr-29-15, 11:34
Turtle2003's Avatar
Turtle2003 Turtle2003 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,449
 
Plan: Atkins, Newcastle
Stats: 260/221.8/165 Female 5'3"
BF:Highest weight 260
Progress: 40%
Location: Northern California
Default

There is little remaining doubt that every time I read the expression "there is little remaining doubt that", my blood pressure goes sky high. It is just like "it is well known that" and "it is well established that".

I am immediately suspicious of whatever is about to be said.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Apr-29-15, 15:21
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

As far as I know, we've already established insulin is the primary mechanism by which atherosclerosis is formed. Yeah, insulin isn't strictly a mechanism, it's a hormone, but its action in the body is a mechanism and atherosclerosis is one effect of these actions.

Let's be a little pedantic. Causality and mechanism are often confused. For example, "what's the cause of death?". The answer isn't strictly an explanation of causality, but one of mechanism, i.e. trauma to the head. To know the actual cause (in the strict sense of the word) of death, we'd have to find out what event came before this trauma to the head and is also proportional to it in magnitude. Now substitute "trauma to the head" with "atherosclerosis". The cause of death isn't atherosclerosis, it's carbohydrate poisoning. That's the cause. The means (the mechanism, the tools, the sequence of events and actions) by which carbohydrate poisoning acts to eventually produce the effect atherosclerosis is primarily through insulin and its action on the arteries.

And so when Stephan says "LDL causes heart disease", he really means "LDL is a mechanism/tool/event by which heart disease is caused". And so if that's what he really means, then to go with that gun/barrel analogy, we can't simply reduce the number of barrels or even bullets, we have to go for the guy pulling the trigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxim...imate_causation

Last edited by M Levac : Wed, Apr-29-15 at 15:31.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Apr-30-15, 05:07
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

With something like this, it might be as much a problem of insulin failing to pull the trigger as anything else. I'm talking about triggering a more positive mechanism, here, getting away from the bullet metaphor. Or this that and the other. Most insulin is cleared during the first pass in the liver, liver insulin resistance could give the double blow of insufficient insulin signalling in the liver, and excess signalling elsewhere.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22426206

Quote:
Regulation of hepatic LDL receptors by mTORC1 and PCSK9 in mice.
Ai D1, Chen C, Han S, Ganda A, Murphy AJ, Haeusler R, Thorp E, Accili D, Horton JD, Tall AR.
Author information
Abstract
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of atherosclerosis. One factor underlying this is dyslipidemia, which in hyperinsulinemic subjects with early type 2 diabetes is typically characterized by increased VLDL secretion but normal LDL cholesterol levels, possibly reflecting enhanced catabolism of LDL via hepatic LDLRs. Recent studies have also suggested that hepatic insulin signaling sustains LDLR levels. We therefore sought to elucidate the mechanisms linking hepatic insulin signaling to regulation of LDLR levels. In WT mice, insulin receptor knockdown by shRNA resulted in decreased hepatic mTORC1 signaling and LDLR protein levels. It also led to increased expression of PCSK9, a known post-transcriptional regulator of LDLR expression. Administration of the mTORC1 inhibitor rapamycin caused increased expression of PCSK9, decreased levels of hepatic LDLR protein, and increased levels of VLDL/LDL cholesterol in WT but not Pcsk9-/- mice. Conversely, mice with increased hepatic mTORC1 activity exhibited decreased expression of PCSK9 and increased levels of hepatic LDLR protein levels. Pcsk9 is regulated by the transcription factor HNF1α, and our further detailed analyses suggest that increased mTORC1 activity leads to activation of PKCδ, reduced activity of HNF4α and HNF1α, decreased PCSK9 expression, and ultimately increased hepatic LDLR protein levels, which result in decreased circulating LDL levels. We therefore suggest that PCSK9 inhibition could be an effective way to reduce the adverse side effect of increased LDL levels that is observed in transplant patients taking rapamycin as immunosuppressive therapy.


Insulin itself is a PCSK9 inhibitor, through its receptors in the liver.

Um, from Stephan's post;

Quote:
PCSK9 inhibitors reduced LDL cholesterol by nearly half (49.5%). They also reduced heart attacks by more than half (51%), and all-cause mortality by more than half (55%).


Quote:
(the trials in this meta-analysis were generally short and weren't designed to measure effects on cardiovascular events or mortality).



So the studies in the metastudy weren't designed to show what the metastudy shows... I think what the metastudy shows is that it's probably worth doing the sort of study that would measure these effects.

As far as ldl cholesterol "causing" heart disease goes--researchers knew, going in, that cholesterol is incorporated into atherosclerotic plaque. So it's a player. So, disrupt cholesterol metabolism in various ways, see what happens. If you found a way to disrupt cholesterol metabolism that did protect from heart disease, that wouldn't necessarily mean that ldl cholesterol was the cause, or even that in this specific case, lowering ldl cholesterol in and of itself was what had the desired effect. Maybe transporting that ldl into the liver is as important as getting it out of the blood.

I also wonder what effect this has on particle count. Increased ldl-receptors ought to lower it.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Apr-30-15, 07:49
SabreCat50 SabreCat50 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 162
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 220/188/170 Male 6 ft 1 in
BF:
Progress: 64%
Location: Oakland, Florida, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
... So the studies in the metastudy weren't designed to show what the metastudy shows... I think what the metastudy shows is that it's probably worth doing the sort of study that would measure these effects. ...



Thanks, Teaser. This helps a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Apr-30-15, 08:19
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is online now
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Well done, Teaser!
Quote:
As far as ldl cholesterol "causing" heart disease goes--researchers knew, going in, that cholesterol is incorporated into atherosclerotic plaque. So it's a player. So, disrupt cholesterol metabolism in various ways, see what happens. If you found a way to disrupt cholesterol metabolism that did protect from heart disease, that wouldn't necessarily mean that ldl cholesterol was the cause, or even that in this specific case, lowering ldl cholesterol in and of itself was what had the desired effect. Maybe transporting that ldl into the liver is as important as getting it out of the blood.
Definitely worth reading twice!

As that commenter said, LDL is the part of the gun, but it is the bullet that actually kills. Determining that LDL is the bullet, is probably not correct.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Apr-30-15, 10:50
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,044
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

The danger in the conclusion that LDL "causes heart disease" ignores the reason for its overall metabolic role. PCSK9 likely has a critical role under certain circumstances that are not fully explored. So, when the solution is to prescribe a PCSK9 inhibitor, no one can know the complete impact of such a drug until the mechanism and role of PCSK9 are fully understood. Attempting to identify as a root cause a component and product of the metabolic process can be a very dangerous thing when done with limited knowledge. I'm inclined, based on history, to assume the role it plays shouldn't be disrupted.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:08.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.