I‘m confused, studies like this one [1] associate decreased fatty acid oxidation in the heart with heart enlargement and subsequent heart failure. Does this concern different cell types?
It probably matters immensely which specific molecule is blocked and if you block one too early in some process then critical intermediates can’t be made. Sort of like deleting some code, it matters what’s downstream, so maybe earlier parts of this process are bad to block, but if you have a heart attack, then blocking later parts of the same process could trick your heart cells back into regenerating instead of being stable.
Also worth noting, this could be an example of hormesis. A metabolic approach to de-differentiate heart cells into a more primitive form by disrupting the way they process fats could be considered a toxic insult which triggers some defense (stemness) which is the proximate cause / helpful thing (not the toxic insult)
The study you linked shows that fatty acid oxidation accelerates cardiac hypertrophy.
The study linked above shows that fatty acid oxidation results in apparent hyperplastic and hypertrophic growth of the myocardium.
There are some significant differences between the observations in both studies, though, so they're not directly comparable. I wouldn't say they contradict each other though.
The two studies also reduced fatty acid oxidation very differently: One via microbiome manipulation and the other via genetic manipulation. Both routes will have side effects well beyond this singular measure, so they can't be compared directly.
Regardless, neither study is meant to indicate a viable medical procedure. The researchers are teasing out mechanisms that might be harnessed in the future to do something more useful.
Does that contradict what is being said here, though? The straightforward reconciliation of the two: Some inhibition leads to regeneration; extended inhibition leads to runaway growth leading to abnormally enlarged cardiomusculature and health complications?
Don’t know about the exact inverse. But disease X could be improved while disease Y risk rises. It’s curious that both studies are about cardiac health. Maybe there’s different types of FAO, or FAO is desirable in some cell types but not in others.
If you have fifty different groups studying roughly the same thing and publishing any interesting-looking results with p<.05, you're probably going to have some spurious results on the topic. If you have 500 groups, you're going to have a lot of spurious and probably some outright contradictory results published.
In many cases, with large enough numbers, the spurious results will outnumber the real ones, especially so since true-null-hypothesis results are often unpublished.
I carry a mild form of CPT1A deficiency (I have Inuit heritage) and this prevents ketosis on a high fat (think ocean fats like blubber) diet. But put me under with propanol (A CPT1 inhibitor) and they have to pump me full of glucose.
Sorry, but you all are thick and dull because you never think genetics matter when it comes to diet. You think we are all the same and almost every study on nutrition does not account for genetics. In mice, they all have the same genetics, but as humans we vary more than you think.
The bad forms of CPT1 Deficiency lead to lifelong problems of hypoglycemia because they are homozygous for the change. They are a sacrifice that enabled the Inuit to survive on the diet we are provided in our ecosystem and we cherish these children.
You all are trying to be something you are not, something far from your ancestors. It is sad.
> you all are thick and dull because you never think genetics matter
This is uncalled for and untrue. There are a lot of human nutrition studies which account for genetics. It sounds like you’re angry, you should think about why that is before lashing out.
>In mice, they all have the same genetics, but as humans we vary more than you think.
This is deliberate, so that the research question can be isolated from variation in mouse genetics as much as possible. Different types of research use different mouse lineages according to their purposes. Do you think scientists are not aware of the role of genetics, or the great variability? The goal is to elucidate fundamental aspects of cell function:
>We conclude that metabolic maturation shapes the epigenetic landscape of cardiomyocytes
No one is trying to make you take a pill or alter your lifestyle because of this research.
>This is deliberate, so that the research question can be isolated from variation in mouse genetics as much as possible.
The breeding process for said mice may represent an evolutionary pressure[1] that alters them sufficiently that they are no longer suitable for an analog to humans[2], unlike their wild brethren. Or so sayeth the evolutionary biologists.
>>> You know what else inhibits fatty acid oxidation? CPT1A (Carnitine palmitoyltransferase I) Deficiency.
If I am not mistaken, the problem with CPT1A is upstream, way before oxidation occurs, in the breakdown of the long chain fatty acids before they can go into the mitochondria for oxidation. Unrelated to inhibiting oxidation
Genetics matter a lot here for sure, mainly in that the genetics of mice vary greatly from all humans. It's still important to study and understand these interactions.
Simply, unprocessed food and drinking plain water (not pure as in distilled but with sufficient electrolytes in it).
But the greatest impact would be lifestyle changes in general. You cannot just diet your way out of a heart disease.
Well, maybe this population [0] of subsistence farmers will give you a hint.
In the modern world it is an uphill battle. And there are some people with hypocholesterolemia [1] who will have arteries in near pristine condition despite living a modern (unhealthy) lifestyle.
There are two broad strategies here which can be combined:
(1) Adhering to (strict) rules which will consume your resource of willpower. A very effective one: Don't drink sugary drinks. An unconvenient one for most people: Don't eat out.
(2) Modifying your modern environment to such an extent that it resemble choices humans made before the modern lifestyle i.e. a lot of physical activity, offline times, no processed food, being outdoors (e.g. a garden). To reap the benefits from both a modern lifestyle and a lifestyle we are evolutionary adapted to, this of course will cost you money in a crowded city and (unpaid) time you would otherwise use for earning money.
These findings suggest that coronary atherosclerosis can be avoided in most people by achieving a lifetime with very low LDL, low blood pressure, low glucose, normal body-mass index, no smoking, and plenty of physical activity. The relative contributions of each are still to be determined.
wrt (1), when I was first learning the troglodiet, I leaned into being a foodie. Switched my outlook from giving up the foods I liked to finding and embracing new foods to love. Some examples: sampling all the olive oils to see what I liked, getting fresh herbs and spices, noshing on excellent produce, using tasty sea salt vs table salt.
wrt (2), for health reasons, I've had to severely simplify my life, especially food prep. That means lots of soups, chili, and porridge.
So now I've got two pressure cookers and bins of bulk foods. Just toss some rice, beans, stock and whatever veggies I have into the pot.
There was a transition phase of learning and habit forming.
Ditto casseroles.
(I'm still working on my protein strategy. Right now it's typically roasts and pulled pork.)
Look up Dr Caldwell Esselstyn. He’s a doctor at the Cleveland Clinic who has consistently used diet to reverse his patients’ heart disease. It’s a low fat, low salt plant based diet. Dr McDougall is another. They both have a number of papers on the subject.
Edit: I’m not sure if McDougall’s papers are specifically on heart disease, actually, and can’t look it up conveniently at the moment. But he’s covered the topic in great depth.
This is essentially how I eat except for the salt, if I don't get quite a bit of salt in my diet I feel horrendous. But otherwise I'm usually at somewhere around 75-80% calories as carbs. Oats, lentils, peas, beans, tons of veggies. Instant pot all of it. At first I was scared about low protein but I'm fugging shredded and have great workouts.
The answer you are looking for is no. No one can translate this into what humans should eat to avoid heart disease, that will require a ton more research. We still haven't even figured out whether eggs are good or bad for you.
> However, 49% of industry-funded intervention studies reported conclusions that were discordant with study results (ie, net cholesterol increases were described as favorable in the articles’ stated conclusions), compared with 13% of non–industry-funded studies.
I can definitely believe that the average American should probably keep eating eggs since they are better than the average American's egg replacement (more refined grains, sugar). But that doesn't mean eggs are part of a diet that minimizes CVD risk, for example. I think we often confuse the two facts.
I think a good summary of the things that most people agree on to some extent is Michael Pollan's advice from The Omnivore's Dilemma (2006): "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Obviously there are a lot of details to fill in, but the first part boils down to avoiding processed foods. The other two are pretty straightforward.
As mentioned by others, physical activity and stress management are just as important, and social connections tend to be positively correlated with health as well.
I think the problems come in when you realize how many people pushing specific diets have agendas beyond health, as well as the fact that there is no specific diet that is perfect for everyone.
Whole food vegan diet. My cholesterol went down 20 points in a bit more than a year. Bracing for the oncoming cholesterol apologists... My doctor says that vegan diets are unequivocally better for the heart according to the literature.
it's less about what foods to eat and more about eating much less: one modest-sized meal a day. that's all we "need". we eat too much of everything and our bodies are not evolved for such excess. this is literally the biggest bang for buck for chronic diseases like this, but also the hardest thing to do because of socio-cultural considerations. it also takes some time to train your digestive system down to that level.
once you have amounts under control, then you can taper off the processed foods, especially sugary things like soda/juice (fruit is ok because it comes with fiber), salty things like chips/frozen dinners, and bread/rice products (a little whole grain here and there is ok). minimize processed foods but don't worry too much about the mix of foods otherwise (protein/fat is fine, just don't overeat).
then taper up anaerobic exercise to 2-3 times a week. find a sport or activity you like (e.g., tennis) and pay for an organized league/class so that you stay committed. (aerobic) walking, for instance, is not typically strenuous enough for your body to process the excess nutrients and improve cardiovascular fitness, which is what's needed to help keep heart disease under control. you can start with walking if you're in bad shape, but you'll want to graduate to anaerobic exercise as soon as you can.
The best thing to do is go on walks. Walking and getting your heart rate up to 120-ish not only is shown to help slow or stop the progression of Aatherosclerosis, it also helps prevent clots from forming in your legs and causing serious issues elsewhere. The only other advice is to avoid excess in your diet.
Vegetables and fruits. Less meat, especially red meat. Less fat. Especially reduce saturated fat. No refined sugar. Reduce salt. And: Exercise. Cardio sport . Increase muscle mass. And reduce stress. But most important: go to the cardiologist, take your meds, adhere to their advice.
By decreasing your chances to die from heart attack fast and without much pain, you are increasing your chances of long and painful death from cancer..
A bit misleading to register a domain with an unbiased-sounding name, like nutritionfacts.org while being a Seventh-Day Adventist, whose mission is to convert the world to vegetarianism, and being on the board of The Vegan Society.
What you’re saying seems untrue to the point of being disingenuous.
Op claimed that a vegan diet (a much stricter diet than “eating vegetables”) can reverse atherosclerosis to the point of not needing surgery (a much stronger claim than “is healthy”), and for that, very much yes, citation needed.
OP didn't claim a vegan diet, "plant-based" (the link even says "more plant-based") in virtually no possible definition translates to vegetarian. A full blown strawman :D
Anyway, a two minute Google search can even find some US-friendly related material (but probably someone could be able to say that Harvard is a vegan-soviet-wokist psyop, one could never know...)
"The best diet for preventing heart disease is one that is full of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fish, poultry, and vegetable oils; includes alcohol in moderation, if at all; and goes easy on red and processed meats, refined carbohydrates, foods and beverages with added sugar, sodium, and foods with trans fat."
Four patients were placed on a vegan diet in 1977. Three of them adhered to the diet and experienced a reversal of the disease (an improvement in their symptoms), while one patient saw improvement but later switched back to a regular diet, resulting in a return of his symptoms.
Esselstyn CB Jr, Gendy G, Doyle J, Golubic M, Roizen MF. A way to reverse CAD? J Fam Pract. 2014 Jul;63(7):356-364b
In a study involving 198 patients with cardiovascular disease, 89% adhered to a plant-based diet, eliminating dairy, fish, and meat while adding oil. These adherent patients experienced only one recurrent cardiac event (a stroke), resulting in a low recurrence rate of 0.6%. In contrast, 62% of nonadherent participants experienced adverse events. This suggests that intensive counseling on plant-based nutrition can be successful in reducing cardiac events and warrants further testing in broader populations to address the cardiovascular disease epidemic.
The Nurses' Health Study: This long-term study, conducted by Harvard University, has examined the dietary habits and health outcomes of thousands of nurses over several decades. It has consistently shown the health benefits of vegetable consumption
The Framingham Heart Study: Another long-running study, the Framingham Heart Study, has looked at heart disease risk factors and health outcomes in a large population. It has demonstrated the positive effects of a diet rich in vegetables on heart health
Plant-based Diets Improve Cardiac Function, Cognitive Health
The EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) Study: This study involves multiple countries in Europe and has provided significant evidence of the health benefits of plant-based diets, including lower risks of cancer and chronic diseases.
The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Trial: While not exclusively focused on vegetables, the DASH trial emphasizes the importance of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables for managing blood pressure and overall health
Source? The link you've provided doesn't say anything about it.
> While vegan science might have grounds for debate
Scientific disciplines specifically focused on veganism or vegetarianism do not exist.
Edit: It's not about nutrition; it's the ultimate hack to protect biodiversity, which is being driven to extinction by our agricultural practices, and to safeguard our society from collapse. As such, it belongs here. Lately, it seems to me to be more important than the newest JavaScript frameworks. You're welcome to spend some time in my post history and read on.
You may benefit from learning about the importance of red meat and dairy in human development. Stringently depriving children from these nutrition sources should probably be considered child abuse alongside childhood obesity.
While red meat and dairy can provide certain nutrients, it's important to emphasize that a well-planned plant-based diet can also meet children's nutritional needs.
No adult mammals need milk to be healthy. Children who drink mother's milk are, of course, following a vegan diet.
American Dietetic Association
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
NHS UK
"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age."
British Dietetic Association
"[I]t is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding."
> Source? The link you've provided doesn't say anything about it.
In academia one is supposed to list commercial conflicts of interests, but no one asks to write down the author's religious affiliations. Just search all the organisations Greber is part or founding member of, and notice how many are affiliated with SDA. It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists.
Again, this time I'm not here to discuss the shoddy science of demonising meat and animal fat. I just want to point out that when a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had.
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the author's religious affiliations instead of addressing the research. No proof of such affiliations, btw. Example: "No one asks to write down the author's religious affiliations."
- Guilt by Association: Associating the individual with a group (SDA) to which they may not belong or identify with is misleading and serves to further discredit the argument, as it’s based on false premises.
- Conspiracy Theory: Suggesting that most vegetarian research is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists without evidence. Example: "Most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."
- Straw Man: The comment misrepresents the argument by suggesting that anyone who supports vegetarianism or has religious affiliations cannot engage in scientific discussion. Example: "When a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had."
- Generalization: Making a sweeping and unsupported claim about all research related to vegetarianism. Example: "Notice how many are affiliated with SDA."
- Appeal to Motive: Assuming that the author's religious beliefs automatically taint their scientific research. Example: "It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."
In constructive and respectful debates, it's essential to address the actual scientific evidence and arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks, conspiracy theories, or logical fallacies. These tactics detract from the quality of the discussion and hinder productive dialogue.
That sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim that I haven’t heard before. Can you link the relevant papers? I couldn’t find citations in the links you provided.
Not the op, but Gregor’s videos are nearly always a review of a bunch of papers on a given topic. If you watch the videos, you can generally get the references and find them on scihub or whatever source you prefer.
Possibly the abbreviation of a romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portguese etc.) spelling of "for example" ("par exemple", "por ejemplo", "per esempio", "por exemplo"...)
That makes way more sense than english's weird use of the latin e.g. for exempli gratia. And now I learn the actual romance languages don't even use it.
I remember being like that, even wondered if something was wrong with me - no longer - I stopped training like I used to and now my heart rate is average / high.
It doesn't seem like your link supports your assertion. It says:
"In fact, there is a large body of research supporting that the population that perform the highest levels of physical activity (i.e. elite athletes) seem to present a lower risk of CV diseases and mortality. Specifically, a meta-analysis including 42087 elite athletes reported a 27% lower risk of mortality associated to CV diseases in comparison with the general population (Garatachea et al., 2014). Furthermore, an epidemiological study that analyzed 15174 Olympic medalists found that these subjects lived a mean of 2.8 years more than the average population, independently of the country or the type of sport performed (Clarke et al., 2012)."
Make no mistake, Meldodium is a therapeutic option[1] for cardiac disease in many eastern countries (Latvia, Russia,Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus,Uzbekistan, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan).
Judging from the uptick in athlete deaths the last few years, I wouldn't say players are doing too well with whatever they're doing.
Here is a Wikipedia page with soccer players that died on the field. 2021 was a rough year which makes you think either a few deaths from what would have happened in 2020 ended up moving into 2021, or covid was really bad for everyone, even athletes.
A long-term break from extended stress and athleticism, followed by a return to extreme athleticism, which resulted in a single particularly bad year (2021 - 20 deaths)?
Notably there are fewer deaths in 2022 (8) than 2019 (10) 2018 (9), and 2017 (10). 2023 looks to be in keeping with that trend. It looks far more like 2021 was a single outlier year with reasonable explanations than an 'uptick', which implies an ongoing trend, which the data you're showing simply doesn't show.
Another factor could be that those who had congenital heart conditions who would have died in normal play in 2020 (2) are among those who died in 2021.
2021 was a particularly bad year (after a 'miracle' year in 2020), but the 3 year rolling average of 2018-2021, 2019-2022, or 2020-2023 is probably within an SD of any other rolling average since these types of stories got widely reported by the internet rather than being a local tragedy.
The virus itself had a strong detrimental effect on the heart health of especially young males.
Even if you take as given that the vaccine had harmful effects, it's dishonest to single it out without comparison to the impact of getting full fledged COVID.
Take this with a pinch of salt. We've managed to cure a myriad of diseases in mice.. eg balding. 99.9% of the time things don't translate to the human body.
For now just follow common sense: exercise regularly, low stress and a (mostly) mediterranean diet.
The problem isn't that the drug results don't translate from mice to humans. The problem is that after testing the drug successfully in mice, they follow that with testing the marketing campaign with the mice. The mice never buy the drug, so they decide to drop it as unprofitable and move on to another drug.
They also have a live fast, die young risk taking culture that isn’t big on health awareness. I mean, they come into my kitchen at night even though I am actively trying to murder them.
The thing is that even if this is is true we can explore things like TOR which mice definitely have and it definitely adds to the list of evidence that inhibiting TOR extends lifespan
I would bet a dollar inhibiting TOR via protein restriction turns out to be one of those things thats good for mice but bad for humans. Whatever aging gains you get are probably over-ridden by earlier onset of sarcopenia. Too many studies show how having muscle and strength is key to aging well, something mice in a cage don't have to worry about. Agree though that 99.9 is probably high.
It shows it’s biologically possible for mammalian cardiac cells to (a) do the job of the heart while (b) being regenerated. That’s not clinically relevant for humans. But it’s scientifically relevant for researchers (and those interested in the science of it).
Agreed on the common sense stuff but disagree about the difficulty to translate this to practice. Depends if you need it from Big Pharma or if you’re biohacking.
The authors highlight a multi step pathway and one of the steps is accumulation of alpha-ketoglutarate which is a common ketone we all already have tons of, and it increases from fasting. Seems like their research indicates there’s a second system hiding behind the first and it only turns on when you have ketones and can’t burn fat. That’s like the logical converse or contrapositive or something to fasted state. This is analogous to diabetic ketoacidosis but seems to have a healthy impact, which is surprising.
TLDR: if you think about it, fatty acid oxidation pathways are some of the easiest to target (even with zero drugs…just stop eating for a few days)
I think the point is that there's no reason as of yet to think this same thing happens in humans. Rats and humans are very very different. Humans may have developed a stress response or any other myriad of things that cause the results to be dissimilar.
Seems to me if mice ever develop advanced intelligence they will either hate us for the experiments or be grateful to have the medical knowldge to extend their lifespans and cure every one of their disease under the sun. Maybe both?
There must be some SF out there where immortal and invincible mice escape the lab and soon we have a paper clip maximizer like situation. The Mice Maximizer?
The clever monkeys were hardly invincible. Their strength was in aggression and tool use, and tool use wasn't that a big deal at the time. If the Mammoths could have learnt to hunt humans, the result would have been different.
Please refer to Douglas Adams Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy for the real story about humanity, the earth and the mice. We’re just components in a machine to answer questions for the mice.
Well, not to burst your bubble but in Spain, a national law will come into effect tomorrow declaring that all pet cats must be sterilized. And you know that once the mice conquer Spain they won't stop there...
Why they are sterilizing the cats and not the mosquitoes and the cockroaches is beyond me. Cats can't even fly!
In most places, feral cats are an invasive species that do great harm to local wildlife, especially bird populations. I know it is possible to be a responsible pet owner who keeps the cat indoors, but many don't. This law may be poor answer to the problem (or even have negative unintended consequences) but I'm glad people somewhere are starting to take a stand.
Sure, but I really don't think that's the reason for why the law was introduced in this case.
The reason cats are being sterilized is, supposedly, "to avoid indiscriminate reproduction and possible abandonment" of the cats themselves.
The law is called "Animal welfare law" and it's only about pets and their owners. It has nothing to do with endangered or invasive species or even any other type of environmental concern.
The new law introduces quite a few other rules as well: you can't leave your dog alone on the street (e.g. tied to a street lamp while you enter a shop), you can't leave your dog alone on a balcony or in a car, you can't leave your dog alone for 24 hours anywhere, mandatory pet owner course if you have a dog -- although the Spanish article says it's for all pet owners, even birds -- that said, currently the course is postponed because they couldn't prepare it on time; mandatory insurance for your dog, steep fines for breaking these rules, etc.
Working dogs are exempt from these rules. Not only are they being discriminated, but they also don't have a right to minimum wage despite having a job.
Oxidizability varies between types of fat. Saturated fat (as the name suggests) doesn’t react as easily. The microbiome (ideally) produces butyrate and other short chained fatty acids, which are required for healthy metabolism. Those also don’t oxidize as easily.
That was more a joke. Most health coaches are bad and only read the headlines. That headline could conclude that fat is bad for the heart.
The answere is for sure more complex than easy headlines.
1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35365608/