For iholdit. Bloodletting and High Cholesterol.

[Sententia]

Originally Posted by iholdit

Im not saying nor have i ever said blood donation is beneficial for everyone.

It does seem contradictory to say, several studies done on thousands of people of multiple races(which is what you asked for), which show mostly beneficial cardiovascular and cholesterol effects of blood donation, is promising. Then in another sentence say blood donation is not likely to be bad or good for you. Who is the "you" that you are talking about? Because it seems most people in general seem to benefit in these studies. There are some exceptions, but very few studies done on any treatment or medication etc. show 100% of the people benefited from it.

So should we blindly prescribe bloodletting or are more studies warranted? Obviously having Brian Dunning use blood letting to help with his cholesterol is probably bad since he is anemic? And because blood letting may not actually help him?

[Sententia]

Originally Posted by iholdit

It does seem contradictory to say, several studies done on thousands of people of multiple races(which is what you asked for), which show mostly beneficial cardiovascular and cholesterol effects of blood donation, is promising. Then in another sentence say blood donation is not likely to be bad or good for you.

Actually it is not contradictory at all.

If 10,000 people donate blood and 90% were normal weight and 10% were overweight or obese and the control group was 50% overweight or obese and 50% normal etc then that is enough of a difference to not be contradictory and that is only one factor. (A factor though referenced in some of your posted studies) Another is the iron hypothesis, others it was was only men and women over 40 and no benefit was seen in women, only men and etc etc... You are reading and seeing what you want IMHO.

[iholdit]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

So should we blindly prescribe bloodletting or are more studies warranted? Obviously having Brian Dunning use blood letting to help with his cholesterol is probably bad since he is anemic? And because blood letting may not actually help him?

We probably shouldnt blindly prescribe any treatment or medication etc. If this is your argument then i agree, i never said it is beneficial for everyone.

[iholdit]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Actually it is not contradictory at all.

If 10,000 people donate blood and 90% were normal weight and 10% were overweight or obese and the control group was 50% overweight or obese and 50% normal etc then that is enough of a difference to not be contradictory and that is only one factor. (A factor though referenced in some of your posted studies) Another is the iron hypothesis, others it was was only men and women over 40 and no benefit was seen in women, only men and etc etc... You are reading and seeing what you want IMHO.

I actually think you are reading and seeing what you want. We are talking about alot of studies and you are picking out a few studies and saying the conditions werent exactly how it is in the real world in those studies. The iron hypothesis was just an explanation of why the beneficial effects which DO occur from blood donation were believed to happen.

If we were only talking about a few studies ever being done and all of them with not realistic conditions, then i can see your point. But we are talking about dozens of studies many with realistic conditions. Many drugs are not tested this much before they are approved by the fda. While i respect your standards, i dont believe you apply those same stardards to the treatments and medicines that doctors do prescibe for the same conditions.

[Lavender]

I've had good luck in raising my HDL cholesterol levels, which were too low, by eating a low carb diet, plus taking vitamin D3. I take 6000ius a day and test to keep a d3 testing range between 60 to 70ng/ml. I think eating some coconut oil and taking niacin pills helped also. HDL used to be in the 20 range, but now it has been in the 60s - thankfully.

[Sententia]

Originally Posted by Lavender

I've had good luck in raising my HDL cholesterol levels, which were too low, by eating a low carb diet, plus taking vitamin D3. I take 6000ius a day and test to keep a d3 testing range between 60 to 70ng/ml. I think eating some coconut oil and taking niacin pills helped also. HDL used to be in the 20 range, but now it has been in the 60s - thankfully.

No blood letting though? Any Blood donations recently? Before and after tests? (Just curious)

[Sententia]

Originally Posted by iholdit

I actually think you are reading and seeing what you want. We are talking about alot of studies and you are picking out a few studies and saying the conditions werent exactly how it is in the real world in those studies. The iron hypothesis was just an explanation of why the beneficial effects which DO occur from blood donation were believed to happen.

If we were only talking about a few studies ever being done and all of them with not realistic conditions, then i can see your point. But we are talking about dozens of studies many with realistic conditions. Many drugs are not tested this much before they are approved by the fda. While i respect your standards, i dont believe you apply those same stardards to the treatments and medicines that doctors do prescibe for the same conditions.

No I picked out the first few I read. You do know there are some studies posted over 80 pages long? (I would hope)

What I was seeing was a confirmation bias trend. You have an idea and are googling and posting support. To critically analyze and contradict every study is a waste of time since most of the studies dont share your conclusion... what is lacking is your ability to adequately research and represent your point of view. You can attack me all day and post link after link but if you do not understand or even read what you are posting then I am not sure why you think I need to respond. RF readers are not stupid and will explore the topic on their own.

If you boil our arguments down mine seems to be perhaps lets investigate more and yours is bull hockey pucks this is proven and you are just denying the obvious.

Clearly the studies you posted do not back your position back actually mine and the only work I am forced to do is question your motivation? There could be a good reason for it and it could just be ignorance but you seem strongly opinionated so I am curious. Also I think it can be helpful to analytically examine your sources... Have you done that?

[iholdit]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

No I picked out the first few I read. You do know there are some studies posted over 80 pages long? (I would hope)

What I was seeing was a confirmation bias trend. You have an idea and are googling and posting support. To critically analyze and contradict every study is a waste of time since most of the studies dont share your conclusion... what is lacking is your ability to adequately research and represent your point of view. You can attack me all day and post link after link but if you do not understand or even read what you are posting then I am not sure why you think I need to respond. RF readers are not stupid and will explore the topic on their own.

If you boil our arguments down mine seems to be perhaps lets investigate more and yours is bull hockey pucks this is proven and you are just denying the obvious.

Clearly the studies you posted do not back your position back actually mine and the only work I am forced to do is question your motivation? There could be a good reason for it and it could just be ignorance but you seem strongly opinionated so I am curious. Also I think it can be helpful to analytically examine your sources... Have you done that?

Unlike you i have read all of the studies i posted. I also have no conformation bias, i have asked you to find studies which show no cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits and you have not posted any studies whatsoever. If you find studies which show no cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits i will be glad to look at them.

I am a scientist, nutrition and exercise are what my fields are but i believe i am fully capable of understanding the studies on blood donation. The researchers for the most part have concluded there is a cardiovascular and cholesterol benefit in most cases. Not everyone will benefit but your argument is that blood donation will not likely be good or bad for you and not that most will benefit but not everyone. Had you actually read all of the studies perhaps you wouldnt be calling my position based on ignorance and perhaps you would see the researchers clearly back my position, although i did post a few early studies where the researchers said more studies should be done but in the later studies i posted the researchers mostly stated things like, this research confirms what earlier studies have shown.

I have no motives here, i do not work for the red cross etc. and i do not even donate blood. I am just informing you what the majority of studies show and that is that there is cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits associated with regular blood donation in most people in most studies.

Your argument was not that more research should be done to confirm cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits of blood donation. Your argument has been that you conclude that blood donation will NOT LIKELY have any cardiovascular or cholesterol benefits other than a few exceptions. This would mean that you looked at the research and you concluded that it doesnt show any real benefits. Now you seem to be changing your position to, there is benefits in the studies but there isnt enough studies or enough quality studies for you to make any conclusions.

[Sententia]

Originally Posted by iholdit

Unlike you i have read all of the studies i posted. I also have no conformation bias, i have asked you to find studies which show no cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits and you have not posted any studies whatsoever. If you find studies which show no cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits i will be glad to look at them.

I asked my doctor and she said no. Done. I can google up something for you though:

Originally Posted by http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.php?DocID=9

Does donating blood get rid of cholesterol? ...

Well, John, we asked Kirsten Alcorn, Medical Director of the Washington Hospital Center's transfusion service. She says giving a pint every so often won't do the trick.

Alcorn: Donation of blood doesn't affect your cholesterol. You're taking out whole blood, which certainly takes out the cholesterol that's in that portion of your blood, but your body continues to make cholesterol, and it also ingests cholesterol if you're eating food products with cholesterol and fats and so on.

So the cholesterol removed is quickly replaced, leaving your body's ability to make it unchanged. The best way to lower high cholesterol is still with diet, exercise, and drugs, if necessary.

Who is this Dr Acorn?

Kirsten W Alcorn, MD
Anatomic & Clinical Pathologist, Pathologist
Female - 15 years experience

Pathology
Sub-specialties: Blood Banking & Transfusion Medicine, Anatomic Pathology & Clinical Pathology
View ABMS® certification
Special Expertise:Blood Transfusion

Read more: Dr. Kirsten Alcorn, Anatomic & Clinical Pathologist, Pathologist - Doctor MD in Washington, DC - Pathology, Anatomic Pathology & Clinical Pathology, Blood Banking & Transfusion Medicine

Originally Posted by iholdit

I am a scientist, nutrition and exercise are what my fields are but i believe i am fully capable of understanding the studies on blood donation. The researchers for the most part have concluded there is a cardiovascular and cholesterol benefit in most cases.

You read all these studies and links? Lets take the first two, perhaps I will read more later but I would prefer to see how you go through these...

First you have A 1997 New Article from Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology entitled: Men Who Donate Blood May Reduce Risk Of Heart Disease, According To KU Medical Center Study

It concludes with:

Meyers plans to conduct a randomized clinical trial of 4,000 men in the Kansas City area to determine which answer is correct. The results of the study may not prove that blood donation prevents heart disease, said Meyers. But the study does support the iron hypothesis, which suggests that stored iron in the body stimulates the process in which cholesterol is oxidized, an event that is thought to be involved in atherosclerosis. A smaller study published in March in the British Medical Journal supports the hypothesis also. This study reported that blood donation reduced the risk of heart attack by 86 percent among 2,682 Finnish men. "It could be a win-win situation," said Meyers. "Even if the iron hypothesis is proved incorrect, donating blood is still the right thing to do."

What? Now this was 1997. Meyers is still investigating or did he come to a conclusion?

Originally Posted by http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.4960191205/abstract

Women experience only 30–50% of the coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence and mortality of age-matched men. Since oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is important in atherosclerosis, and oxidation is catalyzed by iron, it has been hypothesized that the lower iron stores of women reduce their risk of CHD through lessened lipid peroxide. The biochemistry of oxidation is well described in the literature and involves iron as a catalyst in the formation of powerful free radicals which subsequently modify LDL cholesterol. Chelating iron with desferrioxamine stops oxidation. Iron is present in atherosclerotic gruel and this gruel stimulates lipid peroxidation. Serum deficient in iron has minimal oxidative capacity which increases with iron repletion. At least seven epidemiologic studies have found a positive association between CHD and various indicators of body iron. Conversely, 18 epidemiologic studies have found a negative or no association. While biochemically appealing, the iron hypothesis remains unproven.

Next up you have a 2002 Abstract by "van Jaarsveld H" entitled: "Beneficial effects of blood donation on high density lipoprotein concentration and the oxidative potential of low density lipoprotein."

This is only an abstract but we see it was "Blood drawn from 23 healthy males after overnight fasting" and purports to conclude that blood donation, and thereby a lowered body iron concentration, is an effective way to increase the oxidative potential of LDL, as well as the HDL and apoA concentrations."

Seems closer to what you are trying to say but 23 people is hardly enough to be conclusive.

Originally Posted by http://cholesterol.about.com/od/treatments/a/blooddonation.htm

The few studies that examine the effectiveness of donating blood on lower cholesterol levels are few and not current.

Originally Posted by iholdit

Not everyone will benefit but your argument is that blood donation will not likely be good or bad for you and not that most will benefit but not everyone. Had you actually read all of the studies perhaps you wouldnt be calling my position based on ignorance and perhaps you would see the researchers clearly back my position, although i did post a few early studies where the researchers said more studies should be done but in the later studies i posted the researchers mostly stated things like, this research confirms what earlier studies have shown.

You can conclude that from reading the links you posted? I surely can't.

Originally Posted by iholdit

Your argument was not that more research should be done to confirm cardiovascular and cholesterol benefits of blood donation. Your argument has been that you conclude that blood donation will NOT LIKELY have any cardiovascular or cholesterol benefits other than a few exceptions. This would mean that you looked at the research and you concluded that it doesnt show any real benefits. Now you seem to be changing your position to, there is benefits in the studies but there isnt enough studies or enough quality studies for you to make any conclusions.

There are cases when Bloodletting can be a good thing:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

Today it is well established that bloodletting is not effective for most diseases. Indeed it is mostly harmful, since it can weaken the patient and facilitate infections. Bloodletting is used today in the treatment of a few diseases, including hemochromatosis and polycythemia; however, these rare diseases were unknown and undiagnosable before the advent of scientific medicine. It is practiced by specifically trained practitioners in hospitals, using modern techniques. In most cases, phlebotomy now refers to the removal of small quantities of blood for diagnostic purposes. However, in the case of hemochromatosis, which is now recognized as the most common genetic, or inherited, disorder, frequent bloodletting has become an essential, and life-saving procedure.

[iholdit]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

I asked my doctor and she said no. Done. I can google up something for you though:



Who is this Dr Acorn?







You read all these studies and links? Lets take the first two, perhaps I will read more later but I would prefer to see how you go through these...

First you have A 1997 New Article from Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology entitled: Men Who Donate Blood May Reduce Risk Of Heart Disease, According To KU Medical Center Study

It concludes with:

What? Now this was 1997. Meyers is still investigating or did he come to a conclusion?



Next up you have a 2002 Abstract by "van Jaarsveld H" entitled: "Beneficial effects of blood donation on high density lipoprotein concentration and the oxidative potential of low density lipoprotein."

This is only an abstract but we see it was "Blood drawn from 23 healthy males after overnight fasting" and purports to conclude that blood donation, and thereby a lowered body iron concentration, is an effective way to increase the oxidative potential of LDL, as well as the HDL and apoA concentrations."

Seems closer to what you are trying to say but 23 people is hardly enough to be conclusive.





You can conclude that from reading the links you posted? I surely can't.



There are cases when Bloodletting can be a good thing:

As i stated in an earlier post you trust doctors who had no involvement with the studies more than the actual researchers who did the studies. From the studies i posted earlier we see many doctors get their info about certain drugs only from the pharm reps. For example i had to tell my former doctor that many vaccines had been genetically modified. She literally argued with me that they werent for almost 30 min. I made her get the papers the pharm reps gave her and proved it to her. It was right there in the pharm reps papers and she never even read them, yet she argued with me like she knew everything about vaccines. Not all doctors have read all of these studies.

You are obviously not used to reading studies. If a study was done and completed in 1997 it is usually put in science or medical journals shortly after. There is not usually a follow up to any and especially not every statement made in the study. Your answer can be found in future studies done by other researchers which confirm those results.

You are still arguing the iron hypothesis which i already explained in a previous post was just the possible mechanism that caused the benefits but i guess you didnt understand that. Just like you didnt understand when i said that i am not arguing against diet and exercise and i am not trying to replace them with blood donation. You are either not reading all of my posts, just like you didnt read all of the studies i posted or you are purposely being deceptive here.