• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Study Links Carnitine, Not Fat or Cholesterol, to Heart Disease

carnitine heart disease l-carnitine

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#31 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,367 posts
  • 259

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:39 AM

lol 81mg and you need what, like 3 grams regularly or something for anything bad to occur. enough said

It appears to have something to do with the stomach bacteria meat eaters produce vs non-red meat eaters, rather than the l-carnitine itself.

"They evaluated 2,595 patients undergoing heart exams, and found increasing carnitine levels increased risks for stroke, heart attacks and other cardiac events in subjects with high levels of TMAO. Vegans and vegetarians had significantly lower baseline levels of TMAO than meat-eating omnivores, the researchers found. Vegetarians and vegans given carnitine did not show major increases in TMAO levels, however, when compare with meat-eaters who consumed the same amount of carnitine, which suggests vegetarians may possess different gut bacteria."

#32 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 09 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

"They evaluated 2,595 patients undergoing heart exams, and found increasing carnitine levels increased risks for stroke, heart attacks and other cardiac events in subjects with high levels of TMAO. Vegans and vegetarians had significantly lower baseline levels of TMAO than meat-eating omnivores, the researchers found. Vegetarians and vegans given carnitine did not show major increases in TMAO levels, however, when compare with meat-eaters who consumed the same amount of carnitine, which suggests vegetarians may possess different gut bacteria."


That's observation on non-randomized sample. We have gone over this same issue regarding therapeutic vs harmful effects of tobacco smoke, where all the hard science supported the first and junk science the second possibility (not that this affected your position/emotions on the subject in any way).

Considering that heart attacks and strokes are linked to many dozens, perhaps over hundred, mutually intertwined risk factors, the non-randomized association with yet another one is meaningless, since you can link them to hundreds more merely via the links of the other hundred risk factors. Hence, singling out a cherry picked next scare factor is usually driven by some other agenda (it's always $$$), not the science proper. Cui bono from scaring people away and suppressing an inexpensive effective supplement which in the long run will cut down on your medical/pharmaceutical expenses?

Therefore any obnoxiusly pushed scare campaign against a supplement/food/habit... X, backed by non-randomized associations, by those gaining from you using more of their goods and services, implies X is good for you (bad for them). The louder the propaganda, the better, more beneficial X is for you (worse for them).
  • dislike x 4
  • Agree x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 571
  • Location:x

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:48 AM

This is an interesting blog on the topic by Adel Moussa
It's a little more readable on his blog at the following link:
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/

Meaty "News": Choline, Carnitine & "Bacteria Poop" Make (Red) Meat Unhealthy. Learn Why the Latest Revelations Are Neither New, Nor Meat-Specific And Still Made the News


Actually I did not really want to "blog" about the latest hypothesis on a mechanism by which red meat could give contribute to atherosclerosis and heart disease, but since it's all over the news I feel inclined to provide you with some information to (a) find the happy medium between the scaremongering media hype and the similarly misplaced assessment that "we have been made to eat meat, so it cannot be bad for us" and (b) understand how science news are made.

I am not 100% sure which approach would be most appropriate, but I guess, it would be prudent to start the whole discussion by taking a peak at the actual paper, the publication, or rather the media coverage of which has sparked the whole turmoil.

Why does everybody and his mama talk about the study?

As a SuppVersity reader you probably belong to small number of people who actually care about scientific research. Being such a person myself, I know that people like us are hard-pressed to find anyone who will not answer questions like "have you heard about the latest results from the XYZ study" with a blank stare. So why on earth are there studies like the one Robert A Koeth et. al. just published (in fact the study is not even officially published, as of now it's only an e-paper!) that spread faster than the Hollywood-caliber flu scenarios that are supposed to "encourage" you to get vaccinated? Personally I feel like there are a couple of factors coming together here:
  • Familiarity & ostensible tangibility: The concept that red meat was bad for your heart is something everyone has heard about. You just have to add the words "bacteria poop" and even the average consumer of the Oz-show will feel like he/she knew all about the latest scientific evidence.
  • Personal concernment: Whether we do, or don't eat meat, news like these concern all of us. The meat-eaters will question, whether they may be hurting their health and/or get upset about the "vegan propaganda", while the vegetarians and vegans will celebrate how smart they are not to eat meat and point with a finger at the dumb omnivores, who will soon be suffering the consequences of their "unsustainable and cruel" dietary habits ;-)
  • The vegetarian / vegan lobby: Despite the fact that the "paleo movement" has gathered some momentum, vegetarianism and veganism still have a huge lobbying with sympathizers at many key positions of the society - esp. in the media business. With all "bad news about meat" being "good news for vegetarianism", it should be obvious that the "hurdle" a press release like the one Laura Ambro wrote for the Cleveland Clinic (read what all the "science mags" just copied and pasted here) does not have to pass a similarly high hurdle as the press release from the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center which does assert that lifting weights could help keep blood glucose levels under control (read it)
  • The Nature factor: Before I started reading scientific papers on a regular basis I would have been impressed by the words "a recent article published in the prestigious journal Nature", these days I ignore statements like that. Good science will prevail, whether it is published in Nature or in an open journal like PLOS-1.
  • "Only bad news are good news" Let's be honest, we all know that bad news spread way more rapidly than good news. Imagine the study would have found that "no risk [increase of coronary arthery disease in type II diabetics] is seen with unprocessed meat consumption" (as a 2012 review of the evidence says; cf. Micha. 2012), who would have cared?

    "[...] the generally recognized tendency of the popular media to publish mostly negative aspects of news items is driven by the demand of their audience, rather than by inherent preferences of the media itself. To understand this, consider for a moment that there are two types of stories: positive stories or “good news” (and negative stories or “bad news”. Think of good news as stories about happy endings, in which people made the right choices. Bad news stories are about unhappy endings, in which people made the wrong choices. When consumers read good news stories, they can make similar choices to increase their incomes. When they read bad news stories, they can choose to avoid bad outcomes and the resulting income losses." (Swinnen. 2005)

    You see, according to science it's your own fault that you are fooled by the media... and let's be honest, it in fact is. If people did not click on the "bad news" first, those would generate lower page impressions and ad revenues and the media would have to revise their policy.
Now these are five reasons that may explain why you've already heard about the study. There is yet at least another sixth reason that's missing from the list above - and that despite the fact that I already mentioned it in the introduction.
  • The more publicity a study receives the more idiots like me will deem it necessary to blog about it, so that after bazillions of shares on Facebook (I got three on my Facebook, alone) and a couple of thousand blogposts, all the world knows exactly what the study is about (why are you laughing?)
In essence these would be 5 + 1 good reasons not to delve any deeper into the matter, but now that I am at it, I won't let you go without at least some additional rambling.
What's the main message of the article?


Apropos evidence: I wonder how the "choline is the bad guy hypothesis" that's at the heart (all puns intended) of the new "red meat causes heart disease" hypothesis is compatible with statements like "the long-term consumption of [dietary choline and betaine] have been shown to prevent CVD mortality by decreasing inflammation and other risk factors." (Rajaie. 2011) And why are they going after red meat specifically, if soy and particularly Miso have been shown to have similar effects on TMAO concentrations and - in human beings, by the way (Solanky. 2005). Plus: Isn't it surprising that the exact same (or almost the same) results have been reported by Wang et al. for phosphatidylcholine (best dietary source = soy lecithin!) and without the words "red meat" in the title in 2011 already and nobody cared? Just sayin'...Choline and choline-like/-based substances such as l-carnitine and phosphatidylcholine that are found at comparably high concentrations in (red) meat, eggs and all the other usual subjects are converted to trimethylamine by certain bacteria in your gut and metabolized to trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) in your liver.
  • Epidemiological evidence -- Concomitant elevations of serum l-increased risks for both prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and incident major adverse cardiac events carnitine and TMAO levels.
  • Experimental evidence --Tthe chronic administration of l-carnitine to rodents increased the incidence atherosclerosis. A process that was probably mediated by the reduction of reverse cholesterol transport from the arteries to the liver the scientists observed, when they kept their rodents on a carnitine, choline or TMAO supplemented chow. The extent to which the TMAO load explains variations in the risk of heart disease in rodent studieshas been estimated by Bennett et al. in another recently published study to be 11% (Bennett. 2013)
As mentioned before these are valid scientific findings that cannot be "discussed away" by stating that "we evolved to eat meat" or "that's just rodents, and I am no rodent!"

Which bacteria are to blame?

In view of the fact that scientists usually have a genuine interest in developing means to prevent (in this case) heart disease and not like the media and certain lobbyists to generate hype, acquire readers or rather advertisement consumers or reduce the consumption of meat, the most significant finding of the study at hand actually is that the use of a broad spectrum antibiotic does not only kill all bacteria, it also prevents the ill-health effects that come with the ingestion of large amounts of choline and l-carnitine (please mind my wording: "ill health effects of dietary choline and carnitine - not red meat).

"Discovery of a link between l-carnitine ingestion, gut microbiota metabolism and CVD risk has broad health-related implications. Our studies reveal a new pathway potentially linking dietary red meat ingestion with atherosclerosis pathogenesis. The role of gut microbiota in this pathway suggests new potential therapeutic targets for preventing CVD." (Koeth. 2013)

Against that background it is pretty intruiging that none of the articles I have read mentions that the scientists do already have preliminary evidence of who exactly those bad guys may be (only stat. sign. associations):
  • sign. associations with high TMAO concentrations

  • Tenericutes Mollicutes
  • Tenericutes Mollicutes Anaeroplasmatales
  • Tenericutes Mollicutes Anaeroplasmatales Anaeroplasmataceae
  • sign. associations with high TMA concentrations >

  • Bacteroidetes Bacteroidia Bacteroidales Prevotellaceae
  • Bacteroidetes Bacteroidia Bacteroidales Prevotellaceae Unclassified
  • Bacteroidetes Bacteroidia Bacteroidales Prevotellaceae Prevotella
  • Deferribacteres Deferribacteres
  • Deferribacteres Deferribacteres Deferribacterales
  • Deferribacteres Deferribacteres Deferribacterales Deferribacteraceae
But things get even better there is more than a handful of potential "good guys" who appear to be associated with lower than average levels of TMAO in the blood on the scientists' radar, already. Fostering the growth or directly supplementing with each of the following bacterial strains could thus mitigate if not nullify the ill health effects of carnitine & co. These potentially protective bacteria are bacteriodetes and firmicutes certain strains of protobacteria (* denotes statistical signficance)
  • Bacteroidetes Bacteroidia
  • Bacteroidia Bacteroidales
  • Bacteroidales Porphyromonadaceae*
  • Firmicutes Erysipelotrichi
  • Erysipelotrichales
  • Erysipelotrichales Erysipelotrichaceae
  • Proteobacteria Betaproteobacteria
  • Proteobacteria Deltaproteobacteria
  • Deltaproteobacteria Desulfovibrionales
It is still preliminary to say, whether or not it would be a viable and more importantly practical strategy to constantly suppress the nutrient-dependent (see article referenced in the image above) rise in "bad bacteria" by using antibiotics or probiotics, but it would certainly be good to see the research zoning in on that instead of trying to find new explanations for epidemiologically non-sustainable claims such as "all red meat is bad for you".

A final word on the potential involvemend of the liver, bile and dietary fiber?

Another totally neglected yet potentially important factor, I personally feel would be worth investigating is the role of the liver. If you take a look at my slightly modified version of the proposed mechanism in Illustration 1 and remember my elaborations on the TMA => TMOA conversion in the liver, the brown metabolic "waste dump" certainly appears to be at an absolutely crucial position within the proposed etiology of TMAO-induced cardiovascular disease.
Posted Image Illustration 1: Modified sketch of the potential mechanism behind the pro-artherogenic effects of dietary carnitine and choline (adapted from Koeth. 2013) I mean, what is the most common reason for heart disease? Meat consumption? No, if anything it is something that oftentimes correlates with the #1 reason, or I should say reasons for heart disease: the metabolic syndrome. You are very likely to give studies the abstracts of which include statements such as...

"The bile acid receptors farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and TGR5 both regulate lipid, glucose, and energy metabolism, rendering them potential pharmacological targets for MS therapy." (Porez. 2012)

"[Bile acid sequestrants] reduce atherosclerosis in Ldlr-deficient mice, coinciding with a switch from body cholesterol accumulation to cholesterol loss. RUN slightly modulated atherosclerotic lesion formation but the combination of BAS and RUN had no clear additive effects in this respect." (Maissner. 2013)

... a more thorough reading in the future. Especially in view of the fact that the -26% reduction in bile acids (Taurodeoxycholate, Tauroursodeoxycholate, Tauro-β-muricholate, Taurocholate) the scientists observed in the TMAO fed rodents suggest that the provision of bile acid sequestrants that promote the natural adaptation process and lower the intestinal cholesterol absorption even further could at least ameliorate the problem.

Moreover, the natural ability of dietary fiber to bind bile acids leads us back to things of which we already know that they are beneficial for the heart. Things that target both the gut microbiome and the absorption / excretion of cholesterol via bile... oats, for example! A 2010 study by Andersson et al. for example, shows quite conclusively that the bran of the fiber, protein, carb and fat laden powerfood will increase the faecal excretion of cholesterol and bile acids, lower blood lipids and reduce atherosclerotic lesion areas in the descending aorta (-77%) and aortic root (-33%) of LDR(-/-) mice, i.e. mice who lack the ability to "recycle" cholesterol due to the absence of the respective receptors on the liver.

Bottom line: The main reason for mentioning the involvement of the liver and the potential role of the FXR (=bile acid receptor) in the etiology of the problem in the end of this post which got much longer than I had intended it to be is to point you to the hilarious over-generalizations that are taking place when the results and implications of studies like these are passed from one person to another before they finally end up at the "Mr. Joe Average Level" in the form of either Meat Kills! or The Vegan Lobby is at it again!

What's lost in all the hysteria is the fact that the study at hand could in fact provide insights into the often-touted involvement of the gut microbiome in the etiology of all sorts of diseases... this, and not the "red meat is fill in whatever you like for you" debate, is what could actually help us to reduce the number of CVD related deaths on both an the large nation- and world-wide, as well as on a personal level.

Ah, and in the mean time, you probably don't have to be all too worried, as long as you eat a varied whole foods diet that's includes different sources of dietary fiber, vegetables and a rational amount of fruits, you can easily keep your gut microbiome in a state where real (=unprocessed meat) is not a problem.

References:
  • Andersson KE, Svedberg KA, Lindholm MW, Oste R, Hellstrand P. Oats (Avena sativa) reduce atherogenesis in LDL-receptor-deficient mice. Atherosclerosis. 2010 Sep;212(1):93-9.
  • Bennett BJ, de Aguiar Vallim TQ, Wang Z, Shih DM, Meng Y, Gregory J, Allayee H, Lee R, Graham M, Crooke R, Edwards PA, Hazen SL, Lusis AJ. Trimethylamine-N-oxide, a metabolite associated with atherosclerosis, exhibits complex genetic and dietary regulation. Cell Metab. 2013 Jan 8;17(1):49-60.
  • Meissner M, Wolters H, de Boer RA, Havinga R, Boverhof R, Bloks VW, Kuipers F, Groen AK. Bile acid sequestration normalizes plasma cholesterol and reduces atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic mice. No additional effect of physical activity. Atherosclerosis. 2013 Feb 26.
  • Micha R, Michas G, Mozaffarian D. Unprocessed red and processed meats and risk of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes--an updated review of the evidence. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2012 Dec;14(6):515-24.
  • Koeth RA, Wang Z, Levison BS, Buffa JA, Org E, Sheehy BT, Britt EB, Fu X, Wu Y, Li L, Smith JD, Didonato JA, Chen J, Li H, Wu GD, Lewis JD, Warrier M, Brown JM, Krauss RM, Tang WH, Bushman FD, Lusis AJ, Hazen SL. Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis. Nat Med. 2013 Apr 7.
  • Porez G, Prawitt J, Gross B, Staels B. Bile acid receptors as targets for the treatment of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease. J Lipid Res. 2012 Sep;53(9):1723-37.
  • Rajaie S, Esmaillzadeh A. Dietary choline and betaine intakes and risk of cardiovascular diseases: review of epidemiological evidence. ARYA Atheroscler. 2011 Summer;7(2):78-86.
  • Solanky KS, Bailey NJ, Beckwith-Hall BM, Bingham S, Davis A, Holmes E, Nicholson JK, Cassidy A. Biofluid 1H NMR-based metabonomic techniques in nutrition research - metabolic effects of dietary isoflavones in humans. J Nutr Biochem. 2005 Apr;16(4):236-44.
  • Swinnen, J. F. M., McCluskey, J. and Francken, N. Food safety, the media, and the information market. Agricultural Economics. 2005; 32: 175–188.

Edited by Hebbeh, 10 April 2013 - 01:52 AM.

  • like x 3

#34 tham

  • Guest
  • 1,406 posts
  • 498
  • Location:Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:33 PM





How about taking carnitine/PC and/or each meal of meat/fish with a good dose
of garlic and/or other antimicrobe supplements like olive extracts and monolaurin
to knock out as much of the gut bacteria as possible, and so reduce TMAO production ?

Garlic and olives would seem to be the ideal candidates, killing two birds with one
stone, being both antibacterial and heart supportive.



#35 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:41 PM

How about taking carnitine/PC and/or each meal of meat/fish with a good dose
of garlic and/or other antimicrobe supplements like olive extracts and monolaurin
to knock out as much of the gut bacteria as possible, and so reduce TMAO production ?


I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick. Now that we know some of the specific species involved in TMA production, maybe we can design compounds or antibodies that kill them specifically.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#36 bkaz

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 4

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:08 AM

How about taking carnitine/PC and/or each meal of meat/fish with a good dose
of garlic and/or other antimicrobe supplements like olive extracts and monolaurin
to knock out as much of the gut bacteria as possible, and so reduce TMAO production ?


I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick. Now that we know some of the specific species involved in TMA production, maybe we can design compounds or antibodies that kill them specifically.


I think Tham meant temporarily suppressing, not killing bacteria. Sounds like a great idea. I make chocolate with coconut oil, cocoa powder, curry, & stevia, - that should do the job?
  • like x 1

#37 bkaz

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 4

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:30 AM

This a great review by Paul Jaminet: http://perfecthealth...red-meat-scare/
  • like x 1

#38 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,211 posts
  • 987
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:17 AM

Chris Masterjohn PhD to the rescue! His rebuttal to the carnitine kerfuffle hot off the presses.

http://www.cholester...terol-blog.html (click the link inside the blog)




Does Carnitine From Red Meat Contribute to Heart Disease Through Intestinal Bacterial Metabolism to TMAO?




Posted onApril 10, 2013by Chris Masterjohn

Edited by synesthesia, 11 April 2013 - 02:27 AM.


#39 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:23 AM

How about taking carnitine/PC and/or each meal of meat/fish with a good dose
of garlic and/or other antimicrobe supplements like olive extracts and monolaurin
to knock out as much of the gut bacteria as possible, and so reduce TMAO production ?


I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick. Now that we know some of the specific species involved in TMA production, maybe we can design compounds or antibodies that kill them specifically.


I think Tham meant temporarily suppressing, not killing bacteria. Sounds like a great idea. I make chocolate with coconut oil, cocoa powder, curry, & stevia, - that should do the job?


No, I don't think it will. None of these compounds are that suppressive/lethal (take your pick) toward bacteria. But Paul Jaminet made some good points in his article- thanks for that, BTW. He says that if you eat the appropriate amount of fiber and starch you will suppress the population of the carnitine metabolizing bugs. The people who have a lot of them are going to be the dysbiotic, metabolic syndrome population. As long as you're getting your carnitine from meat in the context of a healthy and balanced diet, you should be fine. I'm less certain about long term supplemental carnitines, however. From the deutero-carnitine experiment in the paper that Jaminet talked about, you can see that supplemental L-carnitine is an effective producer of TMAO.

#40 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:40 AM

I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick...


Lots of common foods and spices are actually very active antimicrobials. I recall an old Chinese study that showed that 50g of garlic a day, for 5 days, was as curative as the standard treatment with metronidazole for amebiasis. That's protozoa, which I usually harder to kill than bacteria.

And what 'useful bacteria'? The only use they have is to occupy the place that could be taken over by some really nasty ones. It's selecting a lesser of two evils. I find that an occasional bombing with a wide-spectrum antibiotic or two, followed by a fast, is very therapeutic, on many levels.
  • dislike x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#41 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,367 posts
  • 259

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:43 AM

How about taking carnitine/PC and/or each meal of meat/fish with a good dose
of garlic and/or other antimicrobe supplements like olive extracts and monolaurin
to knock out as much of the gut bacteria as possible, and so reduce TMAO production ?


I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick. Now that we know some of the specific species involved in TMA production, maybe we can design compounds or antibodies that kill them specifically.


I think Tham meant temporarily suppressing, not killing bacteria. Sounds like a great idea. I make chocolate with coconut oil, cocoa powder, curry, & stevia, - that should do the job?


No, I don't think it will. None of these compounds are that suppressive/lethal (take your pick) toward bacteria. But Paul Jaminet made some good points in his article- thanks for that, BTW. He says that if you eat the appropriate amount of fiber and starch you will suppress the population of the carnitine metabolizing bugs. The people who have a lot of them are going to be the dysbiotic, metabolic syndrome population. As long as you're getting your carnitine from meat in the context of a healthy and balanced diet, you should be fine. I'm less certain about long term supplemental carnitines, however. From the deutero-carnitine experiment in the paper that Jaminet talked about, you can see that supplemental L-carnitine is an effective producer of TMAO.

Again, it did not significantly raise TMAO in vegetarians during supplementation. Reasons? Gut Flora? idk

#42 Fred_CALICO

  • Guest
  • 106 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Burgondy - French

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:04 AM

"They evaluated 2,595 patients undergoing heart exams, and found increasing carnitine levels increased risks for stroke, heart attacks and other cardiac events in subjects with high levels of TMAO. Vegans and vegetarians had significantly lower baseline levels of TMAO than meat-eating omnivores, the researchers found. Vegetarians and vegans given carnitine did not show major increases in TMAO levels, however, when compare with meat-eaters who consumed the same amount of carnitine, which suggests vegetarians may possess different gut bacteria."


That's observation on non-randomized sample. We have gone over this same issue regarding therapeutic vs harmful effects of tobacco smoke, where all the hard science supported the first and junk science the second possibility (not that this affected your position/emotions on the subject in any way).

Considering that heart attacks and strokes are linked to many dozens, perhaps over hundred, mutually intertwined risk factors, the non-randomized association with yet another one is meaningless, since you can link them to hundreds more merely via the links of the other hundred risk factors. Hence, singling out a cherry picked next scare factor is usually driven by some other agenda (it's always $$$), not the science proper. Cui bono from scaring people away and suppressing an inexpensive effective supplement which in the long run will cut down on your medical/pharmaceutical expenses?

Therefore any obnoxiusly pushed scare campaign against a supplement/food/habit... X, backed by non-randomized associations, by those gaining from you using more of their goods and services, implies X is good for you (bad for them). The louder the propaganda, the better, more beneficial X is for you (worse for them).




dear watchman:
If this is not a correlation with influence, nor a correlation with common causes local then it is the non-local conspiracy BELL.

Nicolas Gisin out of this body!!

#43 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick...


Lots of common foods and spices are actually very active antimicrobials. I recall an old Chinese study that showed that 50g of garlic a day, for 5 days, was as curative as the standard treatment with metronidazole for amebiasis. That's protozoa, which I usually harder to kill than bacteria.

And what 'useful bacteria'? The only use they have is to occupy the place that could be taken over by some really nasty ones. It's selecting a lesser of two evils. I find that an occasional bombing with a wide-spectrum antibiotic or two, followed by a fast, is very therapeutic, on many levels.


Maybe metronidazole isn't very effective for amebiasis, I don't know. I do know that before the advent of antibiotics, people regularly died of infections that are now routinely preventable. I think if common foods were really that effective against bacteria, the human population would have figured it out a long time ago.

We are reliant on our gut flora for all sorts of things. They're part of our digestive system, and our immune system co-evolved with them. It often doesn't work right when the gut is too sterile. If you don't have some kind of serious overgrowth of microbial bad actors, I think this gut-bombing idea will do more harm than good. Is there any evidence that it's a good idea for people with normal biota?
  • like x 2

#44 tadgh78

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 1

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

Study Links Carnitine, Not Fat or Cholesterol, to Heart Disease

Apr 8, 2013 | Cardiology, Internal Medicine, Public Health & Prevention, The Daily Dose
A new article in The New York Times reports that a chemical compound in red meat, called carnitine, contributes to an increased risk of heart disease. Researchers found that in the liver, carnitine is converted by gut bacteria to an obscure chemical called TMAO, which was found to cause heart disease in mice. Following a steak meal, blood samples indicated a surge of TMAO in meat eaters, while no such influx was seen in vegans. Furthermore, concurrent suppression of intestinal microbiota resulted in virtually no TMAO in the vegans’ blood after consuming a steak.

Culprit in Heart Disease Goes Beyond Meat’s Fat

By GINA KOLATA


It was breakfast time and the people participating in a study of red meat and its consequences had hot, sizzling sirloin steaks plopped down in front of them. The researcher himself bought a George Foreman grill for the occasion, and the nurse assisting him did the cooking.



Enlarge This Image Posted Image
Getty Images

In a study, meat eaters who ate steak showed a burst of a chemical that increases risk.
For the sake of science, these six men and women ate every last juicy bite of the 8-ounce steaks. Then they waited to have their blood drawn.
Dr. Stanley Hazen of the Cleveland Clinic, who led the study, and his colleagues had accumulated evidence for a surprising new explanation of why red meat may contribute to heart disease. And they were testing it with this early morning experiment.
The researchers had come to believe that what damaged hearts was not just the thick edge of fat on steaks, or the delectable marbling of their tender interiors. In fact, these scientists suspected that saturated fat and cholesterol made only a minor contribution to the increased amount of heart disease seen in red-meat eaters. The real culprit, they proposed, was a little-studied chemical that is burped out by bacteria in the intestines after people eat red meat. It is quickly converted by the liver into yet another little-studied chemical called TMAO that gets into the blood and increases the risk of heart disease.
That, at least, was the theory. So the question that morning was: Would a burst of TMAO show up in people’s blood after they ate steak? And would the same thing happen to a vegan who had not eaten meat for at least a year and who consumed the same meal?
The answers were: yes, there was a TMAO burst in the five meat eaters; and no, the vegan did not have it. And TMAO levels turned out to predict heart attack risk in humans, the researchers found. The researchers also found that TMAO actually caused heart disease in mice. Additional studies with 23 vegetarians and vegans and 51 meat eaters showed that meat eaters normally had more TMAO in their blood and that they, unlike those who spurned meat, readily made TMAO after swallowing pills with carnitine.
“It’s really a beautiful combination of mouse studies and human studies to tell a story I find quite plausible,” said Dr. Daniel J. Rader, a heart disease researcher at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.
Researchers say the work could lead to new treatments for heart disease — perhaps even an antibiotic to specifically wipe out the bacterial culprit — and also to a new way to assess heart disease risk by looking for TMAO in the blood.
Of course, critical questions remain. Would people reduce their heart attack risk if they lowered their blood TMAO levels? An association between TMAO levels in the blood and heart disease risk does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. And which gut bacteria in particular are the culprits?
There also are questions about the safety of supplements, like energy drinks and those used in body building. Such supplements often contain carnitine, a substance found mostly in red meat.
But the investigators’ extensive experiments in both humans and animals, published Sunday in Nature Medicine, have persuaded scientists not connected with the study to seriously consider this new theory of why red meat eaten too often might be bad for people.
Dr. Frank Sacks, a professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health, called the findings impressive. “I don’t have any reason to doubt it,” he said, “but it is kind of amazing.”
Lora Hooper, an associate professor of immunology and microbiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who follows the Paleo diet, heavy on meat, exclaimed, “Yikes!”
The study does not mean that red meat is entirely bad or that it is best to avoid it entirely, said Dr. Hazen, the lead researcher. Dr. Hazen is the chairman of the department of cellular and molecular medicine at the Lerner Research Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, a nonprofit academic medical center. Meat contains protein, for example, and B vitamins, which are both essential for health. But the study’s findings indicated that the often-noticed association between red meat consumption and heart disease risk might be related to more than just the saturated fat and cholesterol in red meats like beef and pork.
Dr. Hazen began his research five years ago with a scientific fishing expedition. He directs a study of patients who come to the Cleveland Clinic for evaluations. Over the years, there have been 10,000. All were at risk for heart disease and agreed to provide blood samples and to be followed so the researchers would know if any patient had a heart attack or died of heart disease in the three years after the first visit. Those samples enabled him to look for small molecules in the blood to see whether any were associated with heart attacks or deaths.
That study and a series of additional experiments led to the discovery that a red meat substance no one had suspected — carnitine — seemed to be a culprit. Carnitine is found in red meat and gets its name from the Latin word carnis, the root of carnivore, Dr. Hazen said. It is also found in other foods, he noted, including fish and chicken and even dairy products, but in smaller amounts. Red meat, he said, is the major source, and for many people who eat a lot of red meat, it may be a concern.
The researchers found that carnitine was not dangerous by itself. Instead, the problem arose when it was metabolized by bacteria in the intestines and ended up as TMAO in the blood.
That led to the steak-eating study. It turned out that within a couple of hours of a regular meat-eater having a steak, TMAO levels in the blood soared.
But the outcome was quite different when a vegan ate a steak. Researchers had hypothesized that vegans would not have as many of the gut bacteria needed to make TMAO, and indeed virtually no TMAO appeared in the vegan’s blood after he consumed a steak.
“We did not expect to see such a dramatic difference,” Dr. Hazen said.
Then researchers gave meat eaters doses of antibiotics to wipe out almost all of their gut bacteria. After that, they no longer had TMAO in their blood either after consuming red meat or carnitine pills. That meant, he said, that the effect really was because of gut bacteria.
Researchers then tried to determine whether people with high blood carnitine or TMAO levels were at higher heart disease risk. They analyzed blood from more than 2,500 people, asking if carnitine or TMAO levels predicted heart attacks independently of traditional risk factors like smoking, high cholesterol and blood pressure. Both carnitine and TMAO did. But upon further analysis, they discovered that the effect was solely because of TMAO.
The researchers’ theory, based on their laboratory studies, is that TMAO enables cholesterol to get into artery walls and also prevents the body from excreting excess cholesterol.
But what is it about carnitine that bacteria like? The answer, Dr. Hazen said, is that bacteria use it as a fuel.
He said he worries about carnitine-containing energy drinks. Carnitine often is added to the drinks on the assumption that is will speed fat metabolism and increase a person’s energy level, Dr. Hazen said.
Dr. Robert H. Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado and a past president of the American Heart Association, worried about how carnitine might be affecting body builders and athletes who often take it because they believe it builds muscle.
Those supplements, Dr. Hazen said, “are scary, especially for our kids.”
Dr. Hazen, though, has taken his findings to heart. He used to eat red meat several times a week, about 12 ounces at a time. Now, he said, he eats it once every two weeks and has no more than 4 to 6 ounces at a time.
“I am not a vegan,” Dr. Hazen said. “I like a good steak.”

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0
  • like x 2

#45 DePaw

  • Guest
  • 239 posts
  • 62
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:53 PM

When why is carnitine used successful to treat heart disease?

http://chriskresser....ut-not-the-meat
http://www.westonapr...bolism-to-tmao/
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#46 Godof Smallthings

  • Guest
  • 710 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Thailand

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:16 PM

The timing is impressive; I just received my first tub of ALCAR. Does it now go in the bin?

#47 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,336 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:27 PM

Chris Masterjohn PhD to the rescue! His rebuttal to the carnitine kerfuffle hot off the presses.

http://www.cholester...terol-blog.html (click the link inside the blog)




Does Carnitine From Red Meat Contribute to Heart Disease Through Intestinal Bacterial Metabolism to TMAO?




Posted onApril 10, 2013by Chris Masterjohn


He does a great job looking more in depth at the data/methods - which the mainstream media does not.

One good quote from the blog post:

If the carnitine in red meat were promoting atherosclerosis through its conversion to TMAO, however, then red meat should be no more dangerous than potatoes and carrots and the real killer should be seafood. How likely is this to be true? Prospective studies correlate fish consumption with a reduced risk of heart disease mortality. Some Pacific Island groups that subsist largely on seafood, such as the Kitavans, appear to be free of heart disease. Randomized trials have tended to focus on fish oils rather than whole fish. Those testing advice to eat more fish are ambivalent, but they don’t seem to suggest that eating whole fish increases the risk of heart disease.
The elucidation of nutritional pathways and biochemistry in this paper is interesting, but it shouldn’t serve as a reason to avoid red meat.


Those (traditional) pacific islanders have been known to consume large quantities of coconut oil (which is supposed to be ungodly awful for your heart according to the U.S. sick-care industry) yet did not traditionally suffer from heart problems.

This "seafood" question is really the potential stake in the heart of this research. Seafood raises TMAO levels 10 times more than meat! We know from supercentenarian studies that fish is quite common in their diets - yet they do not suffer from heart disease.
  • like x 2

#48 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,336 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

Check this discussion before throwing anything out. Some questions remain.

#49 tham

  • Guest
  • 1,406 posts
  • 498
  • Location:Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:59 PM





Well, a few years ago, my sister told me she had recurrent resistant vaginal candidiasis.

She went to see gynecologists, who gave her the usual antifungal pessaries -
nyastatin, clotrimazole, econazole, miconazole. They probably prescribed
oral metronidazole or itraconazole too.

The drugs knocked off the candida short term, only to recur.

One day she dropped in at a local pharmacy. The female pharmacist, on listening to
her condition, advised her to take two supplements :

Garlic
Probiotics


She instructed her to take the garlic several hours apart from the probiotics,
or else the garlic would kill the bacteria if taken together.


I believe took these two :


Blackmore's, a common low potency product, with just 1 mg of oil,
equivalent to 3 grams of garlic bulb.

http://www.blackmore...ucts/garlic-oil


Solaray's Multidophilus.

http://www.iherb.com...-Caps-Ice/21154


I think she took just two to four garlic gels daily.

Six months later she had no further recurrences.



#50 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:30 AM

Just some more evidence that a plant-based (vegan) diet is optimal for humans!

Look at the results of Nathan Pritikin or Walter Kempner. These fellows understood the benefits of a starch-based diet back in the 40’s and 50’s. When Nathan Pritikin died, his cardiovascular system was autopsied and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]. The results showed that he was basically absent of atherosclerosis, even at age 69!


[1] N Engl J Med. 1985 Jul 4;313(1):52. Nathan Pritikin's heart. Hubbard JD, Inkeles S, Barnard RJ.

Edited by misterE, 12 April 2013 - 02:32 AM.

  • dislike x 3
  • like x 1

#51 bobz1lla

  • Guest
  • 57 posts
  • 7
  • Location:TX

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:12 AM

I doubt they would be sufficiently active to kill the offending species before they generated TMA. If they were active enough to do that, they would probably kill so many useful bacteria that they would make you sick...


Lots of common foods and spices are actually very active antimicrobials. I recall an old Chinese study that showed that 50g of garlic a day, for 5 days, was as curative as the standard treatment with metronidazole for amebiasis. That's protozoa, which I usually harder to kill than bacteria.

And what 'useful bacteria'? The only use they have is to occupy the place that could be taken over by some really nasty ones. It's selecting a lesser of two evils. I find that an occasional bombing with a wide-spectrum antibiotic or two, followed by a fast, is very therapeutic, on many levels.


Maybe metronidazole isn't very effective for amebiasis, I don't know. I do know that before the advent of antibiotics, people regularly died of infections that are now routinely preventable. I think if common foods were really that effective against bacteria, the human population would have figured it out a long time ago.

We are reliant on our gut flora for all sorts of things. They're part of our digestive system, and our immune system co-evolved with them. It often doesn't work right when the gut is too sterile. If you don't have some kind of serious overgrowth of microbial bad actors, I think this gut-bombing idea will do more harm than good. Is there any evidence that it's a good idea for people with normal biota?


What about after using antibiotics? Common sense would be to dose prebiotics/fiber, with some starter probiotics. At least for a little while after.

#52 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 230
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:37 AM

misterE, are you ready to become a fruitarian?

Posted Image
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#53 eddielang

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 5
  • Location:ct usa

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:59 AM

misterE, are you ready to become a fruitarian?

Posted Image


Great point, and from a great rebuttal of the reports on the study (the study itself, as is the fashion, is misrepresented in the book reports)
http://www.westonapr...bolism-to-tmao/

Edited by eddielang, 12 April 2013 - 10:00 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#54 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,607 posts
  • 315

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:27 PM

Pritikin also ran 5 miles a day and ended up committing suicide while being treated for leukemia. My mother eats alot of butter and is healthy at 75. I suspect butyrate in butter is chemoprotective for many cancers...
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#55 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:23 PM

... before the advent of antibiotics, people regularly died of infections that are now routinely preventable. I think if common foods were really that effective against bacteria, the human population would have figured it out a long time ago.

They're part of our digestive system, and our immune system co-evolved with them. It often doesn't work right when the gut is too sterile. If you don't have some kind of serious overgrowth of microbial bad actors, I think this gut-bombing idea will do more harm than good. Is there any evidence that it's a good idea for people with normal biota?


First, people did figure out long ago how to use spices to preserve food from spoilage and to improve their gut health.

Second, regarding antibiotics against bacteria, there are 2 issues here which you clamped together. One is the gut flora, which is actually not that difficult to manipulate with food, especially spices. The other is systemic infections in the bloodstream. For the second kind, eating spices is not that helpful, because the liver will change them into a variety of inactive metabolites after absorption. The antibiotics used in systemic infections either remain active after absorption or are delivered IV or IM.

So, your argument against spices as antibiotics is unfair. As long as we talk about the gut flora, many foods and all spices rule (even if they remain helpless against systemic infections).


A question to you: what sort of things are we reliant on our gut flora?

Please use actual, recent, research and not old prevalent 'reasonable' assumptions. <-- I bolded this, because of the wide-spread, long-invalid, misconceptions in this field harbored by many people today, including well educated people.

Just to ran ahead of you in this a bit:

- we do not rely on our gut flora for digestion nor production of essential nutrients. Those who disagree, please show legit research.

- they do not really 'protect' us from pathogens.


The other question: what is normal biota? Isn't it the one that outputs all sort of nasty stuff into the bloodstream of an average person, starting with LPS and ending with TMAO discussed here?



What about after using antibiotics? Common sense would be to dose prebiotics/fiber, with some starter probiotics. At least for a little while after.


That's the right way of using antibiotics, i.e. to follow with good pro- and prebiotics for at least as long as antibiotics were taken.

Edited by xEva, 12 April 2013 - 08:23 PM.

  • like x 1

#56 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,336 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 April 2013 - 01:38 PM

LEF's rebuttal to the recent media-sensationalized carnitine report. They are still down on red meat, but not carnitine supplementation (a vested interest, of course).

The authors of the Mayo Clinic study found carnitine supplementation was associated with a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality, a 65% reduction in ventricular arrhythmias, and a 40% reduction in angina symptoms in patients who had experienced a heart attack. These effects were thought to occur through multiple mechanisms, including improved energy metabolism in the mitochondria, decreased ischemia, and enhanced left ventricle function.2



#57 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 April 2013 - 02:16 PM

LEF's rebuttal to the recent media-sensationalized carnitine report. They are still down on red meat, but not carnitine supplementation (a vested interest, of course).

The authors of the Mayo Clinic study found carnitine supplementation was associated with a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality, a 65% reduction in ventricular arrhythmias, and a 40% reduction in angina symptoms in patients who had experienced a heart attack. These effects were thought to occur through multiple mechanisms, including improved energy metabolism in the mitochondria, decreased ischemia, and enhanced left ventricle function.2


Not a surprising position for LEF, but this seems to be a common misconception in the carnitine/CVD argument- Carnitines are helpful when you already have heart disease, because they improve the function of mitochondria in hypoxic, inadequately perfused heart muscle. That doesn't mean that the same carnitines, taken over a lifetime, didn't contribute to the cause of the disease (atherosclerosis).

The best pro-carnitine evidence that I've seen so far was a long term rabbit study that someone posted a few days back.

Edited by niner, 20 April 2013 - 02:18 PM.

  • like x 2

#58 revenant

  • Guest
  • 307 posts
  • 96
  • Location:Norfolk, VA
  • NO

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:49 PM

I posted this info in another thread several days ago.
An enteric coated dosage of sorbic acid (maybe a different organic acid would work better) could be helpful in limiting growth of some gut flora that produce TMA.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253811
http://www-miljo.slu.se/Workshop%20Norge/organic_acids_canibe_et_al.pdf

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/27113

SA inhibited the growth and subsequent TMA production in E. coli at or above 0.35 mM


http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:38169
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20063104305.html;jsessionid=BE143C197D0DF64272ED04F2FF04DCBD?gitCommit=4.13.29

When properly protected, organic acids can be liberated along the GIT of pigs and reduce the E. coli population significantly without disturbing the gut pH or the beneficial lactic acid bacteria.


http://www.prairiesw...m/pdf/39091.pdf

Edited by revenant, 20 April 2013 - 11:02 PM.


#59 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:00 PM

I wonder if one could offset this effect, if it is real, with vitamin K2.

#60 eddielang

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 5
  • Location:ct usa

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:46 PM

I wonder if one could offset this effect, if it is real, with vitamin K2.



The "if its real" hits it on the head. Just eat real food, not human made crap.

K2 would likely help in the process.
  • dislike x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: carnitine, heart disease, l-carnitine

16 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users