Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (112924)	4/17/2008 4:59:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

zeus, i didn't say their research was wrong, so i have no argument with their results. if you had comprehended my message, the results they received are pretty obvious... excess inflammation causes heart disease and elevated crp, so an elevated crp would reasonably accompany an elevated risk of heart disease. the problem is that crp results from significant inflammation - so there already is a problem by the time crp becomes elevated. if you want to micromanage illness, crp will tell you when to start popping your medication. if you want to macromanage wellness, crp doesn't do much for you.

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (112924)	4/17/2008 5:21:35 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

zeus, you are obviously unfamiliar with the research out of harvard medical school that yielded the following results: relative risk of heart attack healthy - 1 cholesterol over 200 - 2 smoking 1 pack per day - 4 tg/hdl > 7 - 16 so, if your tg/hdl was over 7 and you didn't smoke, you were 4 times more likely to have a heart attack than if you smoked 1 pack of cigarettes a day with a normal tg/hdl. 4 times is very significant. tg/hdl is already included in your blood panel work - so the marginal cost is $0. although you may have to do some math yourelf. the copenhagen male study yielded similar results. the studied two groups, one with a tg/hdl < 1.7 and one with a tg/hdl > 6. the low tg/hdl participants who smoked, didn't exercise, suffered from hypertension and had elevated levels of ldl cholesterol had a significantly LOWER risk of heart disease than those who lived better in the elevated tg/hdl group. i'm not saying that crp is a bad indicator. it is actually pretty decent. dr. sears points out one study that showed middle aged men with elevated crp were at a 300% greater risk of developing alzheimer's 25 years down the road. this makes sense since inflammation causes elevated crp and, eventually, plays a huge role in alzheimer's. so, no, crp isn't a bad test, but it isn't the be all, end all test, either. neither is tg/hdl. they all indicate good information. dr. sears argues that aa/epa is the best measure available because that ratio tells you the relative ratio of the essential fatty acids that drive inflammation in the first place. iow, inflammation is the result to the aa/epa cause. it is moving up stream to get a handle on the cause of inflammation rather than deal with the results of inflammation. i doubt you will be able to understand this as you seem fixated on the idea of defending crp, but i hope the light bulb turns on for someone else who may read this.