Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Dec 12, 2010.
Free Full text at: http://www.medscimonit.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=881301
The difference here is 1.41 mmol/L (healthy controls) vs 1.27 (CFS) = 0.14.
So one could say healthy controls appear to have a 5.6 x 2%-4%=11.2-22.4% reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk compared to people with CFS. Although such a linear relationship may not be accurate for this specific comparison.
Important research from Serbia.
Seems to conclude that women with 'CFS' have higher levels of MDA (Malondialdehyde) & lower HDL so at risk of furred arteries.
Will check out MDA on Wiki .. not heard of before.
But 'CFS ... affects mostly women from lower socio economic classes' ???!!! Is that some 'gem' they picked up from the CDC website?!!
MDA - Malondialdehyde -
I understand some of it, but hopefully one of the forum biology/chemistry wizards could explain please?? Thank you in advance ...!
General gist I think is that Higher MDA also = higher cancer risk.
MDA is produced as a result of lipid oxidation, so it can be used as an indicator of oxidative stress: http://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(05)00104-3/abstract
It has been associated with various cancers, Pre-eclampsia, Diabetes, heart diseases, liver disease and Alzheimer's type dementia.
They referenced three Leonard Jason papers. They were all actually from the one study (Chicago prevalence study).
What they used in the study was different (CFS group and control group):
Anyone else think the positive bit in this doesn't match Figure 3:
To me, the regression line in Figure 3 looks like it is sloping down (a negative slope) (when one measures it, it slopes down) which would be a negative correlation. Maybe I'm missing something. I wrote to the authors but they claimed it is correct (although whether they looked again, I don't know).
That's weird - the low socio-economic classes - how would they know; was this an epidemiological study? I don't think so. Jason found higher prevelance in Hispanics in Chicago I believe so it may be true - although with the vague definition you can fit alot in there....
whoops I missed that earlier comment.
Still high MDA backs up the MERUK study I believe and is consistent with every study on oxidative stress that I know of......another area begging for more research.
Incidentally, in case anyone else is confused.
When I read the abstract initially, I thought the second line might apply to a subgroup.
However the full paper makes clear that it is the whole group they are referring to.
A subgroup might have been nice......actually (always happy to find subsets )
Yes, I think this research backs up MERUK (and some other) research. Nice to have an area with a bit of consistency.
Yeah, its really a strong area.....so that suggests an inflammatory state to me...if they could just tie down where its coming from...
Then theres heart rate variability, low blood volume, NK cell problems, immune activation, some HPA axis problems...I'm sure there's more.how do they all fit together??? Hopefully XMRV will be the tie that binds.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.