Low magnesium intake identified as a key factor in cardiovascular disease

In a recent review published in Nutrients, researchers summarized what is known about the links between magnesium deficiency and the severity of cardiovascular disease.

Their findings indicate that people with magnesium deficiency can lead to cardiovascular health conditions, making it critical to address the widespread inadequacy in magnesium intakes.

Journal reference:

9 Likes

image

I don’t get it.

2 Likes
  1. Publisher = MDPI => low quality
  2. From Nutrients, a journal of such low quality that its editorial board resigned, claiming that MDPI “pressured them to accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance”
  3. Single author
  4. Unknown author working for the US Department of Agriculture
  5. The paper is affiliated with the “Center for Magnesium Education and Research” based in Pahoa, Hawaii (924 inhabitants!)… of course, they found that magnesium was essential!

Conclusion: this paper can probably go to the trash, unfortunately.

3 Likes

But I was just thinking that magnesium is the reason why CVD is the primary cause of death… (and why the U.S life expectancy is so much lower… than other countries)

There is one practical cause and it’s cumulative apoB exposure, easy to reject papers then.

2 Likes

It’s all right anyway to remind ourselves about the importance of magnesium, I think Nobody here implies that’s the primary cause; although it may be a significant factor in case of deficiency (probably an all but impossible event among the users of this forum).

4 Likes

Evidence for magnesium is not super strong btw: What Are the best Neuroprotective Agents and Why? - #9 by adssx

2 Likes

I don’t think so. These use typically garbage evidence (muddying the waters), so when people hear 100 things causes CVD or decreases risk, the same with cancer, people think it’s all just fake, rightfully so, and in many cases is. But that means that apoB reduction gets in the crossfire.

Give the public fake after fake they will think it all is.

Ahhh, yes, but we are not The public!

But if you refer to guests of this forum perusing from the public, I think that the consensus on the governing hazard of ApoB oozes from this thread.

And again, in case you are not satisfied:

Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.
Literature underlines that ApoB governs the atherosclerotic risk.

6 Likes

Of course Ezetimibe decreases stroke risk. Because the blood vessels are all around the brain and is the same blood. That was a bit stupid of me not to realize. :joy:

Benefit of apoB lowering… Prevent all vascular dementia, and atheroschlerotic strokes. Second most common type of dementia in the U.S.

This is why the cholesterol deniers might say what they do, their brain blood vessels are all clogged up…

6 Likes

Conclusions: Among older people, cholesterol levels were unrelated to mortality between the ages of 70 and 90. The protective effect of statins observed among the very old appears to be independent of TC.

2 Likes

In the summary only TC, total cholesterol is cited.

Survival was significantly increased among subjects treated with statins versus no statins at ages 78 to 85 (74.7% vs 64.3%, log rank P = .07) and 85 to 90 (76.2% vs 67.4%, P = .01). After adjustment, TC (continuous or dichotomous) was not associated with mortality from 70 to 78, 78 to 85, or 85 to 90. In contrast, statins at age 85 were associated with decreased mortality from age 85 to 90 (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.89).

2 Likes

LDL: The lower the better

LDL particles are the prime factor behind the buildup of fatty plaque in arteries that can rupture, triggering a heart attack or stroke. “We have a paradigm in cardiology that the lower the better,” says Erica Spatz, a cardiologist at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “The question has always been, is there a bottom?” The query has taken on added significance as more powerful treatments are widely prescribed and even stronger ones are in the pipeline, including advanced biologic therapies and gene editing.

Based on a huge body of evidence, people at risk of cardiovascular disease who are prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs, including high intensity therapies, can feel assured it is a sound strategy, says Donald Lloyd-Jones, a cardiologist at Northwestern University. Lloyd-Jones was a member of the American Heart Association (AHA) committee that released the latest guidelines on cholesterol therapy in 2018 (an update is expected in 2026), as well as the group’s past president.

“We haven’t found a level that’s ‘too low’ yet,” he say. “I like low. Low is what we’re trying to achieve here.”

PCSK9 inhibitor drugs turbocharge the liver’s ability to break down and eliminate LDL. “With those medicines we can get to very low LDL cholesterol levels, below 30 and even below 20 mg/dL,” Spatz says.

A study of evolocumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets PCSK9, found that when people with cardiovascular disease added the drug to their statin regimen, their LDL dropped by 59 percent after two years and their risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death fell by 20 percent.

Last year, researchers argued in an editorial in the journal Circulation that LDL levels in newborn babies generally range from 20 to 40 mg/dL, “suggesting that higher levels seen in adults are not essential for cellular processes.” And some adults are born with genes that keep cholesterol levels in the basement throughout their life, with no adverse consequences and healthier hearts, they noted.

Read the full story: Can your cholesterol drop too low? - Drugs can now drive blood cholesterol levels lower than ever. But how low is too low? (National Geographic)

6 Likes

Why are we using association studies in 2024?

A rant on the topic:

There has been over 80 years of research on cardiovascular disease, before that infectious disease was much more important to tackle.

At the start that was important, which the Framingham Heart study in the 1950’s showed that total cholesterol was significantly associated with heart disease, funding started because of a president getting a stroke. Along that researchers found in the study associations for obesity, smoking, high blood pressure, (Lipoproteins like LDL and HDL was just starting to get measured with expensive centrifuges). Mechanistically cholesterol was also found in plaque and rabbits fed cholesterol developed disease (mice did not, but they apparently don’t have any LDL).

So by 1950’s we know mechanistic reason (cholesterol in plaque, feeding rabbits), and association (Framingham Heart study), a few decades later they found people with FH and higher total cholesterol developed disease much quicker – in their 30’s getting the first heart attack, and for those with more deleterious variants with TC up to 1000 mg/dl – in their teens.

So by the 1970’s we had mechanistic, association, and genetic studies. Race was on to develop drugs to lower cholesterol. Many weren’t that effective and then eventually statins were developed to inhibit HMGCR which would really slow down cholesterol synthesis which they found out it was a slow step in the synthesis of cholesterol. Massive blockbuster drugs, except the moronic skeptics with unpersuasive arguments for the intelligent started publishing books in the 80’s trying to refute the cholesterol hypothesis, which dampened statin sales.

Eventually large clinical trials were done showing that using statins PREVENTED heart disease – stroke, heart attacks, and as such, even lowered mortality (4S study). Which shouldn’t have been so unsurprising, but before that drugs had more side effects.

So we have mechanistic, association, genetic, and clinical trial evidence of one of the few PREVENTION drugs and strategies, this is medicine at its finest. Then the genomic revolution happens and we have so many genes to find even more genetic evidence and over longer periods, that strengthens the causality even further and shows the compounding effects of lowering early for preventing cardiovascular disease.

The LDL cholesterol deniers are literally the dumbest people in the world. There has been so much research, effort, evidence, markets and insurance signaling, that LDL cholesterol matters, by a lot. I have to say, people don’t have to do anything, just eat popcorn, I will and witness and know that these people are absolute fools. :tada: :popcorn: :popcorn:

5 Likes

We may put it more diplomatically. They are not fools, although they tend to be stubborn, for many reasons not excluding personal likes and dislikes in diet. They tend to like anti-estabilishment affirmatiosn, they tend to dislike strongly scientific research, for various reasons. they also tend to cling to whatsoever rational (or apparently rational) arguments that tend to deny the preponderance of evidence (like, the part of the population which will not die notwithstanding their excess lipids).
At the end, perhaps the above is a foolish attitude. Certainly reckless.

3 Likes

There is a middle ground between the
Ldl deniers and lower the better.
The RCt evidence doesn’t support targeting below 50 apob with pharmaceutical interventions for primary prevention.
The mendelian randomization evidence is inevitably ltd.
Which leaves Target 50 as a sensible, evidence based approach.

1 Like

In the current year, the pyramide of evidence has been inverted.

1 Like

Just adding this post, copied from here: Blood Circulation: The Overlooked Fountain of Youth - #30 by RapAdmin

You do know that the number one symptom that people with serious atherosclerosis first experience is heart attack and death, don’t you?

See the peter attia podcast on atherosclerosis - see this video, queued up to the exact point of the relevant discussion:

Screen Shot 2024-12-23 at 3.24.38 PM

2 Likes

Yeah, I started the process of getting the Cleerly done instead of the CAC this year. It will take another couple days to get the details I guess. I was doing it with email because I’ve been busy during these short days. They want $1300 to do the interpretation and virtual consultation. She never said what it costs for the scan. I think the scan is out of pocket, maybe the consultation is covered. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I asked all these questions with the email and instead of answering I got a prewritten thing. I’ll peck away for awhile then maybe call if it doesn’t work. Christmas is probably a bad time.

1 Like

Please let us know the details once you find them out - this is something many of us are likely interested in.

Yes, they use an inverted evidence hierarchy pyramid.

I was surprised to hear that the Mossad did extensive testing when planning for their Pager attack as highly competent organizations and individuals (no matter what you think of them) I would expect could just figure things out without experimentation and testing.

But it seems you can’t really get past experimentation and testing, which is at the top of the evidence hierarchy.

Of course some people choose to dismiss this, and invert the evidence hiearchy, but it’s their own health and they’re running it like the most slouchy project known to man. And NO, mechanistic studies are NOT testing or experiments.

1 Like