Here’s the trend for the topic “healthy user bias”, which is something you encounter when you start learning about low carb or keto and is used to dismiss observational studies as if that’s the only evidence, it started around 2015.

There’s a lot of videos, posts, etc, today, in favor of factors that increase cardiovascular disease and mortality.

1 Like

Not buying obesity rates as an explanation for the hockey stick. Male obesity rates did not drop from 1980 to 2010 and then spike up after 2010. If anything obesity has been steadily rising since 1980.

Yes, the data is in 5 year increments. That’s why it’s straight lines between the data points and not squiggly waves. But that makes it only worse. A straight line between 2010 and 2015 is the gentlest slope upwards, implying proportionate increases every year, so if we call that period 2010-2015 “100%”, then every year increased by an even 20%. You can’t get more gradual. If you posit instead that there was a slower growth from 2010 to 2013, then you must correspondingly explode the line even more sharply 2014-2015 to make it to the next data point in 2015. That makes the extreme accelleration problem much worse. So if you didn’t like saying “it looks like in mere months there was a u-turn in falling rates going to rising rates”, and so you stretch that over 2-3 years, then you have the exact same problem only significantly worse when you get to 2013-2015, because now you have to say: “gee, it looks like there was a dramatic spike in a matter of weeks”. The longer you slow the upturn the sharper you have to make it later to catch up to the data point. Furthermore, as the other poster indicated, statin use didn’t drop, instead it rose starting shortly before the revised guidelines of 2013 - looking at that chart he posted, the increase was massive. Now, I don’t think we have any grounds for saying the statins increased mortality, rather we would expect, at the very least for statins to decrease mortality in secondary prevention, because of relatively short period of time of two years (2013-2015), we would not expect much primary prevention over two years - it should have at least started moderating fatal MACE events in those who already had a previous event - secondary prevention should limit deaths.

Anyhow, I don’t think we have had a good explanation so far - any way you look at that graph, there must have been an extremely sharp spike at some point - in fact, that straight line makes it the least sharp spike possible geometrically.

Still looking for an explanation. Almost looks like those re-evaluations of the French Paradox, where it was hypothesised that the way deaths were recorded in France, they undercounted CVD as a cause of death, thus seemingly showing better CV health and French Paradox - if instead you normalized the data, by re-classifying various deaths that were reported in separate terms all under the one umbrella term of CVD deaths the paradox disappears. It looks like some kind of data issue. If not, then it really is a super odd situation, when it looks like a infectious disease epidemic curve of mortality - from going down to suddenly and very sharply reversing direction, where you can point and say “here is where the virus struck”.

1 Like

They can, but as with many drugs, it is advised to start low and go slow. The newest of the two, febuxostat has fewer side-effects, but insurance may not cover it. This recently happened to me, so I’ve been on allopurinol for about a week. It makes me feel queasy while sitting down, faint and dizzy when I run. I just ordered febuxostat from India for about 10 cents a tablet.

Looking at these graphs of CVD mortality rates, I thought again about my very favorite public health intervention program - The North Karelia Project. I think it is super interesting, in that the numbers from the graph AnUser posted match very closely the Finnish numbers. In 1980, the CVD death rates for males in the USA was roughtly 507/100K. In Finland CVD deaths in the late 60’s, early 70’s was about 500/100K - in the famous Ancel Keys Seven Countries Study, Finland had the worst statistics. Finland during that period of time had the highest rates of death from heart attacks in the world. It is quite sobering to consider that present day USA has CVD mortality rates on a similar level, and here we are, in the 2020’s where you’d think we’ve learned our lessons. In the North Karelia province of Finland, the rates were an astronomical 700/100K during the late 60’s early 70’s. There were many factors epidemiologists, physicians and health officials zeroed in on: cholesterol levels, smoking and blood pressure. Finland had the highest cholesterol levels on a population level recorded in any country. Notably, Finland reached the 500/100K CVD mortality rates with smoking rates dramatically higher than current smoking rates in the USA - which tells us, that the risk factors in the USA leading to the current horrendous CVD mortality rates must be somewhat different than in Finland of that era. We managed to get to 500/100K despite much lower smoking rates - quite an “accomplishment”.

The North Karelia Project is a gold mine of data and a stellar example of an extremely successful public health intervention - it is the finest achievement in lowering CVD death rates by public policy anywhere in the world, at any time. When I see endless arguments about cholesterol or diet - I just think of the North Karelia Project, which is a direct refutation of so many talking points by various folks when it comes to cholesterol and diet.

The North Karelia Project: Cardiovascular disease prevention in Finland

I give a quotation below, but really the whole paper is worth reading, it is so rich in data! For that matter it is worth buying books about this - for anyone interested in the subject of CVD health, this is absolutely wonderful reading.

"Serum cholesterol level and diet

Before the 1970s North Karelia was a poor, rural area. Small farming and forest industry were the main occupations. After the Second World War, the living standard started to improve rapidly. The dairy industry developed and people had enough food to eat. Dairy products were highly valued and a high intake of butter, cream, full milk, and cheese was regarded especially healthy. It was, therefore, painful to recognize that this diet seemed to be one of the main reasons for high mortality rates from cardiovascular diseases. The following advice was given to the population5:

  • use low-fat milk, non-fat milk or sour milk instead of high-fat or whole milk

  • use other low-fat dairy products instead of high-fat products

  • cut down the amount of butter or margarine on bread and change to soft margarine or soft butter (mixture of butter and oil)

  • cut off visible fat in meat, choose lean meat and sausages, and prefer fish and poultry

  • prepare food without adding extra (animal) fat, in cooking prefer boiling and baking

  • use vegetable oil in salad dressing and when baking

  • restrict the use of eggs (egg yolk) to only a couple per week

  • increase intake of whole-grain cereals

  • increase consumption of vegetables, roots, berries and fruits

Most of these original recommendations are still valid in Finnish society. Hard margarines have almost disappeared after the role of trans fats was discovered in the 1980’s. At present, soft butter contains mainly butter and very little oil. Soft margarines are recommended nowadays instead.

The nutritional messages were spread through different channels and in connection with different activities in the community. During the original project period (1972–1977) a total of 342 newspaper articles were published, in addition to 769 articles dealing with other risk factors, over 100,000 leaflets were distributed. Hundreds of training seminars were organized for healthcare workers, mass catering personnel, and the general public. Diet was discussed in 167 health education meetings attended by 12,100 participants. Local housewives associations (the Martha Association) organized 344 special “parties of long life” in local villages where healthy food was cooked and served to village members. Over 15,000 people participated in these meetings. Special training meetings were organized to change the diet in mass catering at workplaces, schools, hospitals and restaurants.

On a national level, since the 1980’s, several sectors became involved. National dietary guidelines were published for the first time in 1981 by the National Nutrition Council. A national cholesterol consensus meeting was held in 1989. Guidelines on prevention of coronary heart disease in Finland were published in 1987, together with national health authorities and voluntary organizations. Since then, these documents have been updated regularly.

Government became more involved and gave a health policy statement in 1985 where the role of healthy nutrition as an important goal was recognized. The law on dietary fats in 1987 allowed mixing dietary fats and oils to make new types of products available. The Finnish food industry has, with increasing health consciousness of consumers, been very active in developing new low fat products. In addition to low fat milks and spreads, low fat cheese, ice cream, sausages etc have appeared in the markets. Later, margarine with plant sterols was developed. A new variety of rapeseed oil was developed and it became widely used in homes and the margarine industry. Many voluntary organizations have also been very active, especially the Finnish Heart Association. Large-scale public health campaigns were organized in mass media. Health issues also became an important topic in magazines, newspapers and TV and radio programs.

Serum cholesterol reduced in North Karelia between 1972 and 2012 from 6.92 mmol/l to 5.46 mmol/l (−21%) in men and from 6.81 mmol/l to 5.37 mmol/l (−21%) in women5. In men, serum cholesterol level reduced more in North Karelia than in the reference province Kuopio during the first five years from 1972 to 1977. Since then, the development in serum cholesterol level has been very similar in different parts of the country (Figure 2). Saturated fats reduced from 20% of energy intake to 12% in 2007, and increased from 2007 to 2012 to 14%. Most of the decline was explained by dietary changes and only small amount (0.14 mmol/l) was explained by increased statin use since the 1980s."

4 Likes

Wonder how much the timing of strokes and heart attacks are stress related

(I know that even just the stress of daylight savings changes leads to a spike in heart attached and strokes).

If so the one data point 2010-15 combined - could be driven by extreme stress that the great recession and significant job destruction that followed after the global financial crises

And the last 2020 datapoint could be from the stress and job destructions that the first part of the Covid pandemic lead to

Basically medium and long term heart attacks and strokes are driven by lipids, obesity, etc

But the timing of heart attacks and strokes can be “pulled” forward by large stress… and the Great Recession and its wake and Covid were times when there was a lot of stress across the country and world

3 Likes

The increase in CVD is a culmination of earlier decades of obesity. You need to look at a 10+ year lag period. The second part of my sentence also said “and insulin resistance”. It’s a combination of obesity and insulin resistance which does you in.

Exactly. Those people were obese in the 2000s, and they’re having their heart attacks a decade later.

If you go back to the graph, you have a steep lowering of deaths from 2000 to 2010. That is nothing to do with us being less obese. That reduction is largely thanks to better hospital procedures, like reperfusion (percutaneous coronary intervention) to remove clots, and streamlined procedures to get potential heart attack victims into the cath lab as fast as possible. That’s optimising everything from the paramedics at the scene, to the ability of the ambulance to pull up directly next to the cath lab.

People did get fatter during the 2000s, and that’s when you see an uptick from 2010 to 2015.

And as I said, now we’re seeing emergence of new diseases like HFpEF.

The 2010-2011 point is interpolated. If you look at the graph of the actual data points, the total increase from 2010 to 2015 is no more extreme that the rate of decrease from 2005 to 2010.

Nobody said they did. The graph is CVD deaths. Of course people got fatter, but we got a lot better at treating heart attacks during the 2000s. Survival rates are way better now than they used to be. More people HAVE heart disease, but less were DYING from it. Now, we’ve basically used up the benefits of the improved treatment and the deaths are catching up again.

Also, you are right about obesity steadily rising - and you see a culmination of CVD deaths happening a couple decades later.

Basically, just because obesity is responsible for the increased deaths now, it doesn’t mean that less deaths in the past is explained by a change in obesity. A graph like that showing CVD deaths is affected by literally hundreds of things.

1 Like

My uric acid is between 3.5 and 4.4 mg/dl and depends on my diet. What’s yours that you need medication to reduce it?

Yours is optimal. Mine has hovered between 6.2 and 7.6 over the last two years, which brought on four cases of gout, two moderate and two severe. Like you, I’m on a fairly strict renal diet, with the occasional break. The acid-lowering drugs allow me an occasional break from the gout diet. And both are renoprotective. What’s your GFR again?

Yeah I’m not buying “we got worse at treating heart disease after 2010” either.

2 Likes

It would be interesting to see a similar mortality graph 1980-2020, but for cancer. No. 2 killer, but it’s the trends that are interesting, especially with the disparity in treatment outcomes. I suppose smoking is a gigantic factor.

What do you guys and @CronosTempi think about the potential hypothesis I laid out?

Interesting… I just checked the trends on the unemployment levels in the US during this period and it aligns somewhat well with your theory…

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

4 Likes

I don’t know. In general I try not to overfit data, and it’s notoriously easy to find some correlation that seems to hold up pretty well, but is in fact spurious. I mean on the face of it, it sounds more plausible than people getting increasingly fat while CVD deaths went down, until one fine morning in 2010 they all had a videoconference and established that “things have gone far enough, we’ve been fat too long, the CVD data has been moving in a contrary direction, starting tomorrow we’re dramatically increasing fatal heart attacks so at least the data fits with how bad obesity is supposed to be… c’mon everybody, the cardiologists need their chart paradoxes resolved, they can’t take it anymore!”.

2 Likes

Job loss and financial ruin during the great Recession do cause a lot of stress and anxiety which is detrimental to CVD outcomes. My father lost his only job in 2009 due to forced retirement. He had worked for the same automotive company since graduating university. I also lost my job and had to move abroad in 2009. It was one of the most stressful times in my life. So, yeah, I imagine it could cause a heart attack.

Also, a lot of people lost medical insurance at that time. Fewer doctor visits and less prevention. I think the Great Recession was probably a very large contributing factor to increased CVD mortality.

(However, moving abroad was one of the best decisions in my life, and it probably wouldn’t have happened without the Great Recession. So lemonade from lemons I suppose.) :slight_smile:

4 Likes



unemployment stress leads to the doctors leads to statin prescriptions leads to … :joy:

sorry, but this is still better than blaming sudden changes on gradual changes (medical care advances, obesity rates) smeared out over time.

The mechanism seems to be documented in the literature if anyone want to look into it more

From ChatGPT (have not read more than the summaries):

Here are some key studies and articles that explore the relationship between acute psychological stress and the triggering of heart attacks and strokes:

1.	Acute Psychological Stress as a Trigger for Stroke:
•	Summary: This study investigates how acute stress events can precede strokes and coronary heart disease, highlighting the role of stress as a potential trigger.
•	Link:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32249204/


2.	Association of Psychosocial Stress With Risk of Acute Stroke:
•	Summary: This case-control study examines self-reported psychosocial stress as an independent risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction, emphasizing the importance of stress management in cardiovascular disease prevention. 
•	Link:  https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799352?utm_source=chatgpt.com


3.	Physical, Psychological, and Chemical Triggers of Acute Cardiovascular Events:
•	Summary: This article reviews how behavioral, psychosocial, and environmental triggers can immediately increase the risk of acute cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes. 
•	Link:  https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799352?utm_source=chatgpt.com

4.	Chronic Stress and Heart Disease:
•	Summary: This article discusses how chronic stress can lead to high blood pressure and other cardiovascular issues, potentially increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
•	Link:  https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/02/04/chronic-stress-can-cause-heart-trouble?utm_source=chatgpt.com

5.	Psychological Stress and Heart Disease: Fact or Folklore?:
•	Summary: This article explores the belief that severe acute psychological stress can precipitate myocardial dysfunction, infarction, arrhythmia, and cardiac death, supported by multiple reports. 
•	Link:  https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2822%2900137-1/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

These resources provide comprehensive insights into how acute psychological stress can act as a trigger for cardiovascular events.

2 Likes

Nobody said that either. We’re better than ever at treating some forms of CVD.

I’m not trying to be an ass here, but I don’t know whether my explanation was poor, or it’s a reading comprehension issue, or you’re just looking for something which isn’t there. So I’m going to try again.

The graph is showing deaths from CVD - that would include the typical atherosclerosis → heart attack → death pathway, but also others like cardiomyopathy, HFpEF etc.

We saw a gradual decrease in CVD deaths (not cases) due to better treatment for acute MI. You have a heart attack, and your chance of surviving the next few months is greatly improved thanks to new therapies. We have reperfusion therapy. We have good drugs for secondary prevention. We have cardiac rehabilitation protocols which work. We have also made some dent in primary prevention due to better awareness and screening of lipids, blood pressure etc. Smoking rates have also been decreased. So there’s a lot of contributing factors for that fall in CVD deaths.

As you can see, deaths were falling, somewhat consistently (though the line for females is honestly pretty flat for 20 years of 1980 to 2000. Then, they seem to turn around in 2010, and people are saying “what happened in 2010?!” However, that’s the wrong question entirely. Heart attacks, strokes etc are very rare in young people - they tend to start to pick up after 40 years old, and CVD is usually a disease which takes a long time to manifest itself. So a better question is, "what happened in who were turning 40 in 2010 (i.e. those born in 1970). For that question, we have a good answer: rampant obesity and metabolic disease. which have got worse.

What we’re seeing now is the millennial generation entering the age at which they start to get sick. And it’s getting even worse because that generation grew up with even worse lifestyles, eating the majority of calories from ultra-processed foods, a huge proportion being insulin resistant. There is childhood obesity, kids with insulin resistance and hypertension in elementary school. That is giving rise to new forms of cardiovascular disease, such as HFpEF which I mentioned earlier.

Also, just bear in mind the Y axis, which is compressed and maybe a bit misleading. At the worst, the deaths (for females) are 510/1000, and the lowest was around 400/1000. It’s a 22% drop. And if you take the lowest (2010) and compare to highest (2020), it’s a 25% increase. So the difference isn’t actually as big as the graph might indicate where it looks like deaths are very low in 2010. CVD has always been the number 1 killer, by far. If you plotted the Y axis with a range of 0 to 600, those trends won’t look anywhere near as dramatic.

It’s certainly possible that it’s a contributing factor. There are hundreds of factors which would influence CVD death rates - screening guidelines, new drugs, drugs coming off patent, patient attitudes and compliance, the economy, social trends (like smoking, drugs etc), global pandemics etc. But again, I wouldn’t be looking at what happened in 2010 that suddenly caused a bunch of deaths. You want to look 20, 30, 40 years earlier.

1 Like

UK:
1742633219578648992034015029336

France:

So it’s a US problem. It’s probably not economic crises, unemployment or stress as the UK and France were equally affected.

5 Likes

Yes, there is a marked difference in Cvd mortality between USA and western Europe. My money is on diet as the key differentiator between Western countries. With pharma causing downward trend everywhere.

This data shows the US has a significantly higher cvd death rate. With Italy and France significantly better the middle of the road UK
images

3 Likes