Brain regulates cholesterol in blood, study suggests, page 1

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:49 PM

link

It looks like this could be a ground-breaking study, especially bearing in mind the degree of disease resulting from the prevalence of high blood cholesterol in western societies:

The amount of cholesterol circulating in the bloodstream is partly regulated by the brain, a study in mice suggests. It counters assumptions that levels are solely controlled by what we eat and by cholesterol production in the liver.

The US study in Nature Neuroscience found that a hunger hormone in the brain acts as the "remote control" for cholesterol travelling round the body...

...The research carried out by a US team at the University of Cincinnati found that increased levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin in mice caused the animals to develop higher levels of blood-circulating cholesterol.

Levels in the blood rise because signals from the brain prompt the liver to store less cholesterol, the researchers said...

...In a separate experiment, they found that blocking this receptor in mice also increased levels of cholesterol in the blood...

...The researchers said the finding needs to be replicated in humans but potentially opens up a new way of treating high cholesterol. Study leader Professor Matthias Tschoep said: "We have long thought that cholesterol is exclusively regulated through dietary absorption or synthesis and secretion by the liver.

"Our study shows for the first time that cholesterol is also under direct 'remote control' by specific neurocircuitry in the central nervous system."

..."This could potentially open up new forms of treatment to control cholesterol levels, which would be great news for people with heart and circulation problems..."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source

Could this open the gate to the prevention of high cholesterol? Might a resulting reduction in invasive surgery lead to astronomical savings in health care, not to mention safer management of the condition?

Or is this perhaps just too good to be true?

[edit: source added]

[edit on 6/6/10 by pause4thought]

ANNED

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:53 PM

link

Wonder how long before they start sending people for Cognitive behavioral therapy for cholesterol control.
en.wikipedia.org...

The biggest waste of money is sending people with pain disorders for Cognitive behavioral therapy
But some doctors still do it and when the people fire there doctor and find another doctor the fired doctor is reinforced in his belief that Cognitive behavioral therapy works because the people never come back.

pause4thought

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:40 PM

link

reply to post by ANNED

It appears that this new finding might open the door to a new type of medication that would inhibit the body's uptake of cholesterol.

(Although medications do exist, the new approach might prove more effective, not least because the mechanisms are seemingly better understood as a result of this study.)

mnmcandiez

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:49 PM

link

So does this mean that people with high cholesterol have brain issues?

pause4thought

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:05 PM

link

reply to post by mnmcandiez

It's more subtle than that. The findings suggest chemicals in the brain regulate the uptake of cholesterol. Clearly diet and exercise are not exonerated as causes of high cholesterol — rather they counteract the body's natural balancing mechanism which is, it seems controlled from the brain. Presumably the idea would be that medication might be used to influence the reactions in the brain such that cholesterol would not be allowed to build up despite a fatty diet or lack of exercise.

(Could be a couch potato's Heaven.)

DevolutionEvolvd

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:10 PM

link

Lowering insulin and increasing glucagon has the same effect as statin drugs.

Other than those rare genetically predisposed individuals that have extremely elevated cholesterol levels, who really needs a drug that lowers cholesterol?

Total serum cholesterol is not the problem; it never has been. We know this because nearly every study available shows no statistically significant association between total cholesterol and heart attacks/mortality.

LDL particle size/quantity, inflammation and glycation/oxidation are the real problems. How can we expect researchers to remedy our health crises when they base their studies on faulty data?

-Dev

[edit on 6-6-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

pause4thought

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:19 PM

link

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

That was a fascinating response.

Could you provide any links for further reading?

If you are submitting that high blood cholesterol is not generally a cause of disease how does that relate to issues of diet and exercise, using the current paradigm? And are you saying this study doesn't progress understanding and/or health care?

Thanks.

super genius

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:12 PM

link

i feel so silly now, here i was thinking all along diet affected cholecterol levels.
guess i can go eat meat only now!
sweet.

DevolutionEvolvd

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:27 AM

link

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Could you provide any links for further reading?

www.jstage.jst.go.jp...

The cholesterol-lowering drug trials published in 2008-2009 were either negative (ENHANCE, SEAS, GISSI-HF, AURORA) or obviously biased and therefore not credible (JUPITER). How can we explain this wave of negative cholesterol-lowering drug trials? In this article, authors review and comment the results of these recent trials. It is also noteworthy that most cholesterol-lowering drug trials published between 2005 (the year of the Vioxx affair and of enforcement of new clinical trial regulations) and 2007 were also negative or ambiguous. Taken together, these recent trials, including those of 2008-2009, strongly suggest that the results of previous, highly positive trials with statins - particularly in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease - published between 1994 and 2004 and that were used to issue guidelines for medical practitioners should be carefully re-examined by experts independent from the pharmaceutical industry. The next question would be whether it is not time for a full reappraisal of the theory according to which cholesterol-lowering results in a significant protection against cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

As a preface to the following link....It's generally understood that saturated fat is unhealthy and promotes atherosclerosis through it's cholesterol elevating effects.

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

www.proteinpower.com...
www.proteinpower.com...
www.proteinpower.com...

heartscanblog.blogspot.com...

How often does someone develop coronary heart disease from high cholesterol alone?

Believe drug industry propaganda and you'd think that everyone does. Physicians have bought into this concept also, driving the $27 billion annual sales in statin cholesterol drugs.

In my experience, I can count the number of people who develop coronary disease from high cholesterol alone on one hand. It happens--but rarely.

That's not to say that cholesterol is not an issue. That rant populates many of the kook websites and conversations on the internet that argue that high cholesterol is a surrogate for some other health issue, or that it is part of a medical conspiracy.

jama.ama-assn.org...

If you are submitting that high blood cholesterol is not generally a cause of disease how does that relate to issues of diet and exercise, using the current paradigm?

Diet affects LDL and HDL and total cholesterol. Exercise can improve insulin sensitivity and, therefore, lower elevated LDL particles as well as increase LDL size (a good thing).

And are you saying this study doesn't progress understanding and/or health care?

I think it's a cool study; however, it's being used for the wrong reasons. Ghrelin and leptin research seems a little overkill for general health science. There are other, more easily controlled hormones, such as insulin, that affect both of these little hormones.

-Dev

[edit on 7-6-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

plumranch

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:05 AM

link

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Ghrelin and leptin research seems a little overkill for general health science. There are other, more easily controlled hormones, such as insulin, that affect both of these little hormones.

Interesting!

Please elaborate. Insulin certainly is a key hormone.