How Is High Iron Bad When Low Iron Correlates With Heart Disease

[ecstatichamster]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870313000744

Iron deficiency is common in patients with chronic HF, relates to disease severity, and is a strong and independent predictor of outcome. In this study, ID appears to have greater predictive power than anemia.

------

Many studies show anemia and iron deficiency correlates with heart disease and mortality. What's the full story?

 

[PakPik]

Oxygen transport depends on iron. When iron is deficient there's risk of low oxygenation to tissues and thus the heart has to work harder to compensate. Moreover, the heart is a very dependent on oxygen organ (the heart muscle performs mitochondrial respiration heavily), so having suboptimal levels of oxygenation harms it.

 

[paymanz]

It is important mineral, a deficiency of iron is bad, but that doesn't mean too high iron is a good thing!

High iron intake also linked to diabetes...

 

[tankasnowgod]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870313000744

Iron deficiency is common in patients with chronic HF, relates to disease severity, and is a strong and independent predictor of outcome. In this study, ID appears to have greater predictive power than anemia.

------

Many studies show anemia and iron deficiency correlates with heart disease and mortality. What's the full story?

Well, it's a study of people with Chronic Heart Failure, so, for one, I don't know what they mean by "Predictors." Everyone in the study already had some sort of heart problem.

Second, their definition of "Iron Deficiency" seems incredibly wide. To quote- "Iron deficiency (defined as a ferritin level <100 μg/L or ferritin 100-299 μg/L with a transferrin saturation <20%) was present in 753 patients (50%)"

You could have a patient with Serum Iron at 70, TIBC at 400, Ferritin at 290, and by their definition, that person is "Iron Deficient" (Since TSAT is 17.5, and ferritin is less than 299). Yet, all of those values are in the standard acceptable ranges (except TSAT, which is calculation), and Ferritin would actually suggest high-normal iron. Meanwhile, a person with Ferritin at 110, Serum Iron at 70, and TIBC at 260 would NOT qualify as Iron Deficient, despite lower body levels of iron.

The dismissal of Anemia as a factor also seems suspect. The paper even said it was more prevalent in the "Iron Deficient" patients.

And there is this, from the study limitations section- "First, only data from a single measurement in time were available, so the present study cannot comment on the effects of changes in iron status or hemoglobin levels over time."

This paper seems like a prime example of statistical chicanery to try and prove a predetermined conclusion.

Looking at the "Conflicts of Interests" section, Vifor Pharma pops up again and again. A quick Google search leads to their webpage, and what do I find right on the front? "Vifor Pharma, a company of the Galenica Group, is a world leader in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of iron deficiency."

 

[tankasnowgod]

Continuing with the theme of how biased this study is....... 753 pateints of the 1506 studied fell into their (insanely wide) definition of "Iron Deficient." Which is 50%. That means that the OTHER 753 patients fell into the "Non-Iron Deficient" group (maybe it's more accurate to say "Iron Loaded"), and even sticking with the definitions used in the study, that group correlates with heart disease at the exact same rate.

In addition, when the FeAST trial found that when reducing serum ferritin levels reduced heart disease, they had to lower serum ferritin from 125 mcg/l to 52 mcg/l..... and the target was 25 mcg/l, which researchers didn't hit. Even with incomplete iron reduction, the FeAST researchers found dramatic improvements in preventing heart disease and cancer.

Based on the definition of "Iron Deficiency" in the Meta-Analysis, many (if not all) of the patients in the "Iron Deficiency" group had ferritin levels well above the 52 mcg/l that the FeAST researchers found protective. The study does nothing to show that low iron is associated with heart disease, and may be actively covering up the value of iron reduction therapies.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Thank you very much @tankasnowgod

 

[RePeatRePeat]

I love this forum!!

 

[Westside PUFAs]

It depends on what else they were eating and how they were living.

Heme iron intake is associated with colon cancer while non-heme iron is not.

The iron related diseases are called the "ferrotoxic” diseases.

Another mechanism of how a high iron level in the blood can cause inflammatory diseases is that it can activate dormant bacteria in the blood:

The dormant blood microbiome in chronic, inflammatory diseases

Bacteria lurking in blood could be culprit in countless diseases

"The real issue is that you can hardly avoid getting iron, even when you try."-RP

.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

It depends on what else they were eating and how they were living.

Heme iron intake is associated with colon cancer while non-heme iron is not.

The iron related diseases are called the "ferrotoxic” diseases.

Another mechanism of how a high iron level in the blood can cause inflammatory diseases is that it can activate dormant bacteria in the blood:

The dormant blood microbiome in chronic, inflammatory diseases

Bacteria lurking in blood could be culprit in countless diseases

"The real issue is that you can hardly avoid getting iron, even when you try."-RP

.

Do you think non-heme iron is an issue?

I know that absorption is low and that the body can regulate it well.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Do you think non-heme iron is an issue?

I know that absorption is low and that the body can regulate it well.

I think it's ideal. Especially given all of the negatives that come packaged with heme iron besides the iron and the absorption itself; the amino acids, fats and biological concentration of various environmental toxins.

.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Do you think non-heme iron is an issue?

I know that absorption is low and that the body can regulate it well.

It absolutely can be. Heme iron only comes from animal foods, while non-heme can come from plant and animal foods, or supplements. If you eat a steak, for example, it's going to contain a mix of heme and non-heme. While heme iron tends to be absorbed better than non-heme, it's going to vary with a number of factors (total iron in the meal, body iron stores, genetic factors, and on and on). I would say iron in most fruits, vegetables and tubers generally isn't an issue, but it might be if you were making a spinach smoothie every day.

I still think the biggest issue is inorganic non-heme iron, the kind used in vitamins and also added to bread, rice and cereal. In addition to absorption, this type of iron can also be a powerful gut irritant.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

It absolutely can be. Heme iron only comes from animal foods, while non-heme can come from plant and animal foods, or supplements. If you eat a steak, for example, it's going to contain a mix of heme and non-heme. While heme iron tends to be absorbed better than non-heme, it's going to vary with a number of factors (total iron in the meal, body iron stores, genetic factors, and on and on). I would say iron in most fruits, vegetables and tubers generally isn't an issue, but it might be if you were making a spinach smoothie every day.

I still think the biggest issue is inorganic non-heme iron, the kind used in vitamins and also added to bread, rice and cereal. In addition to absorption, this type of iron can also be a powerful gut irritant.

I am very curious as to why humans so readily absorb heme-iron.

I read that only like 5% of the iron in spinach is even available for absorption (and only like 1% of that 5% because it's non-heme) because of the oxalates.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I think it's ideal. Especially given all of the negatives that come packaged with heme iron besides the iron and the absorption itself; the amino acids, fats and biological concentration of various environmental toxins.

.

Yeah the environmental toxins are worrying.

I try my best not to eat products reliant on animal death anyways...

 

[tankasnowgod]

I am very curious as to why humans so readily absorb heme-iron.

I read that only like 5% of the iron in spinach is even available for absorption (and only like 1% of that 5% because it's non-heme) because of the oxalates.

Well, again, absorption is dependent on a number of factors, and I've seen the suggestion that there is an "upper limit" for heme iron per meal, and not for non-heme. Yet, in general, heme is better absorbed. I think that has to do with the iron withholding defense system, and heme carries a level of protection that non-heme doesn't (and I suspect, organic non-heme likely has some protection, while inorganic supplemental non-heme certainly has none). So, heme iron is likely safer for humans (although iron is highly reactive, and always carries some risk). The book Exposing The Hidden Dangers of Iron by E.D. Weinberg really is the go-to source for info on iron loading, the problems associated with it, and treatments for it, and that is my main source.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Well, again, absorption is dependent on a number of factors, and I've seen the suggestion that there is an "upper limit" for heme iron per meal, and not for non-heme. Yet, in general, heme is better absorbed. I think that has to do with the iron withholding defense system, and heme carries a level of protection that non-heme doesn't (and I suspect, organic non-heme likely has some protection, while inorganic supplemental non-heme certainly has none). So, heme iron is likely safer for humans (although iron is highly reactive, and always carries some risk). The book Exposing The Hidden Dangers of Iron by E.D. Weinberg really is the go-to source for info on iron loading, the problems associated with it, and treatments for it, and that is my main source.

"Yet, in general, heme is better absorbed. I think that has to do with the iron withholding defense system, and heme carries a level of protection that non-heme doesn't (and I suspect, organic non-heme likely has some protection, while inorganic supplemental non-heme certainly has none)."

I share your thoughts.