When Inflammation Does Not Get Confirmed By Certain Markers of Inflammation

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
For a long time now, I have been flummoxed by my inability to get confirmation of underlying inflammation in my body. I have used 3 widely used markers of inflammation, and these are hsCRP (high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein), ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate), and LDH (Lactate Dehydrogenase). There are other marker out there, but they are not as common, AFAIK, and many are just unaffordable and impractical if used regularly to monitor progress.

All these three markers I mentioned fail to tell me that I have inflammation. In fact, hsCRP and ESR are very low, and LDH is just barely above optimal range. [And the LDH is only above range because I have low blood volume, which would tend to make readings appear high than they really are, as many blood markers are based on a concentration per volume of blood. With low blood volume, whatever substance being measured in blood becomes more concentrated. Given that it's really the total quantity of that substance in the entire blood that's important, it makes sense to use concentration as a surrogate marker for total quantity only if the subject has normal blood volume.]

Yet I have high blood pressure, and I have strong indications to assume that the high blood pressure stems from immune complexes deposited in my kidney glomerulus that cause inflammation. The inflammation is noted by high wbc, neutrophil, and monocytes in my CBC, as well as the excretion of albumin in my urine, and confirmed by lower serum albumin. The neutrophils and macrophages (from monocytes that turn into macrophages when inside tissues) attack the immune complexes, which they consider antigens, and send inflammatory cytokines to the site. Coupled with the spillover ROS from the phagocytic action of neutrophils, a constant level of oxidative stress is generated that needs to be countered by the body's antioxidant system. This is why my serum uric acid is high, as it is needed as an antioxidant, and why my serum albumin, another antioxidant, is being oxidized. The oxidized albumin, having a positive charge, easily passes through the kidneys and is not reabsorbed, and is excreted. This loss of albumin is what causes my serum albumin to be low, and is what causes by blood volume to be low, as albumin agglomerates and holds on to sodium, and sodium attracts water from the interstitial fluids, and increases blood plasma and as a result blood volume increases. With low volume, I have high blood pressure (this is consistent with Ray Peat's findings but is contrary to conventional medical thought).

With that being the context of my discussion, I had been asking for a long time why all that inflammation is not being confirmed in the three inflammation markers I mentioned.

Then slowly I came to the realization that high blood pressure, through the sacrifice of albumin, had all along been saving me from having tissues destructed from the inflammation. While the oxidative stress is there constantly, my body has not been derelict in its duty to protect the surrounding tissues from damage because the antioxidant system of the body has been coming out in full force each time. It didn't act like Chris Wray and Bill Barr when the cities were burning from riots. It was never compromised in anyway and my tissues were never destroyed.

For the inflammation markers should actually be called tissue destruction markers - LDH, hsCRP and ESR. No tissue were being destroyed, so these markers were low. Yes, there was plenty of inflammation going on, but the oxidative stresses coming from them were being met equally with antioxidant action from the body's stores, and therefore no tissues were being destroyed.

So I should thank my body's antioxidant system for being there all the time for me, and allowing albumin to be sacrificed in place of tissues, and for the body to have the wisdom to compensate for the low blood volume (arising from low albumin due to the albumin loss) by increasing my blood pressure.

This is what I've come to conclude. I may be wrong. I may have no evidence for the "evidence-based" establishment guys. This is only a hypothesis. But for me, the person with the problem (or I should call it a condition - in a good way) of hypertension, this is good enough for now. Since no one, not a doctor for sure, can give me a coherent reason for this stupefying inconsistency, I will gladly settle for this.

This behooves me to ask "what's in a name?" In this case, I should stop fixating on these three markers as markers of inflammation. It may be that most of the time inflammation results in tissue destruction. And that calling them markers of inflammation is very well appropriate.

But it is high time to ask the question "When does inflammation not result in tissue destruction, even when the inflammation is chronic?"
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Curious if you know what your vitamin D level is? About 15% of it is carried in albumin.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Curious if you know what your vitamin D level is? About 15% of it is carried in albumin.
It's been a while since I tested it and back then it was good at around 50 nmol/lm but sunlight is plentiful here and I get enough of it.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
But if you're constantly peeing it out...
So if my vitamin D level is low, what would be the implication as it relates to inflammation and not being detected by the inflammation markers?
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
btw not sure if the units are correct, but 50 nmol/L is deficiency status.
I was too lazy to go back to check in my online provider's records, so my units could be wrong. I just know it went well.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Don't know. Just trying to brainstorm with you.
Thanks. I just wanted to share I figured out that what I considered to be inflammation markers can throw people off into thinking they have no inflammation when they have it, yet it's not registering because the markers are actually markers for tissue destruction. If there is inflammation and it's not destroying tissues, it will not show up in the markers. I gave one instance of that.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I wanted to test my IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-alpha, but the quote was too much at $640.

Never the mind.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Do you think if you increased antioxidant intake (eg, vit C, astaxanthin, alpha lipoic acid, etc) that would prevent/reduce sacrifice of albumin?
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Do you think if you increased antioxidant intake (eg, vit C, astaxanthin, alpha lipoic acid, etc) that would prevent/reduce sacrifice of albumin?
Yes, it does. As I've observed my blood pressure going down taking vitamin C, and my serum albumin increased. It is a good, but only a band-aid, as I would have to keep taking it every day, just as I would be taking a maintenance drug. It, however, buys me time to do more research and self-experimentation to eliminate the real cause of the inflammation and oxidative stress.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Yes, it does. As I've observed my blood pressure going down taking vitamin C, and my serum albumin increased. It is a good, but only a band-aid, as I would have to keep taking it every day, just as I would be taking a maintenance drug. It, however, buys me time to do more research and self-experimentation to eliminate the real cause of the inflammation and oxidative stress.

Realistically, vitamin C is a maintenance drug for everyone. Maybe you just need more due to absorption issues or something.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Yes, it does. As I've observed my blood pressure going down taking vitamin C, and my serum albumin increased. It is a good, but only a band-aid, as I would have to keep taking it every day, just as I would be taking a maintenance drug. It, however, buys me time to do more research and self-experimentation to eliminate the real cause of the inflammation and oxidative stress.

An interesting experiment to try would be to substitute vitamin C with another more powerful antioxidant to see if you get the same effect. If not that would help narrow it down. The two I mentioned earlier are over 6000 times and 80 times, respectively, more powerful at quenching singlet oxygen reactive oxygen species than vitamin C is. Even vitamin E is more powerful @ 55x.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Realistically, vitamin C is a maintenance drug for everyone. Maybe you just need more due to absorption issues or something.
That is the opinion of many orthomolecular doctors. Ray Peat,however, would beg to differ.

Since Linus Pauling's time, discoveries on the role of ROS in our immunity has made the villification of oxidants less fashionable. We don't just take something because it is an antioxidant. Besides, the body has its own set of antioxidants, and the body knows when to turn on the switch to produce antioxidants when needed. We don't have to give it antioxidants when it's not needed, as it may still do more harm than good when it interferes with the oxidative action of our immune system towards pathogens. Vitamin C has its place as an antioxidant, but its use has to be better understood. Meat has vitamin C also, and so do fruits, so it isn't as if we don't get vitamin C from our diet that we need to take vitamin C supplements daily.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
An interesting experiment to try would be to substitute vitamin C with another more powerful antioxidant to see if you get the same effect. If not that would help narrow it down. The two I mentioned earlier are over 6000 times and 80 times, respectively, more powerful at quenching singlet oxygen reactive oxygen species than vitamin C is. Even vitamin E is more powerful @ 55x.
I don't really know the basis for those numbers though. For all we know, it may just be marketing. And if not, on what basis do they say it's x times more powerful. On ORAC? And like I said earlier, it's not about numbers here. It's about appropriateness and relevance. Not all antioxidants work in the same way. So something that's 55x more powerful may not work if it doesn't work the same way.

But I'm considering other antioxidants. Vitamin C is just one that I have tried before. Thanks.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
I don't really know the basis for those numbers though. For all we know, it may just be marketing. And if not, on what basis do they say it's x times more powerful. On ORAC? And like I said earlier, it's not about numbers here. It's about appropriateness and relevance. Not all antioxidants work in the same way. So something that's 55x more powerful may not work if it doesn't work the same way.

But I'm considering other antioxidants. Vitamin C is just one that I have tried before. Thanks.

The numbers are based on this research paper. Table 1, right column. Divide one by another to compare. Astaxanthin vs. vitamin C is 5.4 / 0.00089 = 6067


That's true that they don't all work in the same way, but you can leverage that to your advantage.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
That is the opinion of many orthomolecular doctors. Ray Peat,however, would beg to differ.

Since Linus Pauling's time, discoveries on the role of ROS in our immunity has made the villification of oxidants less fashionable. We don't just take something because it is an antioxidant. Besides, the body has its own set of antioxidants, and the body knows when to turn on the switch to produce antioxidants when needed. We don't have to give it antioxidants when it's not needed, as it may still do more harm than good when it interferes with the oxidative action of our immune system towards pathogens. Vitamin C has its place as an antioxidant, but its use has to be better understood. Meat has vitamin C also, and so do fruits, so it isn't as if we don't get vitamin C from our diet that we need to take vitamin C supplements daily.

He's speaking from an idealist position that ignores the reality of antioxidant depletion due to stressors. There may be enough vitamin C in meat and fruits for low stress function, but stressors can deplete it quickly.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
He's speaking from an idealist position that ignores the reality of antioxidant depletion due to stressors. There may be enough vitamin C in meat and fruits for low stress function, but stressors can deplete it quickly.
But you were saying that vitamin C supplementation is needed everyday, no matter what your condition is, weren't you?
The numbers are based on this research paper. Table 1, right column. Divide one by another to compare. Astaxanthin vs. vitamin C is 5.4 / 0.00089 = 6067


That's true that they don't all work in the same way, but you can leverage that to your advantage.
Yes, I agree. They can be used. Having choice is much better to be in a position in.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
But you were saying that vitamin C supplementation is needed everyday, no matter what your condition is, weren't you?

No. Continual vitamin C intake is necessary (via food or whatever), but I don't think it has to be every day. I don't know what the half-life of it is. However as people get older gut absorption can decrease, so supplementation might be wise.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom