Discussion
Ok I've just had some blood tests and my AST liver function is high. The only thing I have changed since my last test which has been consistently ok for years is give up smoking. I am beginning to think that giving up causes more problems because I have seen no benefits appart from the wallet in 7 months. What should I be doing to sort the liver? Any tips much appreciated.
944fan said:
sawman said:
milkthistle?
I saw something recently which said that companies are no longer allowed to advertise this produce as helping the liver. Presumably because there is no evidence to support the claim.There are some interesting articles on t'internet about lemon juice and liver function, such as;
http://www.livestrong.com/article/286438-the-effec...
http://www.livestrong.com/article/286438-the-effec...
S70JPS said:
Ok I've just had some blood tests and my AST liver function is high. The only thing I have changed since my last test which has been consistently ok for years is give up smoking. I am beginning to think that giving up causes more problems because I have seen no benefits appart from the wallet in 7 months. What should I be doing to sort the liver? Any tips much appreciated.
Have you put weight on ? Could be a fatty liver.Bit of a long story but I had pneumonia a couple of years ago...took a long time to get over it and put on weight because I was craving sugar and carbs for energy. They ran bloody tests and had high AST levels. They then ran more tests and found some anti-bodies which they thought indicated possible auto-immune liver disease. Ended up having a liver biopsy and diagnosis was a fatty liver.....
I lost three stone and bingo AST back to normal.
sawman said:
No idea, read about it being helpful for livers - tried it for a week or two, but it seemed to create impressive wind - not good at the ambassadors reception....
Yes I have tried it as well, to offset my Oliver Read type drinking habit. Didn't have the farty problem though, well it was no worse than usual.944fan said:
sawman said:
milkthistle?
I saw something recently which said that companies are no longer allowed to advertise this produce as helping the liver. Presumably because there is no evidence to support the claim.Same is true of Omega-3, Garlic, Collagen, Glucosamine, Gingko Boa, et al. Even vitamin C is massively over consumed as some sort of miracle cure. Basically if it's sold by Holland & Barrett you don't need it.
Doesn't matter of course. People will point to an article written by an idiot, or say "it's worth a try".
Personally I like to save my money and throw it in wishing wells.
Martin350 said:
There are some interesting articles on t'internet about lemon juice and liver function, such as;
http://www.livestrong.com/article/286438-the-effec...
That is one of the worst scientific articles I have ever read.http://www.livestrong.com/article/286438-the-effec...
Look OP, I'll try to balance dealing with stupidity, and help you here.
Read this;
http://www.medicinenet.com/liver_blood_tests/page2...
Martin350 said:
Prof Prolapse said:
That is one of the worst scientific articles I have ever read.
I'm not arguing with you, as I'm not a medical person or a scientist, but purely out of interest why is it so bad? What you need to do is not poison you liver. By poison I mean cause levels of exposure beyond what it can cope with. I.e. Chronic alcohol abuse, drinking meths, necking 20 grams of Paraceteamol with a bottle of Vodka. Incredibly even in those extreme instances, the liver actually regenerates. I'm waffling. The bottom line is the whole concept of "detox" is purely an invention of the media and people who would take your money. You won't find a doctor or scientist worth his salt who advocates it beyond the obvious break from eating s
t.Back to the article, "it strengthens enzymes", what does that even mean? If we're avoiding pedantry we can excuse the piss poor use of English and go on to work out what it probably means to say, that is it renders the enzymes more efficient, presumably by increasing their affinity for substrate. But how? It doesn't say. Just like every Holland & Barrett bulls
t article (who famously are forced by law to use the words "traditional used to treat" because they tread such a fine line with the medicine regulators the MHRA). Funnily enough it then borrows another trait of discussing the history of the Lemon. A total irrelevence,Let's move onto it's references used to create this masterpiece. The single paper. A publication so obscure it cannot be located by two of the biggest journal archives in the world (Pubmed, Sciencedirect). So we instead click the link which hyperlinks to a brightly coloured page called "Lemon/Limes" (apparently it only takes one lemon but multiple limes to explain the theory).
This page goes on to explain the benefits of detox. Which as I have explained are non-existent beyond cutting s
t out of your diet. Then the anti-oxidant effect. Again this is bks and made by marketeers. There is no link ever proven, despite extensive testing, between the level of serum anti-oxidants and those ingested. Infact the only paper I'm aware of actually showed negative health consequences, but IIRC it was already a sick patient population so insufficient to draw proper data from. Point remains, there's also no such thing as anti-oxidants. Not in the sense they are sold to you.This second "source", then goes on to incorrectly define "Apoptosis" (programmed cell death as opposed to simply cell death, which is very important in biology). Also, lime juice does not have a "strong antibacterial action against Cholera", I would invite any publisher of that paper to prove it. I will happily pay them £10,000 to ingest food contaminated with Cholera with a dash of lime juice (do you also see how this misinformation in less developed countries is dangerous?)
Vitamin C then apparently travels through body (should this then not be about Vit C. which is found in higher quanties outside citrus fruits?) mopping up free radicals, which again is a massive simplification bordering on the retarded. Several claims are then made about Vitamin C reducing cancer rates etc. As someone who works primarily in Oncology I can tell you I have never seen that "fact" documented.
Then, raison d'etre of the article, the liver claims? Well I'd discredit them but they aren't actually there. In fact it doesn't even mention the liver. Such descriptions are either lost as a result of poor hyperlinking and an article that cannot be found by conventional means, or were never there to start with.
Prof Prolapse said:
Martin350 said:
Prof Prolapse said:
That is one of the worst scientific articles I have ever read.
I'm not arguing with you, as I'm not a medical person or a scientist, but purely out of interest why is it so bad? 
I didn't intend to mislead the OP in any way, it's difficult to know what to believe and what not to believe when you read stuff on the internet! That was just one of several sites I've read recently saying similar things.
I didn't mean to infer you were. Or come across as the grumpy ahole I did.
The story is you should be very careful of the source when listening to health advice, the amount of misinformation floating around is staggering because charlatans, like Holland & Barrett, are allowed do so legally so long as they don't make direct claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is the scientist mantra. A poor article like that won't cut it.
There may be some link that is proven, although I remain very sceptical, but you can guarantee it won't come from these people. It'll be published by a reputable University you've actually heard of. Then the paper will be peer reviewed and available on the internet from a real source such as pubmed.
Incidentally, in the interim there's a cracking book by Ben Goldacre called "Bad Science", it's all about this sort of thing and it's an interesting read that isn't too heavy.
hole I did. The story is you should be very careful of the source when listening to health advice, the amount of misinformation floating around is staggering because charlatans, like Holland & Barrett, are allowed do so legally so long as they don't make direct claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is the scientist mantra. A poor article like that won't cut it.
There may be some link that is proven, although I remain very sceptical, but you can guarantee it won't come from these people. It'll be published by a reputable University you've actually heard of. Then the paper will be peer reviewed and available on the internet from a real source such as pubmed.
Incidentally, in the interim there's a cracking book by Ben Goldacre called "Bad Science", it's all about this sort of thing and it's an interesting read that isn't too heavy.
Farmerpalmer said:
to the op - any elevation in your liver function tests is due to some damage to your liver. what you need to identify is what is causing this damage? could be caused by drugs, alcohol or weight gain, but there are many many other causes.
Not necessarily. Whilst it does accompany liver damage is not necessarily indicative of such."LFTs" is a bit of a misnomer as I understand it.
No worries, I didn't take offence from your reply, and I thank you for your detailed and informed response.
Like I said, I'm not medically knowledgeable so I appreciate you giving me your professional opinion.
And I might well pick up a copy of that book sometime, sounds interesting.
Like I said, I'm not medically knowledgeable so I appreciate you giving me your professional opinion.
And I might well pick up a copy of that book sometime, sounds interesting.
Edited by Martin350 on Sunday 27th October 00:00
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff