Gale wrote:
> Well the diagnosis of "iron deficiency anemia" was certainly confusing
> to me given that my iron levels were never and I repeat - Never - an
> issue. They have a separate test for iron and mine was always normal
> or even high.
> I think it's just the particularly box that gets checked on the form
> they give to the doctor. There was no underlying cause for my anemia -
> not one that could be checked off on the form (like cancer etc.) So
> when women in my age group have low red blood cell counts - they just
> call it "iron deficiency anemia."
Fascinating. My understanding was that low red blood cell count without iron
deficiency was supposed to be diagnosed as simply "anemia," rather than
"iron deficiency anemia," and the latter was supposed to be reserved for
anemia that involves iron deficiency. The only exception I came across was a
few mentions of "relative iron deficiency." It is apparently possible for a
person with iron deficiency to have normal serum levels of iron in this case
of "relative iron deficiency" (versus "absolute iron deficiency," which is
the more common case of low levels of iron). With relative iron deficiency
there is iron present in storage in the bone marrow, but other reasons
prevent its incorporation into red blood cells. A major cause of this is
acquired, idiopathic sideroblastic anemia. Was that ever mentioned to you?
Since most chronic, idiopathic diseases and disorders turn out on
investigation to be diseases of civilization with dietary factors being the
most important causation, there is a good chance that acquired, idiopathic,
sideroblastic anemia is yet another disease of civilization that might be
improved with a more Paleo diet.
> And if you read the literature on it
> - It is a very common diagnosis for women in their 30s and 40s.
Yes, iron-deficiency anemia is common among women of normal childbearing age
(15-to-44 years old) because they can lose an excessive amount of blood
during menstruation, which causes a loss of iron. The standard treatment is
iron supplementation. However, you indicated that you were never deficient
in iron, so that would not put you into that category.
> I
> wonder how many women receive that diagnosis while having normal iron
> levels. I wouldn't be suprised if it were quite a percentage.
Other than the fairly rare cases of anemia with "relative iron deficiency,"
I'm not aware of any diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia without the
presence of absolute iron deficiency. Anemia, yes. Iron deficiency anemia,
no.
> That my red blood cell counts were up the last time I saw my doctor
> (very low normal range - but in the normal range for the first time in
> years) - was a surprise to her. And she's a good doctor - I made her
> read the Taubes book. She's very interested in my diet and the effects
> it is having physiologically.
Marvelous. I've never been able to get a doctor to look at even the cover of
a book, much less read it. Which is somewhat understandable, given that most
of them are overwhelmed as it is. Most doctors probably aren't even reading
many medical journal articles on a lot of the stuff we cover in this forum,
because standard medical advice and practices directly contradict the
findings of the latest studies. For example, the acne-diet connection has
now been proven by clinical and population studies (see the research of Neil
Mann, Associate Professor for Nutrition and Food Science at RMIT University
in Australia; Harvard School of Public Health researchers Walter Willett,
Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Clement Adebamowo, MD, ScD, and
Donna Spiegelman, Professor of Epidemiologic Methods; Paleolithic nutrition
researchers Cordain L, Lindeberg S and Hurtado M), yet most dermatologists
are unaware of this.
As a Boston Globe article stated, "For many dermatologists, swamped with
seeing patients and unable to keep up with the latest journals, the debate
continues out of hearing range." ("A Clear Connection? Most dermatologists
tell their patients diet plays no role in acne. New research suggests that's
wrong." By Cynthia Graber, December 16, 2007, THE MEDICAL ISSUE, THE BOSTON
GLOBE,
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/12/16/a_clear_connection/?pa
ge=4). If physicians were just given a little bit of time to read the
medical journals I think their quality of care would improve dramatically.
Some physicians choose to "follow the party line," despite the evidence and
without further explanation. For example, Dr. Jack Krushell, chief of
dermatology at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, said the food-acne
hypothesis is intriguing but "I still kind of follow the party line, which
is that food doesn't seem to be a cause of acne." Dr. Jeffrey Dover,
associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale School of Medicine,
related the story of a 1970s paper which concluded that ultraviolet light
doesn't improve acne, a belief that was widely held for decades as a result.
"It turns out that the paper was wrong," he says. "This is an example of
dogma getting in the way of progress in science and medicine. It happens all
the time. Someone really important proves something and says this is the way
it is, and everybody else stops thinking. It takes about 30 years, usually a
generation, until someone says, 'Wait, this can't be true.'" ("A Clear
Connection?")
> Other things I've noticed since going paleo (besides grey hair going
> away and my red blood cell count going up):
> Relative lack of pain in my neck and back. (not completely gone -but
> much abated).
Yes, pain reduction is common among the Paleo dieters I've witnessed, with
every single one of them, for example, eventually experiencing total
remission of osteoarthritis pain if they stuck to a pure or near-pure Paleo
diet for more than 4 weeks. Falling off the Paleo wagon of course results in
a resumption of osteoarthritis pain.
> No longer have to take medicine for GERDS (acid reflux).
Same here.
> No loss of work days due to fatigue. ....
Yes, improved energy and sleep quality are commonly reported.
> Much better mood! (was surprised by this one).
Yes, another common report.
> I'm just an N of 1 - but I haven't been paleo for very long, so I
> consider these results to be significant.
> In the fall I will get a full blood workup. Very much interested in my
> CRP (cardio reactive protein) numbers which were very high one year
> ago.
> gale
Yes, CRP should improve, along with triglycerides and HDL. LDL change varies
because some people experience an increase in benign LDL (which can alarm
the dieter and his/her doctor without actually increasing health risk),
especially early on, but in the longer term most people appear to experience
a reduction in total LDL. Of course, I'm only going by the anecdotal reports
of people I know and what I have seen of reports here and by Dr. Cordain, so
it's not a scientific sample.
|
