This Article Contradicts Most Sleep Apnea Studies

[LSAT]

For now, I would not follow any recommendations from this study.

Also, this is an older population, which means those who died at a younger age are "weeded out" of the sample. Perhaps many of those who did not live to be in the sample would have been alive, participated in the study, and greatly changed the results, if they have been using CPAP at an early age!

Why don't you find something current to post about..this has already been hashed out last year

[nicholasjh1]

Maybe, but D. H. does bring up a good point... those left after 65 with untreated moderate apnea could be those that are naturally resistant to heart attacks... The other ones already died before 65.... but the "non-apnea" group were still alive because of not having apnea... They died naturally... just like the non-treated under 65 apnea patients that weren't resistant to heart attacks... In other words this is complete junk science.

[chunkyfrog]

Statistics mean nothing to the outlier.
And nobody is truly "average".
Too much "research" is done for the easy buck--not knowledge/understanding.

[Goofproof]

Statistics mean nothing to the outlier.
And nobody is truly "average".
Too much "research" is done for the easy buck--not knowledge/understanding.

And it means nothing, that's why I don't click on paper links, on the chance the writer will profit from it. Jim

[jnk...]

Statistics mean nothing to the outlier

Which is only fair, since outliers often mean nothing to the statistics, either.

And nobody is truly "average"

I find that the average person is often above average, unless you grade on the curve.

Too much "research" is done for the easy buck--not knowledge/understanding.

Hey, come on, even the scientists that are stupid have to make a living too!

[chunkyfrog]

In academia, the principle "publish or die" only serves to dilute the pool.
Scholarly work requires WORK, and RESEARCH, not just the ability to operate a keyboard.
Freedom of the press ensures there is no quality control over what gets into print.
Anybody has the freedom to be a COMPLETE FOOL.

[DeeCPAP]

In academia, the principle "publish or die" only serves to dilute the pool.
Scholarly work requires WORK, and RESEARCH, not just the ability to operate a keyboard.
Freedom of the press ensures there is no quality control over what gets into print.
Anybody has the freedom to be a COMPLETE FOOL.

Just for the record, the article was written up in the journal CHEST, a publication for doctors.

[chunkyfrog]

The publication may be valid, but the author?
What about the author?
And who did he fool/bribe to get it in?

[jnk...]

To me, the problem ain't the study itself. Good enough. Raises interesting points for further research. Frankly, I'd vote to print it if I were on the review board. It provokes thought. Few things do these days.

The problem is the interpretation of the meaning by journalists trying to grasp the study and grab the eyes/ears of the public.

One group of research docs prints something just to say to fellow docs: "Hey, fellas, look at this, whaddya think it means?" That's what scientific journals are for. But then the newspaper dudes, mainstream-magazine dudes, and TV personalities get a hold of it and twist it into some kind of pronouncement that it was never meant to be.

To make a very bad analogy of the "meaning" of the study: It may be that a guy who has got used to getting beat up a lot in life may have a better chance of surviving an especially life-threatening beating one day. That does NOT, however, mean that it is proper application to decide it must be a good idea for all of us to go around trying our best to get the snot beat out of us on a regular basis in order to help our chances of survival, just in case someone later decides to beat us within inches of our life one day.

It ain't the science. It's the application.

IMO.

[Goofproof]

The publication may be valid, but the author?
What about the author?
And who did he fool/bribe to get it in?

He works cheep, after all he lives rent free in mammies basement! Jim

Food too, all he has to do is get away it from the Cats!

[palerider]

Maybe, but D. H. does bring up a good point...

DH and good point is an oxymoron.

[ChicagoGranny]

Just for the record, the article was written up in the journal CHEST, a publication for doctors.

You have posted about a 10-year old (2008) study. Here is a followup study by the same medical researcher published in CHEST in February of 2018 - http://journal.chestnet.org/article/S00 ... 4/fulltext

The current study design cannot completely establish a clinically meaningful protective effect of IH in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. If confirmed, however, these findings may have profound clinical implications regarding our therapeutic approach to patients with sleep apnea. If OSA triggers positive adaptations, what should be our therapeutic approach to nonsleepy individuals who are generally considered to be at high risk for coronary events?

Clearly, more studies are needed to disentangle the complex and divergent effects of IH on the cardiovascular system. The data presented by Sánchez-de-la-Torre et al11 should encourage future investigation in larger studies with properly matched patients to obtain a more definitive answer to this important question.

[Goofproof]

Just for the record, the article was written up in the journal CHEST, a publication for doctors.

You have posted about a 10-year old (2008) study. Here is a followup study by the same medical researcher published in CHEST in February of 2018 - http://journal.chestnet.org/article/S00 ... 4/fulltext

The current study design cannot completely establish a clinically meaningful protective effect of IH in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. If confirmed, however, these findings may have profound clinical implications regarding our therapeutic approach to patients with sleep apnea. If OSA triggers positive adaptations, what should be our therapeutic approach to nonsleepy individuals who are generally considered to be at high risk for coronary events?

Clearly, more studies are needed to disentangle the complex and divergent effects of IH on the cardiovascular system. The data presented by Sánchez-de-la-Torre et al11 should encourage future investigation in larger studies with properly matched patients to obtain a more definitive answer to this important question.

And he got paid for both! To bad for the world! JIm