7 ms·

This is (probably) not a Long Covid story but I found that bloodletting (for which I even received money!) gave me back the energy that I was missing for the la

by Tarsul 1y ago

This is (probably) not a Long Covid story but I found that bloodletting (for which I even received money!) gave me back the energy that I was missing for the last few years (e.g. it was impossible to build stamina). I also read about a study about the positive effects of bloodletting[1] that somehow is not all the rage in mainstream news, which I find perplexing. If it might be so easy to improve your health (for some of us), why isn't this discussed or studied more broadly? [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529211645.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529211645.h... "the patients who gave blood had a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (from 148 mmHg to 130 mmHg) as well as reduction in blood glucose levels and heart rate, and an improvement in cholesterol levels (LDL/HDL ratio)."

spockz 1y ago
The lower blood pressure I can explain by having a lower volume of blood. But the glucose and cholesterol have to go somewhere. Where do they go? Are they filtered in the process after blood letting?
- mort96 1y ago
  If it's in the blood, doesn't it just leave the body together with the blood?
  - aesh2Xa1 1y ago
    Yes, but the relative amount per volume blood should be the same. I think that's why he's asking. If so, the answer is that the body replenishes plasma in a day and red cells in six weeks (redcrossblood.org FAQ). The relative amount does change quickly.
  - nradov 1y ago
    There is very little glucose in circulating blood at any given time. Unless you have severe uncontrolled diabetes (or a similar condition) your body regulates blood glucose level within a low, narrow range. Most glucose is stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  Let's just pretend it's accurate and say your body burns 2000 kcal a day. If you have less glucose in your blood overall after giving blood, even if the ratio should theoretically remain the same, your body is still going to burn 2000 kcal anyway, and maybe the blood glucose equilibrium reaches a lower level.
mkoubaa 1y ago
If this were the case you could do a natural study on this by comparing menstruating women with the rest of the population
- jtbayly 1y ago
  This has been done. Women seem to have certain health benefits that stop after menopause. Reading about it was the first time I wondered whether blood letting made sense.
  - astura 1y ago
    God, this is so ignorant, the hormonal changes (loss of estrogen) are the cause of increased risks for heart disease and osteoporosis and changes in metabolism post-menopause. Nothing to do with not physically losing blood, FFS.
    - nradov 1y ago
      There are likely multiple causal factors behind the health differences. Hormonal changes are one piece of the puzzle but so far no one has conclusively proved that physically losing blood has zero effect. The research just hasn't been done yet so we can't definitively say one way or the other.
- Thorrez 1y ago
  When people donate blood, on average they donate about 10x as much as a woman typically loses during menstruation.
  - aesh2Xa1 1y ago
    I looked up the amount of blood lost due to a menstruation cycle, and the answer is around 50 ml. OP's linked paper has "the iron-reduction patients had 300ml of blood removed at the start of the trial and between 250 and 500ml removed four weeks later." A blood donation removes 500 ml, so about a year of menstruation all at once. You can donate every two months, besides. So, yes, if there is an effect then we might expect the magnitude of the effect to differ. Or else we'd expect a paper cut to also have the same effect. Sex biological difference could matter as well.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jeremy151 1y ago
I live in an area with PFAS contaminated ground water (which I now aggressively filter.) To me giving blood just kind of makes sense, if there is a class of things that can enter your blood and never leave, and does not replicate on its own, why not perform a regular "oil change" and hopefully help some people at the same time. Some study has been done: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ The study specifically does not look at the effect on recipients, though the donation centers do not disallow such donations. My presumption is that the donation is a net positive all around. If study comes to show the contrary, I'll certainly revise my approach.
- TaupeRanger 1y ago
  “I’ll do something which might be beneficial or harmful to me (I don’t know) and if given evidence of harm (likely never) I’ll stop doing it.” Ok…have fun I guess.
  - ckosidows 1y ago
    The person you responded to didn't say anything about harm to themselves. They said there's nothing stopping them from donating even though they're aware of the PFAS contamination in their area. And from what I understand, PFA contamination has no bearing on whether or not you can donate.
    - TaupeRanger 1y ago
      The post implied that doing a “blood oil change” was potentially a good thing. My point is, we don’t know either way, because a study hasn’t looked at that question for health outcomes. It could be doing more harm than good, the parent commenter doesn’t know.
      - abracadaniel 1y ago
        They linked a study in their comment.
clanky 1y ago
> I also read about a study about the positive effects of bloodletting[1] that somehow is not all the rage in mainstream news, which I find perplexing. If it might be so easy to improve your health (for some of us), why isn't this discussed or studied more broadly? If this works, how is anyone going to make money off of it?
comboy 1y ago
> If it might be so easy to improve your health (for some of us), why isn't this discussed or studied more broadly? I think you just need to reach for a literature that's a few hundred years older maybe.
tim333 1y ago
That's interesting - I've had low energy and somewhat raised blood pressure since covid. Maybe I'll give it a go.
withinboredom 1y ago
I assume we are built to lose some blood. I imagine throughout most of our species development, injuries were somewhat common on a regular basis. Just looking at the scars on my own body, from a quite active childhood and young adult period outdoors, I am extrapolating. n = 1
- colechristensen 1y ago
  Before antibiotics, nontrivial wounds were often death sentences because of infection.
  - withinboredom 1y ago
    I never needed an antibiotic to live from these wounds. I’ve needed them from other things (almost died from strep) but not wounds.
    - hbs18 1y ago
      You live in a very different world compared to one before antibiotics.
      - withinboredom 1y ago
        If death were so guaranteed from injuries, I doubt we’d have survived as a species.
        onlypassingthru 1y ago
        Before the discovery of antibiotics, chopping it off was the usual standard of care for serious infections.
        Tade0 1y ago
        It didn't always have to turn into an infection as there are plenty folk methods of preventing that from happening used throughout history - from wound cauterisation to my regional bread + spiderwebs. The latter was given a scientific explanation in modern times: the webbing contains live penicillium fungi in quantities sufficient to act against microbes.
itsme0000 1y ago
Yeah sounds like you get your medical advice from the Kremlin. There no conspiracy to hide the medical benefits of leaching, can you imagine if that actually worked? Every doctor in the world would have to be a complete moron not to notice.
- shlant 1y ago
  I don't know why they decided to use the term "blood letting" but I'm pretty sure some of the benefits being talked about in the response also come from donating blood (which is essentially the same thing)? You calling it "leaching" doesn't seem good faith
  - itsme0000 1y ago
    Yeah it’s not in good faith. I think it’s really stupid obviously misinformation. Duh.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
anon84873628 1y ago
The modern version of this is called Therapeutic Plasma Exchange (TPE) or Plasmapheresis and it is used to treat a variety of conditions including cancer and autoimmune: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24197-plasmapheresis-plasma-exchange https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24197-plasm... There are also claims that it improves dementia / Alzheimer's symptoms and popular "longevity biomarkers".

by Tarsul 1y ago

spockz 1y ago

The lower blood pressure I can explain by having a lower volume of blood. But the glucose and cholesterol have to go somewhere. Where do they go? Are they filtered in the process after blood letting?

mort96 1y ago
If it's in the blood, doesn't it just leave the body together with the blood?
- aesh2Xa1 1y ago
  Yes, but the relative amount per volume blood should be the same. I think that's why he's asking. If so, the answer is that the body replenishes plasma in a day and red cells in six weeks (redcrossblood.org FAQ). The relative amount does change quickly.
- nradov 1y ago
  There is very little glucose in circulating blood at any given time. Unless you have severe uncontrolled diabetes (or a similar condition) your body regulates blood glucose level within a low, narrow range. Most glucose is stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen.
heavyset_go 1y ago
Let's just pretend it's accurate and say your body burns 2000 kcal a day. If you have less glucose in your blood overall after giving blood, even if the ratio should theoretically remain the same, your body is still going to burn 2000 kcal anyway, and maybe the blood glucose equilibrium reaches a lower level.

mkoubaa 1y ago

If this were the case you could do a natural study on this by comparing menstruating women with the rest of the population

jtbayly 1y ago
This has been done. Women seem to have certain health benefits that stop after menopause. Reading about it was the first time I wondered whether blood letting made sense.
- astura 1y ago
  God, this is so ignorant, the hormonal changes (loss of estrogen) are the cause of increased risks for heart disease and osteoporosis and changes in metabolism post-menopause. Nothing to do with not physically losing blood, FFS.
  - nradov 1y ago
    There are likely multiple causal factors behind the health differences. Hormonal changes are one piece of the puzzle but so far no one has conclusively proved that physically losing blood has zero effect. The research just hasn't been done yet so we can't definitively say one way or the other.
Thorrez 1y ago
When people donate blood, on average they donate about 10x as much as a woman typically loses during menstruation.
- aesh2Xa1 1y ago
  I looked up the amount of blood lost due to a menstruation cycle, and the answer is around 50 ml. OP's linked paper has "the iron-reduction patients had 300ml of blood removed at the start of the trial and between 250 and 500ml removed four weeks later." A blood donation removes 500 ml, so about a year of menstruation all at once. You can donate every two months, besides. So, yes, if there is an effect then we might expect the magnitude of the effect to differ. Or else we'd expect a paper cut to also have the same effect. Sex biological difference could matter as well.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jeremy151 1y ago

I live in an area with PFAS contaminated ground water (which I now aggressively filter.) To me giving blood just kind of makes sense, if there is a class of things that can enter your blood and never leave, and does not replicate on its own, why not perform a regular "oil change" and hopefully help some people at the same time. Some study has been done: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ The study specifically does not look at the effect on recipients, though the donation centers do not disallow such donations. My presumption is that the donation is a net positive all around. If study comes to show the contrary, I'll certainly revise my approach.

TaupeRanger 1y ago
“I’ll do something which might be beneficial or harmful to me (I don’t know) and if given evidence of harm (likely never) I’ll stop doing it.” Ok…have fun I guess.
- ckosidows 1y ago
  The person you responded to didn't say anything about harm to themselves. They said there's nothing stopping them from donating even though they're aware of the PFAS contamination in their area. And from what I understand, PFA contamination has no bearing on whether or not you can donate.
  - TaupeRanger 1y ago
    The post implied that doing a “blood oil change” was potentially a good thing. My point is, we don’t know either way, because a study hasn’t looked at that question for health outcomes. It could be doing more harm than good, the parent commenter doesn’t know.
    - abracadaniel 1y ago
      They linked a study in their comment.

clanky 1y ago

> I also read about a study about the positive effects of bloodletting[1] that somehow is not all the rage in mainstream news, which I find perplexing. If it might be so easy to improve your health (for some of us), why isn't this discussed or studied more broadly? If this works, how is anyone going to make money off of it?

comboy 1y ago

> If it might be so easy to improve your health (for some of us), why isn't this discussed or studied more broadly? I think you just need to reach for a literature that's a few hundred years older maybe.

tim333 1y ago

That's interesting - I've had low energy and somewhat raised blood pressure since covid. Maybe I'll give it a go.

withinboredom 1y ago

I assume we are built to lose some blood. I imagine throughout most of our species development, injuries were somewhat common on a regular basis. Just looking at the scars on my own body, from a quite active childhood and young adult period outdoors, I am extrapolating. n = 1

colechristensen 1y ago
Before antibiotics, nontrivial wounds were often death sentences because of infection.
- withinboredom 1y ago
  I never needed an antibiotic to live from these wounds. I’ve needed them from other things (almost died from strep) but not wounds.
  - hbs18 1y ago
    You live in a very different world compared to one before antibiotics.
    - withinboredom 1y ago
      If death were so guaranteed from injuries, I doubt we’d have survived as a species.
      - onlypassingthru 1y ago
        Before the discovery of antibiotics, chopping it off was the usual standard of care for serious infections.
        Tade0 1y ago
        It didn't always have to turn into an infection as there are plenty folk methods of preventing that from happening used throughout history - from wound cauterisation to my regional bread + spiderwebs. The latter was given a scientific explanation in modern times: the webbing contains live penicillium fungi in quantities sufficient to act against microbes.

itsme0000 1y ago

Yeah sounds like you get your medical advice from the Kremlin. There no conspiracy to hide the medical benefits of leaching, can you imagine if that actually worked? Every doctor in the world would have to be a complete moron not to notice.

shlant 1y ago
I don't know why they decided to use the term "blood letting" but I'm pretty sure some of the benefits being talked about in the response also come from donating blood (which is essentially the same thing)? You calling it "leaching" doesn't seem good faith
- itsme0000 1y ago
  Yeah it’s not in good faith. I think it’s really stupid obviously misinformation. Duh.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

anon84873628 1y ago

The modern version of this is called Therapeutic Plasma Exchange (TPE) or Plasmapheresis and it is used to treat a variety of conditions including cancer and autoimmune: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24197-plasmapheresis-plasma-exchange https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24197-plasm... There are also claims that it improves dementia / Alzheimer's symptoms and popular "longevity biomarkers".