I couldn’t resist writing one last article about exercise this year. There are some compelling studies that show exercise’s powerful effects in altering our genes. Recent studies show its impact on specific diseases. Last week I referred to its effect on diabetes (“Exercise: optimizing or reducing its effects,” Dec. 12). Exercise has effects on a host of other chronic diseases as well, including kidney stones, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease and breast, colorectal and endometrial cancers.1

There are also studies on simple ways to motivate yourself during exercise. One showed that those who repeat positive mantras like “feels good” while exercising were able to persist in their exercise routines for longer periods.2 To learn more about this, read the Dec. 12 article.

Why is this so important and why am I harping on exercise right before the holidays? Because we are too sedentary, and this is the time of the year when we are inclined to overeat. According to the 2005-06 National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey, we spend more than half our time sitting.3 And this percentage is trending up. Let’s look at the evidence.

Exercise and your genes

While you may be waiting for gene therapy to cure our chronic illnesses, it turns out that exercise may have a significant impact on our genes. No waiting required, this is here and now.

In a recent study, results showed that thousands upon thousands of genes in fat cells were affected when participants exercised.4 The study involved sedentary men and asked them to exercise twice a week by attending a one-hour spin class each time. According to the researchers, the genes impacted were those involved most likely in storing fat and in risk for subsequent diabetes and obesity development. Participants’ gene expression was altered by DNA methylation, the addition of a methyl group made up of a carbon and hydrogens. These participants also improved their biometrics, reducing fat and subsequently shrinking their waist circumferences, and improved their cholesterol and blood-pressure indices.

The effect is referred to as epigenetics, where lifestyle modifications can ultimately lead to changes in gene expression, turning them on and off. Therefore, just because you have been dealt a set a genes from your parents does not mean you can’t alter how a significant number of them act. This has been shown with dietary changes, but this is one of the first studies to show that exercise also has significant impacts on our genes. The amazing thing about this study is that it took only six months to see these numerous gene changes with modest amounts of cardiovascular exercise.

If this was not enough, another study showed substantial gene changes in muscle cells after one workout on a stationary bike.5

Exercise versus drug therapy

We don’t think of exercise as being a drug or having drug effects, but what if it had similar benefits to certain drugs in cardiovascular diseases and mortality risk? A meta-analysis — a group of 57 studies that involved drugs and exercise — showed that exercise potentially has equivalent effects to statins in terms of mortality with secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.6 This means that, in patients who already have heart disease, both statins and exercise reduce the risk of mortality by similar amounts. The same was true with pre-diabetes — prior to full-blown type 2 diabetes — and the use of metformin or exercise. It didn’t matter which one was used, the drug or the lifestyle change.

However, diuretics, also called water pills, were more effective than exercise in treating heart failure. This is interesting, since diuretics are used mainly for symptomatic relief and are not thought of in terms of mortality. Thus, the takeaway from this study is that exercise is very powerful and should be used in conjunction with therapies for cardiovascular disease, not instead of them. Don’t stop your medication based on the results of one meta-analysis. If you have further questions, always consult your physician.

Kidney stones and exercise

Anyone who has tried to pass a kidney stone knows it can be an excruciating experience. Most of the treatment revolves around pain medication, fluids and waiting for the stone to pass. However, the best way to treat kidney stones is to prevent them. In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, exercise reduced the risk of kidney stones by as much as 31 percent.7 Even better, the intensity of the exercise was irrelevant to its beneficial effect. What mattered more was exercise quantity. One hour of jogging or three hours of walking got the top results. But lesser amounts of exercise also saw substantial reductions. This study involved 84,000 postmenopausal women, the population most likely to suffer from kidney stones.

Sex as exercise

We have heard that sex may be thought of as exercise, but is this myth or is there actual evidence? Try to keep a straight face. Well, it turns out this may be true. In the most recent study, published in the prestigious PLoS One journal, researchers found that young healthy couples exert 6 METs — metabolic energy, or the amount of oxygen consumed per kilogram per minute — during sexual activity.8

How does this compare to other activities? Well, we exert about 1 MET while sitting and 8.5 METs while jogging. Sexual activity falls between walking and jogging, in terms of the energy utilized, and thus may be qualified as moderate activity. Men and women burned slightly less than half as many calories with sex as with jogging, burning a mean of 85 calories over about 25 minutes. Who says exercise can’t be fun?

I can’t stress the importance of exercise enough. Although in last week’s article I noted that exercise with more intensity had better results, any exercise is good, as demonstrated with the kidney stone reduction study.

Exercise not only influences the way you feel, but also may influence gene expression and, ultimately, affects the development and prevention of disease. In certain circumstances, it may be as powerful as drugs and in combination may pack a powerful punch. Therefore, instead of just making exercise a New Year’s resolution, make exercise a priority — part of the fabric of your life. It may already be impacting the fabric of your body: your genes.

References: 1 JAMA. 2009;301(19):2024. 2 Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Oct 10. 3 cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. 4 PLoS Genet. 2013 Jun;9(6):e1003572. 5 Cell Metab. 2012 Mar 7;15(3):405-11. 6 BMJ 2013; 347. 7 JASN online 2013, Dec. 12. 8 PLoS One 8(10): e79342.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

For most of us, exercise is not a priority during the winter months, especially during the holiday season. We think that it is okay to let ourselves go and that a few more pounds will help insulate us from the cold. We tend to lock ourselves indoors and hibernate. Of course I am exaggerating, but I am trying to make a point. During the winter it is even more important to put exercise at the forefront of our consciousness because, as I mentioned in my Thanksgiving article, we tend to gain the most weight during the Thanksgiving to New Year holiday season [1].

Many times we are told by the medical community to exercise, which of course is sage advice. It seems simple enough; however, the type, intensity level and frequency of exercise may not be defined. For instance, any type of walking is beneficial, right? Well, as a new study that quantifies walking pace notes, some types of walking are better than others. Although physical activity is always a good thing compared to being sedentary.

We know exercise is beneficial for prevention and treatment of chronic disease. But another very important aspect of exercise is the impact it has on specific diseases, such as diabetes and osteoarthritis. Also, certain supplements and drugs may decrease the beneficial effects of exercise. They are not necessarily the ones you think. They include resveratrol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ibuprofen). Let’s look at the evidence.

Walking with a spring in your step

While pedometers give a sense of how many steps you take on a daily basis, more than just this number is important. Intensity, rather than quantity or distance, maybe the primary indicator of the benefit derived from walking.

In the National Walkers’ Health Study, results showed that those who walk with more pace are more likely to decrease their mortality from all causes and to increase their longevity [2]. This is one of the first studies to quantify specific speed and its impact. In the study, there were four groups. The fastest group was almost jogging, walking at a mean pace of less than 13.5 minutes per mile, while the slowest group was walking at a pace of 17 minutes or more per mile.

The slowest walkers had a higher probability of dying, especially from dementia and heart disease. Those in the slowest group stratified even further: those whose pace equaled 24-minute miles or greater had twice the risk of death, compared to those who walked with greater speed.

However, the most intriguing aspect of the study was that there were big differences in mortality reduction in the second slowest category compared to the slowest, which might only be separated by a minute-per-mile pace. So don’t fret: you don’t have to be a speed-walker in order to get significant benefit.

Mind-body connection

The mind also plays a significant role in exercise. When we exercise, we tend to beat ourselves up mentally because we are disappointed with our results. The results of a new study say that this is not the best approach [3]. Researchers created two groups. The first was told to find four positive phrases, chosen by the participants, to motivate them while on a stationary bike and repeat these phrases consistently for the next two weeks while exercising.

Members of the group who repeated these motivating phrases consistently throughout each workout were able to increase their stamina for intensive exercise after only two weeks, while the same could not be said for the control group, which did not use reinforcing phrases.

‘Longevity’ supplement may have negative impact

Resveratrol is a substance that is thought to provide increased longevity through proteins called sirtuin 1. So how could it negate some benefit from exercise? Well it turns out that we need acute inflammation to achieve some exercise benefits, and resveratrol has anti-inflammatory effects. Acute inflammation is short-term inflammation and is different from chronic inflammation, which is the basis for many diseases. In a small randomized controlled study, treatment group participants were given 250 mg supplements of resveratrol and saw significantly less benefit from aerobic exercise over an eight-week period, compared to those who were in the control group [4]. Participants in the control group had improvements in both cholesterol and blood pressure that were not seen in the treatment group.

This was a small study of short duration, although it was well designed.

Impact on diabetes complications

Unfortunately, type 2 diabetes is on the rise, and the majority of these patients suffer from cardiovascular disease. Drugs used to control sugar levels don’t seem to impact the risk for developing cardiovascular disease. So what can be done? In a recent prospective (forward-looking) observational study, results show that diabetes patients who exercise less frequently, once or twice a week for 30 minutes, are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease and almost a 70% greater risk of dying from it than those who exercised at least three times a week for 30 minutes each session. In addition, those who exercised only twice a week had an almost 50% increased risk of all-cause mortality [5].

The study followed over 15,000 men and women with a mean age of 60 for five years. The authors stressed the importance of exercise and its role in reducing diabetes complications.

Fitness age

You can now calculate your fitness age without the use of a treadmill, according to the recent HUNT study [6]. A new online calculator utilizes basic parameters such as age, gender, height, weight, waist circumference and frequency and intensity of exercise, allowing you to judge where you stand with exercise health. This calculator can be found at www.ntnu.edu/cerg/vo2max. The results may surprise you.

Even in winter, you can walk and talk yourself to improved health by increasing your intensity while repeating positive phrases that help you overcome premature exhaustion. Frequency is important as well. Exercise can also have a significant impact on complications of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and resulting death with diabetes. Take caution when walking outside during winter to avoid black ice, or use a treadmill to walk with alacrity, although getting outside during the day may help you avoid the winter blues.

References

[1] N Engl J Med. 2000;342:861-867. [2] PLoS One. 2013;8:e81098. [3] Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Oct. 10. [4] J Physiol Online. 2013 July 22. [5] Eur J Prev Cardiol Online. 2013 Nov. 13. [6] Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:2024-2030.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

Aneurysms are universally feared; they can be lethal and most times are asymptomatic (without symptoms). Yet aneurysms are one of the least well-covered medical disorders in the press. There are numerous types of aneurysms, most of which are named by their location of occurrence, including abdominal, thoracic and cerebral (brain). In this article, I will discuss abdominal aortic aneurysms, better known as a “triple-A,” or AAA. Preventing any type of aneurysm should be a priority.

What is AAA? It is an increase in the diameter of the walls of the aorta in one area, in this case — the abdomen. The aorta is the “water main” for supplying blood to the rest of the body from the heart. Abnormal enlargement weakens the walls and increases the risk that it may rupture. If the aorta ruptures, it causes massive hemorrhaging, or bleeding, and creates a substantial likelihood of death.

The exact incidence of aneurysms is difficult to quantify, since some people may die due to its rupture without an autopsy being done; however, estimates suggest that they occur in 4-9% of the population [1].

The cause of AAA is not known, but it is thought that inflammation and oxidative stress play an important role in weakening smooth muscle in the aorta [2]. The consequence of this is an abnormally enlarged aorta, or AAA.

People who are at highest risk for aneurysms are those over 60 years old [3]. Other risk factors include atherosclerosis, or hardened arteries, high blood pressure, race (Caucasian), gender (male), family history, smoking and having a history of aneurysms in other arteries [4]. Some of these risk factors are modifiable, such as atherosclerosis, high blood pressure and smoking. Men are more than four times more likely to have a AAA [5]. Though males are at a higher risk, females are at a higher risk of having a AAA rupture [6]. So, gender is important for differentiating the incidence, but also the risk of severity.

Is it important to get screened for AAA? The short answer is yes it is important, especially if you have risk factors. You should talk to your physician. Although some people do experience nondescript symptoms, such as pain in the abdomen, back or flank pain [7], the majority of cases are asymptomatic. A smaller AAA is less likely to rupture and can be monitored closely with noninvasive diagnostic tools, such as ultrasound and CT scan.

Sometimes cost is a question when comes to screening, but a recent study showed unequivocally that screening ultimately reduces cost, because of the number of aneurysms that are identified and potentially prevented from rupturing [8].

What are the treatments?

There are no specific medications that prevent or treat abdominal aortic aneurysms. Medications for treating risk factors, such as high blood pressure, have no direct impact on an aneurysm’s size or progression. But the mainstay of treatment is surgery to prevent rupture. Two surgical techniques may be utilized. One approach is the endovascular repair, which is minimally invasive, and the other is the more traditional open surgery [9]. A recent comparison of these approaches in a small randomized controlled trial had similar outcomes: a mortality rate of 25%. This was considered a surprisingly good statistic.

The good news is that surgery has resulted in a 29% reduction in rupture of the AAA [10].

When using the minimally invasive EVAR technique mentioned above, the specialist who performs the surgery may make a difference. A recent study’s results showed that surgeons had better outcomes, in terms of mortality rates and length of hospital stay, compared to interventional radiologists and cardiologists [11]. This was a retrospective (looking in the past) study, which is not the strongest type of trial.

When to watch and wait and when to treat is a difficult question; surgery is not without its complications, and risk of death is higher than many other surgeries. AAA size is the most important factor. In women, AAAs over 5.0 cm may need immediate treatment, while in men, those over 5.5 cm may need immediate treatment [12]. Smaller AAAs, however, are trickier.

The growth rate is important, so patients with this type of aneurysm should have an ultrasound or CT scan every six to 12 months. If you have an aneurysm, have a discussion with your physician about this.

Lifestyle changes

One of the most powerful tools against AAA is prevention; it avoids the difficult decision of how to best avoid rupture and the complications of surgery itself. Lifestyle changes are a must. They don’t typically have dangerous side effects, but rather potential side benefits. These lifestyle changes include smoking cessation, exercise and dietary changes.

Smoking cessation

Smoking has the greatest impact, because it directly impacts the occurrence and size of AAA. It increases risk of medium-to-large size aneurysms by at least fivefold. One study found that smoking was responsible for 78% of aortic aneurysms larger than 4 cm [13]. Remember, size does matter in terms of risk of rupture. So for those who smoke, this is a wake-up call.

Impact of Fruit

A simple lifestyle modification with significant impact is increasing your fruit intake. The results of two prospective (forward-looking) study populations, Cohort of Swedish Men and the Swedish Mammography Cohort Study, showed that consumption of greater than two servings of fruit a day decreased the risk of AAA by 25% [14]. If you do have AAA, this same amount of fruit also decreased the risk of AAA rupture by 43%. This study involved over 80,000 men and women, ages 46 to 84, with a follow-up of 13 years.

The authors believe that fruit’s impact may have to do with its antioxidant properties; it may reduce the oxidative stress that can cause these types of aneurysms. Remember, the quandary has been when the benefit of surgery outweighs the risks, in terms of preventing rupture. This modest amount of fruit on a daily basis may help alleviate this quandary.

So what have we learned? Screening for AAA may be very important, especially as we age and if we have a family history. Surgery results to prevent rupture are similar, regardless of the type. However, keep in mind that surgery for AAA has a significant mortality risk. At the end of the day, lifestyle changes, including smoking cessation and increased fruit intake, are no-brainers.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

Many of us give thanks for our health on Thanksgiving. Well, let’s follow through with this theme. While eating healthy may be furthest from our minds during a holiday, it is so important.

Instead of making Thanksgiving a holiday of regret, eating foods that cause weight gain, fatigue and increase your risk for chronic diseases, you can reverse this trend while staying in the traditional theme of what it means to enjoy a festive meal.

What can we do to turn Thanksgiving into a bonanza of good health? Phytochemicals (plant nutrients) called carotenoids have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity and are found mostly in fruits and vegetables. Carotenoids make up a family of greater than 600 different substances, such as beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, lycopene and beta-cryptoxanthin (Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2010;50(8):728–760).

Carotenoids help to prevent and potentially reverse diseases, such as breast cancer; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also as Lou Gehrig’s disease; age-related macular degeneration, cardiovascular disease — heart disease and stroke. Foods that contain these substances are orange, yellow and red vegetables and fruits, and dark green leafy vegetables. Examples include sweet potato, acorn squash, summer squash, spaghetti squash, green beans, carrots, cooked pumpkin, spinach, kale, papayas, tangerines, tomatoes and brussels sprouts. Let’s look at the evidence.

Breast cancer effect

We know that breast cancer risk is high among women, especially on Long Island. The risk for a woman is 12.4 percent getting breast cancer in their lifetime (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2009, National Cancer Institute). Therefore, we need to do everything within reason to reduce risk.

In a meta-analysis (a group of eight prospective or forward-looking studies), results show that women who were in the second to fifth quintile blood levels of carotenoids, such as alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, and lutein and zeaxanthin, had significantly reduced risk of developing breast cancer (J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104(24):1905-1916).

Thus, there was an inverse relationship between carotenoid levels and breast cancer risk. Even modest amounts of carotenoids can have a resounding effect in potentially preventing breast cancer.

ALS: Lou Gehrig’s disease

ALS is a disabling and feared disease. Unfortunately, there are no effective treatments for reversing this disease. Therefore, we need to work double time in trying to prevent its occurrence.

In a meta-analysis of five prestigious observational studies, including The Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, results showed that people with the greatest amount of carotenoids in their blood from foods such as spinach, kale and carrots had a decreased risk of developing ALS and/or delaying the onset of the disease (ANN NEUROL 2013;73:236–245). This study involved over 1 million people with more than 1,000 who developed ALS.

Those who were in the highest carotenoid level quintile had a 25 percent reduction in risk, compared to those in the lowest quintile. This difference was even greater for those who had high carotenoid levels and did not smoke, achieving a 35 percent reduction. According to the authors, the beneficial effects may be due to antioxidant activity and more efficient function of the power source of the cell: the mitochondrion. This is a good way to prevent a horrible disease while improving your overall health.

Positive effects of healthy eating

Despite the knowledge that healthy eating has long-term positive effects, there are several obstacles to healthy eating. Two critical factors are presentation and perception.

Presentation is glorious for traditional dishes, like turkey, gravy and stuffing with lots of butter and creamy sauces. However, vegetables are usually prepared in either an unappetizing way — steamed to the point of no return, so they cannot compete with the main course — or smothered in cheese, negating their benefits, but clearing our consciences.

Many consider Thanksgiving a time to indulge and not think about the repercussions. Plant-based foods like whole grains, leafy greens and fruits are relegated to side dishes or afterthoughts. Why is it so important to change our mindsets? Believe or not, there are significant short-term consequences of gorging ourselves.

Not surprisingly, people tend to gain weight from Thanksgiving to New Year. This is when most gain the predominant amount of weight for the entire year. However, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 23, 2000, people do not lose the weight they gain during this time. If you can fend off weight gain during the holidays, just think of the possibilities for the rest of the year.

Also, if you are obese and sedentary, you may already have heart disease. Overeating at a single meal increases your risk of heart attack over the near term, according to the American Heart Association (www.heart.org). However, with a little Thanksgiving planning, you can reap significant benefits. What strategies should you employ for the best outcomes?

• Make healthy, plant-based dishes part of the main course. I am not suggesting that you forgo signature dishes, but add to tradition by making mouthwatering vegetable-based dishes for the holiday.
• Improve the presentation of vegetable dishes. Most people don’t like grilled chicken without any seasoning. Why should vegetables be different? In my family, we make sauces for vegetables, like a peanut sauce using mostly rice vinegar and infusing a teaspoon of toasted sesame oil. Good resources for appealing dishes can be found at www.pcrm.org, EatingWell magazine, www.wholefoodsmarket.com and many other resources.
• Replace refined grains with whole grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on Sept. 29, 2010, showed that replacing wheat or refined grains with whole wheat and whole grains significantly reduced central fat, or fat around the belly (Am J Clin Nutr 2010 Nov;92(5):1165-71). Not only did participants lose subcutaneous fat found just below the skin, but also visceral adipose tissue, the fat that lines organs and causes chronic diseases such as cancer.
• Create a healthy environment. Instead of putting out creamy dips, processed crackers and candies as snacks prior to the meal, put out whole grain brown rice crackers, baby carrots, cherry tomatoes and healthy dips like hummus and salsa. Help people choose wisely.
• Offer more healthy dessert options, like pumpkin pudding and fruit salad.

The goal should be to increase your nutrient-dense foods and decrease your empty-calorie ones.

You don’t have to be perfect, but improvements during this time period have a tremendous impact — they set the tone for the new year and put you on a path to success. Why not turn this holiday into an opportunity to de-stress, rest, and reverse and/or prevent chronic disease by consuming plenty of carotenoid-containing foods.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

We need cholesterol for our cells to function properly, but when we have too much it can have deleterious effects on our hearts. We know that higher LDL “bad” levels and total cholesterol levels may be dangerous and that higher HDL cholesterol levels are good. I am not telling you anything new. However, new guidelines for cholesterol were just released through a joint effort by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013, online Nov. 15; Circulation. 2013, online Nov. 12).

The new guidelines call into question the targets physicians have been using to treat patients with elevated LDL levels. We had been treating patients to a target LDL of either <100 mg/dl or <70 mg/dl, depending on the patient’s status. Instead of focusing on cholesterol targets, these new guidelines suggest that physicians use a risk calculator to assess a patient’s chance of having a cardiovascular event, such as a stroke or a heart attack, except when LDL >190 mg/dl. For these patients, you treat based on the high number.

There are four groups that should be treated, according to the new guidelines. In the most debatable category, healthy patients with a calculated 10-year cardiovascular risk of >7.5% should receive moderate- to high-intensity treatment with cholesterol-lowering medications, such as statins. In patients with cardiovascular disease, higher levels of medication should be used to reduce LDL by 50% or more.

The idea is to treat the patient overall, not to aim for a specific target. To this end, the guidelines suggest that, once statins are prescribed, LDL levels should not be monitored on a regular basis. Without monitoring, though, how will you know whether the treatment is having an effect?

One of the study authors gives an example: if a patient is on cholesterol-lowering medication and is following appropriate lifestyle modifications, but has an LDL that is slightly above the goal, then treatment should not be intensified (medpagetoday.com). The guidelines help to prevent the use of nonstatin drugs that reduce levels of LDL, but that have not shown clinical benefit.

The guidelines also suggest that someone who only has mildly elevated cholesterol levels and no other risk factors, including age, does not warrant medication. This sounds reasonable so far, right? Unfortunately, it is not as clear-cut as it sounds. This approach dramatically changes the paradigm in which physicians have been operating for years.

Medical community reactions

Cholesterol — whether to treat and when — suddenly has become a highly controversial issue. There are two camps within the medical community: one believes these guidelines will help define the patients who are prime subjects to be treated either for primary prevention (prior to a cardiovascular episode) and secondary prevention (those who have had cardiovascular events); the other worries this may result in overtreatment.

The risk factors in the new calculator include age, sex, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol levels, LDL levels, smoking status, high blood pressure treatment and diabetic status. This seems simple enough, but like most things in medicine, whenever something is significantly overhauled, there are potential problems. I have to be forthright and say after reading the commentary, I am leaning toward the camp that is skeptical of the guidelines. Let’s look at the potential problems.

Potential overuse of statins

The cardiovascular risk of >7.5% for treatment is significantly lower than what it has been in the past, 10% to 20%. According to an editorial written in a prominent journal, two physicians calculate that it may increase the number of healthy patients treated with statins by 70%. They point out that statins are ineffective in death reduction if cardiovascular risk is less than 20% (BMJ. 2013;347:f6123). Also they note that it takes 140 patients treated with statins to prevent one heart attack or stroke.

In addition, using the calculator, someone can have normal cholesterol levels and be put on statins based on other factors, such as age, race and sex. Therefore, many more patients could be treated with medications, most likely statins, than in the past.

Flawed calculator

In a New York Times article published Nov. 18, entitled “Flawed Gauge for Cholesterol Risk Poses a New Challenge for Cardiologists,” the authors note that the online calculator may overestimate the risk percentages. Paul Ridker, M.D., and Nancy Cook, M.D., both Harvard Medical School physicians, tested the calculator by using large trials, such as the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, determining that risk is inflated by a mean of 100%. This is because the calculator’s design is based on studies that are over a decade old, many of them from the 1990s.

Demographics have changed since then: we have fewer smokers; heart attack and stroke risk has become similar in men and women, whereas men were at higher risk in the past; and cardiovascular disease incidence has decreased. The calculator also assumes that risk moves in a linear fashion, so as the blood pressure is elevated, risk increases in direct proportion, but it is not that simple.

Statin dosing

The suggested treatment with statins is moderate or high intensity. The problem with this approach is that the higher the intensity, the greater the risk of side effects, such as increased risk of diabetes (Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:144-152), fatigue (Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1180-1182), muscle cramps and pain (Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30:541-553), as well as cataracts (Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:1165-1171). The FDA recently warned about using high statin doses and muscle pain (fda.gov).

Lifestyle and anthropometrics

The risk calculator does not incorporate lifestyle, whether positive or negative, or anthropometrics, such as waist circumference and BMI.

To boot, there are no clinical trials that show the risk calculator is beneficial. It has never been examined in this way, and there have been no new trials that require altering the guidelines in this way.

Guidelines, of course, are just that; they are at the discretion of the physician to follow and discuss with the patient, but ultimately treatment decisions should be made by the patient and physician in partnership. To their credit, the authors of the guidelines acknowledge this very same point.

If you do take statins, don’t become complacent about lifestyle changes — nutrient dense diet, exercise, stress management and quit smoking — and think statins are a silver bullet. On the positive side, giving statins for risk reduction may be more beneficial than just lowering cholesterol numbers. Also, the new guidelines may make physicians hesitant to give drugs that just lower numbers, but that have never shown any clinical benefit.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

We all need fat in our diets, but what fats do we really need and what can we do without? There are several types of fats that have differing impacts on our health, including trans fats, saturated and unsaturated fats.

Trans fats are fats that we can definitely do without. The Food and Drug Administration has taken one of its most aggressive stances in years regarding trans fats. The agency announced recently they are in the preliminary stages of potentially banning artificial trans fats, based on findings from expert panels and scientific studies.

Trans fats are found in processed foods, baked goods and fried foods, as well as margarine, frozen pizzas, coffee creamers and microwave popcorn. To determine whether a food has trans fats, check the label for partially hydrogenated oils. Some restaurants may also use trans fats.

Why is the FDA’s potential banning of trans fats important? According to the agency, just by eliminating this one type of fat, it could reduce annual incidences of heart attacks by 20,000 and deaths due to heart disease by 7,000 (federalregister.gov). The Institute of Medicine’s position is that there is no benefit to trans fats, only potential harm from consuming any amount.

However, it is still unclear how far the FDA will go to eliminate trans fats. Will they force food manufacturers to eliminate trans fats if they are less than 0.5 g per serving? Products with low levels per serving, such as Skippy peanut butter, are allowed to say they are free of trans fats. There are some foods that contain small amounts of natural trans fats, but not the ones mentioned above.

Does this mean that bakery goods and fast foods are going to be healthy for us? Hardly! Many food establishment have already eliminated trans fats. We consume significantly less than we once did. In 2003, we consumed 4.6 g per day, but in 2012, we consumed 1 gram daily, according to the FDA. However, consuming any trans fats may be too much.

Mayor Bloomberg may be remembered for his impact on dietary composition. In a study, trans fat consumption decreased dramatically in fast food establishments throughout NYC in just two years from 2007 to 2009 (Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:81-86). And the amount of products purchased from these establishments that were trans fat-free increased dramatically.

Trans fats and stroke

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observation Study, trans fats were associated with an approximate 40% increased risk of ischemic (clot-based) strokes in postmenopausal women in the highest consumption quintile compared to the lowest (Ann Neurol. 2012 Nov.;72:704-715). Ischemic strokes are by far the most common type of stroke. There were over 87,000 women in this study between the ages of 50 and 79. Interestingly, aspirin seemed to help prevent the strokes in this population. Many of us are on the fence about taking aspirin, but this may a reason for postmenopausal women to discuss aspirin with their physicians. Though, if the FDA does ban trans fats, aspirin may not be needed.

Trans fats and aggression

Psychological changes are another concern. In a recent study with 945 men and women, results showed that the more trans fats consumed, the greater the probability of irritability, aggression and impatience (PLoS ONE 7:e32175). This may be an indication that diet plays a role in mood changes and disorders.

Saturated fats and cognitive impact

What if we ate more saturated fats? In the observational Women’s Health Study, results for 6,000 postmenopausal women showed that those who consumed the most saturated fat had a significant decline in global memory and verbal memory scores, compared to those who consumed the least.

The good news is that those who consumed the highest amounts of monounsaturated fats had an improvement in these scores, compared to those who consumed the least (Ann Neurol. 2012 July;72:124-134). Researchers concluded that the amounts of specific fat types were more important than the overall amount of fat consumed.

There are better fats, such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, and there are fats that are worse for us, such as saturated fats. However, some foods contain both saturated and unsaturated fats, and this is where those critical of calling saturated fat “bad” tend to utilize examples. With the right balance of unsaturated to saturated fats, certain foods can be beneficial, like nuts, olive oil and avocado – in moderation, of course.

In a randomized controlled trial, considered the gold standard of studies, type 2 diabetes patients who received mixed nuts saw a decrease in their HbA1C (a three-month measure of glucose or sugar levels) and a decrease in their LDL “bad” cholesterol (Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1706-1711).

Those who consumed muffins instead of nuts or who consumed half nuts and half muffins saw no improvement in their HbA1C or LDL levels. The takeaway is that a small handful of nuts, about 2 ounces daily in place of carbohydrates, can have a significantly positive impact on the health of type 2 diabetes patients.

Unsaturated fat impact

In a randomized controlled study comparing a Mediterranean diet to a low-fat diet, those on MEDI showed a significant 30% decrease in the risk of cardiovascular disease and related death (N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279-1290). However, those in the low-fat group could not maintain low-fat levels, thus they consumed a diet similar to the standard American diet, and those in the MEDI group consumed more vegetables, olive oil and/or nuts than is typical.

It also speaks to the fact that it is not enough to reduce fat; it’s important to replace it with the right things. If you eat pasta and grains instead, this may not alter results; however, if you replace high levels of fat with nutrient-dense vegetables, then the effects, as seen in the MEDI, tend to be very favorable.

I applaud the FDA for considering banning artificial trans fats, but be forewarned that you need to be wary of partially hydrogenated oils on labels, even if the product says “trans fat-free.” Saturated fats by themselves may be unhealthy as well. However, saturated fats in combination with unsaturated fats may promote positive effects on your overall health. Regardless, moderation is important when it comes to fats, even with good fats. Too much is bad, no matter what the source.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

We all need fat in our diets, but what fats do we really need and what can we do without? There are several types of fats that have differing impacts on our health, including trans fats, saturated and unsaturated fats.

Trans fats are fats that we can definitely do without. The Food and Drug Administration has taken one of its most aggressive stances in years regarding trans fats. The agency announced recently they are in the preliminary stages of potentially banning artificial trans fats, based on findings from expert panels and scientific studies.

Trans fats are found in processed foods, baked goods and fried foods, as well as margarine, frozen pizzas, coffee creamers and microwave popcorn. To determine whether a food has trans fats, check the label for partially hydrogenated oils. Some restaurants may also use trans fats.

Why is the FDA’s potential banning of trans fats important? According to the agency, just by eliminating this one type of fat, it could reduce annual incidences of heart attacks by 20,000 and deaths due to heart disease by 7,000 (federalregister.gov). The Institute of Medicine’s position is that there is no benefit to trans fats, only potential harm from consuming any amount.

However, it is still unclear how far the FDA will go to eliminate trans fats. Will they force food manufacturers to eliminate trans fats if they are less than 0.5 g per serving? Products with low levels per serving, such as Skippy peanut butter, are allowed to say they are free of trans fats. There are some foods that contain small amounts of natural trans fats, but not the ones mentioned above.

Does this mean that bakery goods and fast foods are going to be healthy for us? Hardly! Many food establishment have already eliminated trans fats. We consume significantly less than we once did. In 2003, we consumed 4.6 g per day, but in 2012, we consumed 1 gram daily, according to the FDA. However, consuming any trans fats may be too much.

Mayor Bloomberg may be remembered for his impact on dietary composition. In a study, trans fat consumption decreased dramatically in fast food establishments throughout NYC in just two years from 2007 to 2009 (Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:81-86). And the amount of products purchased from these establishments that were trans fat-free increased dramatically.

Trans fats and stroke

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observation Study, trans fats were associated with an approximate 40% increased risk of ischemic (clot-based) strokes in postmenopausal women in the highest consumption quintile compared to the lowest (Ann Neurol. 2012 Nov.;72:704-715). Ischemic strokes are by far the most common type of stroke. There were over 87,000 women in this study between the ages of 50 and 79. Interestingly, aspirin seemed to help prevent the strokes in this population. Many of us are on the fence about taking aspirin, but this may a reason for postmenopausal women to discuss aspirin with their physicians. Though, if the FDA does ban trans fats, aspirin may not be needed.

Trans fats and aggression

Psychological changes are another concern. In a recent study with 945 men and women, results showed that the more trans fats consumed, the greater the probability of irritability, aggression and impatience (PLoS ONE 7:e32175). This may be an indication that diet plays a role in mood changes and disorders.

Saturated fats and cognitive impact

What if we ate more saturated fats? In the observational Women’s Health Study, results for 6,000 postmenopausal women showed that those who consumed the most saturated fat had a significant decline in global memory and verbal memory scores, compared to those who consumed the least.

The good news is that those who consumed the highest amounts of monounsaturated fats had an improvement in these scores, compared to those who consumed the least (Ann Neurol. 2012 July;72:124-134). Researchers concluded that the amounts of specific fat types were more important than the overall amount of fat consumed.

There are better fats, such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, and there are fats that are worse for us, such as saturated fats. However, some foods contain both saturated and unsaturated fats, and this is where those critical of calling saturated fat “bad” tend to utilize examples. With the right balance of unsaturated to saturated fats, certain foods can be beneficial, like nuts, olive oil and avocado – in moderation, of course.

In a randomized controlled trial, considered the gold standard of studies, type 2 diabetes patients who received mixed nuts saw a decrease in their HbA1C (a three-month measure of glucose or sugar levels) and a decrease in their LDL “bad” cholesterol (Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1706-1711).

Those who consumed muffins instead of nuts or who consumed half nuts and half muffins saw no improvement in their HbA1C or LDL levels. The takeaway is that a small handful of nuts, about 2 ounces daily in place of carbohydrates, can have a significantly positive impact on the health of type 2 diabetes patients.

Unsaturated fat impact

In a randomized controlled study comparing a Mediterranean diet to a low-fat diet, those on MEDI showed a significant 30% decrease in the risk of cardiovascular disease and related death (N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279-1290). However, those in the low-fat group could not maintain low-fat levels, thus they consumed a diet similar to the standard American diet, and those in the MEDI group consumed more vegetables, olive oil and/or nuts than is typical.

It also speaks to the fact that it is not enough to reduce fat; it’s important to replace it with the right things. If you eat pasta and grains instead, this may not alter results; however, if you replace high levels of fat with nutrient-dense vegetables, then the effects, as seen in the MEDI, tend to be very favorable.

I applaud the FDA for considering banning artificial trans fats, but be forewarned that you need to be wary of partially hydrogenated oils on labels, even if the product says “trans fat-free.” Saturated fats by themselves may be unhealthy as well. However, saturated fats in combination with unsaturated fats may promote positive effects on your overall health. Regardless, moderation is important when it comes to fats, even with good fats. Too much is bad, no matter what the source.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

Millions of Americans take herbal supplements. In fact, a survey from 2007 showed that approximately 18% of Americans used herbal supplements in the previous year (Natl Health Stat Report. 2008). Many take them on a daily basis, hoping they will prevent disease, keep them healthy or even help treat disease, with or without conventional drugs. Many think that herbal supplements, unlike most medications, are natural substances, and therefore are likely to be safe.

Herbs have been used for thousands of years. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, recognized that there may be potential benefits of St. John’s wort for the treatment of mood disturbances. Another substance, saw palmetto, was used by the Egyptians for urinary tract problems in the 15th century BC (JAMA. 1998;280:1604-1609).

However, even with a long tradition, are they really safe and effective? Even more, are we getting what the label claims is in the bottle? It would be a frightening thought if we were not.

The problem lies with the fact that herbal supplements are self-regulated for the most part. Manufacturers must label them with a disclaimer, saying that the content and health claims have not been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration and that they are not meant to treat or prevent disease. Would you be comfortable buying drugs that were self-regulated? Probably not!

Many think the worst thing that could happen is they don’t help. Unfortunately, this may not be the worst effect. They may or may not work – the research on most is not very compelling for benefit. They also may be harmful on several levels; some cause interactions with drugs, such as warfarin; some are incorrectly labeled regarding contents or doses; some include unlabeled medications and sometimes exceeding pharmaceutical doses; and some cause side effects. Just because they are said to be natural doesn’t mean they’re safe. Let’s look at the evidence.

Contents of herbal supplements

We want to be certain that the contents in the bottle match what is on the label. Unfortunately, in a recently published study, results showed that not all herbal supplements contain what is claimed, and some contain potentially harmful contaminants or inaccurate concentrations. Canadian researchers tested 44 herbal supplements from a dozen companies in the U.S. and Canada. They found that only 48% contained the herb that was on the label. In addition, about one-third of these supplements also contained fillers or contaminants.

For example, a bottle labeled St. John’s wort actually contained a laxative from a plant called Alexandrian senna, and not St. John’s wort. With two other popular herbs, Ginkgo biloba, used for memory, and Echinacea, used to treat or prevent colds, there were fillers and potentially harmful contaminants found in the bottles. This is not the first time supplements have been tested, but this time researchers utilized a sensitive DNA testing technique called DNA barcoding.

Black cohosh

Black cohosh is used by women to help treat vasomotor symptoms, specifically hot flashes associated with menopause. In a local study done at Stony Brook University Medical Center, results show that as many as 25% of the bottles tested did not contain black cohosh (J AOAC Int. 2012 Jul-Aug;95:1023-1034). They tested 36 bottles acquired from brick-and-mortar chain stores and from online. David Baker, M.D., an OB/GYN professor, also utilized the DNA barcoding technique mentioned above.

Gingko biloba

Does Gingko biloba live up to its claim of helping improve memory or prevent dementia? Unfortunately, in the first large double-blinded randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of trials, results were disappointing (JAMA 2008;300:2253-2262). Gingko biloba was no better in preventing dementia or Alzheimer’s disease than a placebo. There were over 3,000 participants in the trial; most did not have cognitive issues, but 14% had mild cognitive impairment at the start of the trial. The treatment group took 120 mg of Gingko biloba.

This is only one, albeit large, well-designed, study. But at least this supplement is safe, right? Well in a recent toxicology study using lab rats, results demonstrated an increased risk of developing cancer, especially thyroid and liver cancers, as well as nasal tumors (ntp.niehs.nih.gov). Researchers point out that, while this is an interesting finding, it does not mean necessarily that the results are transferable to humans. Also, the doses used in this toxicology study were much higher, when compared to those taken by humans.

Red yeast rice and phytosterols

Lest you think that herbs are not effective, red yeast rice is an herbal supplement that may be valuable for treating patients with elevated levels of cholesterol. In a study in patients with high cholesterol who refused or had painful muscle side effects from statin treatment, results showed that red yeast rice and lifestyle changes were effective in lowering LDL “bad cholesterol” levels (Am Heart J. 2013;166:187-196). Patients making lifestyle changes alone were able to lose weight and maintain lower LDL levels over one year.

The patients taking red yeast rice maintained LDL reductions over the year, as well. When phytosterols were added for patients taking red yeast rice, there was no further improvement in cholesterol levels. Again, some herbs may be effective, while others may not.

Resources

By no means are all herbs suspect, but you need to perform some due diligence. What can be done to make sure that doctors and their patients are more confident that the herbal supplements contain what we think? Well the best would be if an agency like the FDA would oversee these products, however, since that has not happened yet, there are resources available. These include Consumer Lab (consumerlab.com), Center for Science in the Public Interest (cspinet.org), NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Herb Fact Sheets (nccam.nih.gov/health/herbsataglance.htm), and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database (www.naturaldatabase.com).

Conclusion

When taking herbal supplements, it is very important that patients share this information, including the brand names and doses, with their doctors and pharmacists. Herbal supplements may interact with medications, but they also may not contain labeled ingredients, and could have detrimental effects. If you have symptoms that are not going away, it could be due to these supplements. The best natural approach is always lifestyle modification.

Herbal supplements are sorely lacking proper regulation. So caveat emptor (buyer beware) when it comes to taking herbal supplements.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

The calcium controversy continues to be a hot topic, with several new studies seemingly contradicting previous studies. The crucial question: Is there any benefit to taking calcium to prevent bone fractures? If so, which demographic benefits most, and how much should be consumed? From what sources should we get calcium: diet, supplement or both?

Recently, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took calcium supplementation to task. In February, the USPSTF said that the evidence for both calcium and vitamin D was inconclusive in preventing bone fracture risk in healthy men and in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Therefore, they do not recommend that postmenopausal women without history of fracture take calcium or vitamin D supplements for bone health (Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:691-696).

In contrast, in 2011, the Institute of Medicine recommended calcium supplements of up to 800 to 1000 mg to reduce the risk of bone fracture in healthy adults (IOM.edu). Both the IOM and the USPSTF based their recommendations on two large systematic reviews that were not without their weaknesses. This implies that further evidence may be needed to determine the best approach.

Calcium supplementation has risks. There are potential increased risks of heart attacks, kidney stones and elevated cholesterol. In one of the most recent randomized controlled trials, postmenopausal women with already elevated cholesterol saw a significant further increase in cholesterol over two years when given 800 mg of supplemental calcium (Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Nov.;98:1353-1359).

Regardless of the controversy, one thing is clear: postmenopausal women are at the greatest risk of having fractures and developing osteoporosis (clevelandclinic.org). In fact, one in two postmenopausal women will experience a fracture from osteoporosis. For those with hip fractures, there is a 400% increased risk of dying in the first three months, and one in five will lose her independence (Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:691-696, 701-702).

Cardiovascular impact

There have been several studies showing that calcium may increase heart attack risk. To read more about these studies, please read my Feb. 26 article entitled, “Calcium’s effect on heart disease and all-cause mortality.”

I will highlight one study I mentioned in that article, the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study (Heart. 2012; 98:920-925). In this study, researchers found if patients were getting most of their calcium from supplements, they were at a twofold greater risk of a heart attack, compared to those who were not taking supplements.

However, patients who were getting a modest amount of calcium from both dietary sources and supplements actually saw a 30% decrease in heart attacks. The researchers believe that a large bolus (amount delivered at one time) of calcium from supplements may cause blood levels to surge, producing harmful effects on the heart and calcium deposits in the vasculature.

Even within this study, results vary depending on the source of calcium and the amount from each source. The authors suggest if calcium supplementation is needed, such as with postmenopausal women, then no more than 500 mg should be used, and splitting the dose between morning and night may be ideal.

Now let’s fast-forward to two of the most recent studies that question calcium’s relation to heart disease and death. There was a meta-analysis (a group of 19 randomized clinical trials) involving women over the age of 50 presented at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2013 Annual Meeting. Results showed that there were no significant increased risks of heart disease, heart attacks or death from calcium supplementation in women (ASBMR 2013, abstract 1002). This does not necessarily allay fears, but it does call them into question.

At the same conference, a study called the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men study was presented. It implied that calcium supplements do not increase the risk of heart ailments for men (ASBMR 2013, abstract 1002).

Mortality

If this were not confusing enough, in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, there was actually a 22% decrease in mortality in women who used calcium supplements, compared to those who did not (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:3010-3018). These results were seen in women who took 500 mg to 1000 mg per day of supplemental calcium, but not in men. Interestingly, women who had significant dietary calcium also saw a mortality reduction. Above 1000 mg calcium intake, the benefit was attenuated. This was an observational study with a 10-year duration.

However, the mortality story may not be the same for men. Results of an observational study showed that a large daily dose of calcium-only supplements (1000 mg per day or more) may actually increase the risk of mortality to 37% for heart disease death (JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:639-646). The study found that half of men took calcium supplements.

Efficacy

When we think of bone health, we typically think of vitamin D supplements, with or without calcium. However, in a recent randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of studies, the opposite was true (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. online Sept. 24). Results showed that in postmenopausal women, calcium with or without vitamin D helped to improve bone health, whereas 4000 IU of vitamin D alone did not reduce osteoporosis risk. The study duration was six months with a population of 120 women.

Dietary

Dietary sources of calcium are numerous. Dairy products, such as milk and yogurt, have calcium. Fortified nondairy products, such as soy milk, also do, but fortification is essentially supplementation. Natural forms of calcium include nuts, seeds, beans, dark green leafy vegetables and fish, such as salmon and sardines.

Conclusion

The bottom line is: use caution when considering calcium supplements. The appropriate dose may be 500 mg per day at the upper limit, since this is all we absorb at one time, and this should be reserved for postmenopausal women. It might be wise to divide this dose between the morning and evening to minimize a potential bolus effect.

Unfortunately, none of these studies are definitive. However, it is encouraging that postmenopausal women may benefit from calcium supplements and dietary intake rather than be harmed by them. Regardless, it’s best to get most of our intake from dietary sources rather than supplements, since dietary sources are much less likely to cause side effects, such as kidney stones.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

Have we entered a fourth dimension, where it’s possible to be obese and healthy? Hold on to your seats for this wild ride. This would be a big relief, since more than one-third of Americans are obese, another third are overweight and the numbers are on the rise (CDC.gov). There are several studies that suggest it’s possible to be metabolically healthy and still be obese.

What does metabolically healthy mean? It is defined as having no increased risk of diabetes or cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke), because blood pressure, cholesterol levels and inflammatory biomarkers remain within normal limits.

However, read on before thinking that obesity can be equated with health. Though several studies may suggest metabolic health with obesity, there is a caveat: some of these obese patients will go on to become metabolically unhealthy, but even more importantly, obesity will increase their risk significantly for a number of other chronic diseases. These include osteoarthritis, diverticulitis, rheumatoid arthritis and migraine. There is also a higher rate of premature mortality, or death, associated with obesity.

In other words, the short answer is that obesity is NOT healthy. For more information about obesity and its effects on rheumatoid arthritis, read my article entitled “The AMA declares obesity a disease,” published on July 4.

Metabolically healthy obese

Several studies published in the last few months imply that a there is such a thing as MHO. In the Cork and Kerry Diabetes and Heart Disease Phase 2 Study, results show that approximately one-third of obese patients may fall into the category of metabolically “healthy” (J Clin Endocrinol Metab online. 2013 Aug. 26). This means that they are not at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, based on five metabolic parameters, including LDL “bad” cholesterol, HDL “good” cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting plasma glucose and insulin resistance. The researchers compared three groups: MHO, metabolically unhealthy obese and nonobese participants. Both the MHO participants and the nonobese patients demonstrated these positive results.

There were over 2,000 participants involved in this study, with an equal proportion of men and women ranging in age from 45 to 75. The researchers believe that a beneficial inflammation profile, including a lower C-reactive protein and a lower white blood cell count, may be at the root of these results.

In the North West Adelaide Health Study, a prospective (forward-looking) study, the results show that one-third of obese patients may be metabolically healthy, but goes further to say that this occurs in mostly younger patients, those less than 40 years old, and those with a lower waist circumference and more fat in the legs (Diabetes Care. 2013;36:2388-2394). The reason for the positive effects may have to do with how fat is transported through the body.

In metabolically unhealthy obese patients, fat is deposited in the organs, such as the liver and heart, potentially leading to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. A theory is that mitochondria, the cells’ energy source, are disrupted, potentially increasing inflammation.

However, the results also showed that over a 10-year period, one-third of “healthy” obese patients transitioned into the unhealthy category. Over a longer period of time, this number may increase.

Premature mortality

To hammer the nail into the coffin, so to speak, obesity may be associated with premature mortality. In a recent study, about 20% of American patient deaths were associated with being obese or overweight (Am J Public Health online. 2013 Aug. 15). The rates were highest among white men, white women and black women. The researchers found this statistic surprising; previous estimates were far lower. Researchers reviewed a registry of 19 consecutive National Health Interview Surveys, from 1986 to 2004, including more than 500,000 patients with ages ranging from 40 to 84.9 years old.

Interestingly, obesity seems to have more of an effect on mortality as we age: obesity raised mortality risk 100% in those who were 65 and over, compared to a 25% increased risk in those who were 45.

Osteoarthritis

It is unlikely that any group of obese patients would be able to avoid pressure on their joints. In a recent Australian study, those who were obese had a greater than two times increased risk of developing osteoarthritis of the hip and a greater than seven times increased risk of developing osteoarthritis of the knee (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:254). If this weren’t bad enough, obese patients complained of increased pain and stiffness, as well as decreased functioning, in the hip and knee joints. There were over 1,000 adults involved in this study. Patients were greater than 39 years old, so obesity’s impact on osteoarthritis could affect those relatively young.

There is a solution to obesity and its impact on osteoarthritis of the knees and hips. In a randomized controlled trial of 454 patients over 18 months, those who lost just 10% of their body weight saw significant improvement in function and knee joint pain, compared to those who lost less than 10% (JAMA. 2013;310:1263-1273). So, if you are 200 pounds, this would mean you would experience benefits after losing only 20 pounds.

When diet and exercise together were utilized, patients saw the best outcomes, with reduced pain and inflammation and increased mobility, compared to diet or exercise alone. However, diet was superior to exercise in improving knee joint pressure. Also, inflammatory biomarkers were reduced significantly more in the combined diet and exercise group and the diet alone group, compared to the exercise alone group.

The diet was composed of two shakes and a dinner that was vegetable-rich and low in fat. The exercise component involved both walking with alacrity plus resistance training for a modest frequency of three times a week for one hour each time. Thus, if you were considering losing weight and did not want to start both exercise and diet regimens at once, focusing on a vegetable-rich diet may be most productive.

While it is interesting that some obese patients are metabolically healthy, this does not necessarily last, and there are a number of chronic diseases involved with increased weight. Though we should be careful not to be prejudiced or judgmental of obese patients, this disease needs to be treated to avoid increased mortality risk and of increased risk of developing other diseases.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.