Iron is contained in most of the foods that we eat. It is needed for proper functioning of the body and plays an integral role in such processes as DNA synthesis and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, which provides energy for cells (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:10919–10924). It is very important to maintain iron homeostasis, or balance.

When we think of iron, we associate it with reducing fatigue and garnering energy. In fact, many of us think of the ironman triathlons — endurance and strength come to mind. If it’s good for us, then the more we get the better right? It depends on the circumstances. But for many of us, this presumption is not grounded in reality.

Iron in excess amounts is dangerous. It may contribute to a host of diseases, including diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, Parkinson’s disease and even heart disease. These diseases are perpetuated because when we have excess iron it may cause reactive oxygen species, or free radicals, which cause breakdown of DNA and tissues, ironically, the very things that iron homeostasis tends to preserve (Clin Haematol. 1985;14(1):129).

So what helps us differentiate between getting enough iron and iron overload? It is a good question and depends on the type of iron we ingest. There are two main types: heme iron and nonheme iron. Dietary heme, or blood, iron primarily comes from red meat and is easily absorbed into the gut. Dietary nonheme iron comes from other sources, such as plants and fortified foods, which are much more difficult sources to absorb. By focusing on the latter source of dietary iron, you may maintain homeostasis, since the gut tends to absorb 1-2 mg of iron, but also excretes 1-2 mg of iron through urine, feces and perspiration.

Not only does it matter what type of iron we consume, but also the population that ingests the iron. Age and gender are critical factors. Let me explain. Women of reproductive age, patients who are anemic and children may require more iron. However, iron overload is more likely to occur in men and postmenopausal women because they cannot easily rid the body of excess iron.

Let’s investigate some of the research that shows the effects of iron overload on different chronic diseases.

Impact on diabetes

In a recent meta-analysis (a group of 16 studies), results showed that both dietary heme iron and elevated iron storage (ferritin) may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes (PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41641). When these ferritin levels were high, the risk of diabetes increased 66 percent to 129 percent. With heme iron, the group with the highest levels had a 39 percent increased risk of developing diabetes. There were over 45,000 patients in this analysis. You can easily measure ferritin with a simple blood test. Also these levels are modifiable through blood donation and avoidance of heme iron. Thus, reducing the risk of iron overload.

Diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes that occurs when glucose, or sugar, levels are not tightly controlled. It affects the retina, or the back of the eye. Iron excess and its free radicals can have detrimental effects on the retina (Methods Enzymol. 1990;186:1-85). This is potentially caused by oxidative stress resulting in retinal tissue damage (Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2008;9(4):315-327).

So how is iron related to uncontrolled glucose levels? In vitro studies (preliminary lab studies) suggest that high glucose levels may perpetuate the breakdown of heme particles and subsequently raise the level of iron in the eye (Biophysical Chemistry. 2003;105:743-755). In fact, those with diabetic retinopathy tend to have iron levels that are 150 percent greater than those without the disease (Indian J Ophthalmol. 2004;52:145-148). Diets that are plant-based and, therefore, nutrient-dense are some of the most effective ways to control glucose levels and avoid diabetic retinopathy.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD)

Continuing with the theme of retinal damage, excessive dietary iron intake may increase risk of AMD according to the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(7):867-876). AMD is the number one cause of blindness for people 65 and older. People who consumed the most iron from red meat increased their risk of early AMD by 47 percent, however, due to the low incidence of advanced AMD among study participants, the results for this stage were indeterminate.

I have been frequently asked if unprocessed red meat is better than processed meat. Well, this study showed that both types of red meat were associated with an increased risk. This was a large study with over 5,000 participants ranging in age from 58 to 69.

Cardiovascular disease

Though we have made considerable headway in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and even deaths from these diseases, there are a number of modifiable risks that need to be addressed. One of these is iron overload. In the Japan Collaborative Cohort, results showed that men who had the highest amount of dietary iron were at a 43 percent increased risk of stroke death, compared to those who ate the least amounts. And overall increased risk of cardiovascular disease death, which includes both heart disease and stroke, was increased by 27 percent in men who consumed the most dietary iron. There were over 23,000 Japanese men who were between the ages of 40 to 79 that were involved in this study.

In conclusion, we should focus on avoiding heme iron, especially for men and postmenopausal women. Too much iron creates a plethora of free radicals that damage the body. Therefore, the best way to circumvent the increased risk of chronic diseases with iron overload is prevention. Significantly decreasing red meat consumption and donating blood on a quarterly basis, assuming that one is not anemic, may be the most effective strategies for not falling into the trap of iron overload.

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.

Milind Diwan

Continued from page B15

“If you measure their properties in this far-away detector, there will be differences,” Diwan predicts. “I suspect those differences will be quite large and … can be directly linked to the way the universe evolved in its first few microseconds” when antimatter was annihilated.

“We have been struggling to understand this miraculous event,” Diwan explained. “This is one of the key problems in all of science.”

While scientists plan to send the neutrinos on a long journey through the Earth, the researchers themselves are expecting their own long trek.

Based on the current plan, the LBNE will start producing data in 2022. By then, would-be scientists who are planning to graduate from high school this year may contribute to the research.

While that might seem like a slow build for a long range project, there are competitive time pressures.

“Japanese physicists want to perform a similar experiment with a shorter distance and Europeans want to perform a bigger experiment with almost the same experimental features,” Diwan explained. “At this point, there is agreement that in terms of planning, we are ahead of them.”

A resident of Port Jefferson Station, Diwan and his wife Sucheta, an engineer at Hauppauge-based Parker Hannifin, have a 14-year old daughter, Renuka, and a 10-year old son, Yashodhan.

His wife’s job is “much more important than mine,” he offers. Her company makes fuel gauges for jumbo jets.

As for his work, Diwan has been in the physics department at BNL since 1994. He is eager to see the LBNE project through.

“I feel very fortunate that I am working on a question that is important,” he offered. “It is extraordinary that we have the tools to actually perform this experiment.”

Most of us have experienced a difficult night’s sleep. However, those with obstructive sleep apnea may experience a lack of restful sleep much more frequently. OSA is an abnormal pause in breathing, while sleeping, that occurs at least five times an hour There are a surprising number of people in the United States who have this disorder. The prevalence may be as high as 20 percent of the population, and 26 percent are at high risk for the disorder (WMJ. 2009;108(5):246).There are three levels of OSA: mild, moderate and severe.

The risk factors for OSA are numerous and include chronic nasal congestion, large neck circumference, being overweight or obese, alcohol use, smoking and a family history. Not surprisingly, about two-thirds of OSA patients are overweight or obese. Smoking increases risk threefold, while nasal congestion increases risk twofold (JAMA. 2004;291(16):2013). Fortunately, as you can see from this list, many of the risk factors are modifiable.

The symptoms of OSA are significant: daytime fatigue, loud snoring, breathing cessation observed by another, impaired concentration and morning headaches. These symptoms, while serious, are not the worst problems. OSA is also associated with a list of serious complications, such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and cancer.

There are several treatments for OSA. Among them are continuous positive airway pressure — known as CPAP — devices; lifestyle modifications, including diet, exercise, smoking cessation and reduced alcohol intake; oral appliances; and some medications.

Cardiovascular disease

In a recent observational study, the risk of cardiovascular mortality increased in a linear fashion to the severity of OSA (Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jan 17;156(2):115-22). In other words, in those with mild-to-moderate untreated sleep apnea, there was a 60 percent increased risk of death, and in the severe group, this risk jumped considerably to 250 percent. However, the good news is that treating patients with CPAP considerably decreased their risk by 81 percent for mild-to-moderate patients and 45 percent for severe OSA patients. This study involved 1,116 women over a duration of six years.

Not to leave out men, another observational study showed similar risks of cardiovascular disease with sleep apnea and benefits of CPAP treatment (Lancet. 2005 Mar 19-25;365(9464):1046-53).There were more than 1,500 men in this study with a follow up of 10 years. The authors concluded that severe sleep apnea increases the risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events, and CPAP was effective in stemming these occurrences.

In a third study, this time involving the elderly, OSA increased the risk of cardiovascular death in mild-to-moderate patients and in those with severe OSA, 38 percent and 125 percent respectively (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(9):909-16). But, just like in the previous studies, CPAP decreased the risk in both groups significantly. In the elderly, an increased risk of falls, cognitive decline and difficult-to-control high blood pressure may be signs of OSA.

Though all three studies were observational, it seems that OSA affects both genders and all ages when it comes to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death, and CPAP may be effective in reducing these risks.

Cancer association

In sleep apnea patients under 65 years old, a recent study showed an increased risk of cancer (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Nov. 15). The authors believe that intermittent low levels of oxygen, which are caused by the many frequent short bouts of breathing cessation during sleep, may be responsible for the development of tumors and their subsequent growth. The greater the percentage of time patients spend in hypoxia (low oxygen) at night, the greater the risk of cancer. So, for those patients with more than 12 percent low-oxygen levels at night, there is a twofold increased risk of cancer development, compared to those with less than 1.2 percent low-oxygen levels.

Sexual function

It appears that erectile dysfunction may also be associated with OSA. CPAP may decrease the incidence of ED in these men. This was demonstrated in a small study involving 92 men with ED (APSS annual meeting: abstract No. 0574). The surprising aspect of this study was that, at baseline, the participants were overweight — not obese — on average and were young, at 45 years old. In those with mild OSA, the CPAP had a beneficial effect in over half of the men. For those with moderate and severe OSA, the effect was still significant, though not as robust, at 29 percent and 27 percent respectively.

Dietary effect

Although CPAP can be quite effective, as shown in some of the studies above, it may not be well tolerated by everyone. In some of my patients, their goal is to discontinue their CPAP. Diet may be an alternative to CPAP, or may be used in combination with CPAP.

In a small study, a low-energy diet showed positive results in potentially treating OSA. It makes sense, since weight loss is important. But even more impressively, almost 50 percent of those who followed this type of diet were able to discontinue CPAP (BMJ. 2011;342:d3017).The results endured for at least one year. Patients studied were those who suffered from moderate-to-severe levels of sleep apnea. Low-energy diet implies a low-calorie approach. A diet that is a plant based and nutrient rich would fall into this category. Recently, one of my patients who suffered from innumerable problems was able to discontinue his CPAP machine after following this type of diet.

The bottom line is that if you think you or someone else is suffering from sleep apnea, it is very important to go to a sleep lab to be evaluated, and then go to your doctor for a follow-up. Don’t suffer from sleep apnea and, more importantly, don’t let obstructive sleep apnea cause severe complications, possibly robbing you of more than sleep. There are effective treatments for this disorder, including diet and/or CPAP.

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.

Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. Yet, some in the medical community believe that more patients should be on this class of drugs while others think it is one of the most overprescribed medications. Suffice to say, this is one of the most polarizing topics in medicine — probably rightfully so.

The debate is over primary prevention with statins. Primary prevention is treating people with high cholesterol and/or inflammation who may be at risk for a cardiovascular event, such as a stroke or heart attack. Fortunately, most physicians would agree that statins have their place in secondary prevention — treating patients who have had a stroke or heart attack already or have coronary artery disease.

We are going to look at benefits and risks for the patient population that could take statins for primary prevention. On one side, we have the statin as Rocky Balboa, coming out to fight off cancer risk, both overall and esophageal, as well as improving quality of life and eye disease (glaucoma). On the other, we have the statin as Evel Knievel, demonstrating that being reckless doesn’t provide longevity, promotes fatigue and increases eye disease (cataracts). Let’s look at some of the evidence.

Effect on cancer

A recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine involved 300,000 Danish participants and investigated 13 cancers. It showed that statin users may have a 15 percent decreased risk of death from cancer (N Engl J Med 2012;367:1792-1802). This is exciting news.

However, there were major limitations with the study. First, the researchers did not control for smoking, which we know is a large contributor to cancer. Secondly, it was unknown which of the statin-using population might have received conventional cancer treatments, such as radiation and chemotherapy. Thirdly, the dose of statins did not correlate to risk reduction. In fact, those who took 1 percent to 75 percent of prescribed statin levels showed more benefit in terms of cancer-mortality risk than those who took more. There needs to be a better-designed trial that is prospective (forward looking) to determine whether there really is an effect. I would say that Rocky Balboa came out of this fight pretty banged up.

Another study showed that statins may play a role in reducing the risk of esophageal cancer. This is important, since esophageal cancer, especially adenocarcinoma that develops from Barrett’s esophagus, is on the rise. The results showed a 30 percent risk reduction in this type of cancer. The authors of the study surmise that statins may have a protective effect. This was meta-analysis of 13 observational studies. The study abstract was presented at the American College of Gastroenterology 2012 Annual Scientific Meeting (Abstract 1 May 22, 2012).

Although there is an association, these results need to be confirmed with randomized controlled trials. Remember, aspirin has about the same 30 percent reduction in colorectal cancer, yet is not recommended solely for this use because of side effects.

Eye diseases: mixed results

In two common eye diseases, glaucoma and cataracts, statins have vastly different results. In one new study, statins were shown to decrease the risk of glaucoma by 5 percent over one year and 9 percent over two years (Ophthalmology 2012;119(10):2074-2081). It is encouraging that the longer the duration of statin use, the greater the positive effect on preventing glaucoma.

Statins also help to slow glaucoma progression in patients suspected of having early-stage disease at about the same rate. This was a retrospective study (backward-looking) analyzing statin use with patients at risk for open-angle glaucoma. There is a need for prospective (forward-looking) studies. With cataracts, it is a completely different story. Statins increase the risk of cataracts by over 50 percent, as shown in the Waterloo Eye Study (Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:1165-1171). Statins exacerbate the risk of cataracts in an already high-risk group: diabetes patients. For more details on this topic, see my Oct. 18 article, “Taking cataracts seriously to maintain good health.”

Quality of life and longevity: a mixed bag again

In a meta-analysis involving 11 randomized controlled trials, considered the gold standard of studies, statins did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality in moderate to high-risk primary prevention participants (Arch Intern Med 2010;170(12):1024-31). This study analysis involved over 65,000 participants with high cholesterol and at significant risk for heart disease.

However, in this same study in Archives of Internal Medicine, participants at high risk of coronary heart disease saw a substantial improvement in their quality of life with statins. In other words, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack was reduced by more than half and nonfatal strokes by almost half, avoiding the potentially disabling effects of these cardiovascular events.

Fatigue effect

Some of my patients who are on statins ask if statins can cause fatigue. The answer is “maybe,” but now there is a randomized controlled trial that reinforces the idea that statins increase the possibility of fatigue (Arch Intern Med 2012;172(15):1180-1182).

Women, especially, complained of lower energy levels, both overall and on exertion, when they were blindly assigned to a statin-taking group. The trial was composed of three groups: two that took statins, simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 40 mg; and a placebo group. The participants were at least 20 years old and had LDL (bad) cholesterol of 115 to 190 mg/dl, with less than 100 mg/dl considered ideal.

In conclusion, some individuals who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease may need a statin, but with the evidence presented it is more likely that statins are overprescribed in primary prevention. As www.update.com points out, evidence of the best results points to lifestyle modification, with or without statins, and all patients with elevated LDL (bad) cholesterol should make changes that include a nutrient-dense diet and exercise.

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.

Diabetes seems to be getting more and more unclear in terms of the appropriate path to treat and prevent the disease. The Accord trial, a large, randomized controlled trial, which I wrote about in my Jan. 25, 2011 article, showed that intensive lowering of glucose (sugars) with medications disappointingly showed no improvement in cardiovascular disease. Even worse, there was an increase in fatalities in the treatment group, compared to the placebo group (NEJM 2008;358:2560-2572).

So what about intensive lifestyle modification? We are constantly told that diet and exercise are very important for preventing and treating Type 2 diabetes. Many of us can relate to being told we need to lose 10 or 20 pounds. But the problem is that we are not given a road map as to how to best go about this process. Are all diets the same? How about exercise — does it matter how much and what we do? What does the evidence tell us?

Diet’s impact

We know that not all diets are equal and that diets fail patients all the time. In fact, there was a recent randomized clinical trial, the gold standard of studies, called the Look Ahead study, that looked at Type 2 diabetes patients and dietary effects. This trial involved intensive lifestyle modifications — dietary changes and increased fitness for one group were compared to a group given only diabetes support and education. The trial was halted because of its failure to impact cardiovascular disease.

We expect dietary trials to fail, but not one that is large, following 5,000 overweight or obese patients over 11 years, and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Part of the problem was that the amount of weight loss was less than 5 percent. The goal had been 7 percent, which should not be difficult to achieve when the patients’ mean starting weight was high. We know that the impact is greater with the more weight lost.

Worse still is that the interim analysis at year four of this study, published in 2010, showed encouraging results for reducing cardiovascular risk. There were significant improvements in parameters such as HbA1c (a three-month history of sugar levels), blood pressure, weight, HDL (“good cholesterol”), triglycerides, and number of medications. This is because patients had lost more weight at this point (Diabetes Care. 2010 Jun;33(6):1153-58; Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(17):1565-75).

At year one, analysis of the Look Ahead trial showed substantially more effect on reducing cardiovascular risk factors in Type 2 diabetes patients, with greater weight loss in the intensive treatment group. Those who lost 5 percent to 10 percent of their body weight saw results similar to the year four analysis above. And those who had a 10 to percent 15 percent loss of body weight experienced even greater risk reduction (Diabetes Care. 2011;34(7):1481-6).

However, there was good news with the trial: according to the authors, patients had lost weight and their physical conditioning had improved. The authors note that there was a low incidence of cardiovascular events (nonfatal heart attacks, nonfatal strokes, hospitalization from angina (chest pain), and death) for both groups, which made it difficult to observe a difference between the groups. Thus, this trial may have not been large enough to show an effective difference. I would argue that the weight difference may not have been great enough.

The treatment group with intensive lifestyle changes was following a calorie-restricted diet. This is not the same as a nutrient-rich, plant-based diet. Calorie restriction may help you lose modest amounts of weight, but trials have shown it does not necessarily add to longevity nor reduce risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Type 2 diabetes patients.

What is the message that this study is conveying? Does this mean that all diets are ineffective? Should we, to quote Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat cake”? I know some patients would like to be told that, but diet can play a significant role in Type 2 diabetes and its cardiovascular risk.

What is more important is diet composition. It appears to have more of an impact than just calorie restriction. In my Sept. 11, 2012 article, I go into much more detail on diet composition and an example of a nutrient-rich diet, with its beneficial impact on cardiovascular disease (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:713-720).

In another recent trial, a meta-analysis (a group of 24 studies) with a dietary approach that involved a high-protein group compared to standard-protein group, the results disappointed (Am J Clin Nutr. online Oct 24, 2012). Though a high-protein diet showed a very modest reduction in weight, 1.8 extra pounds over three months, there was not a corresponding change in cardiovascular risk parameters, such as blood pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels. This analysis involved over 1,000 patients.
Again, it goes to the composition of the diet. In this case, the focus was on macronutrients, such as protein and carbohydrates, rather than micronutrients, including phytochemicals (plant nutrients).

Sedentary lifestyle

Though we are encouraged to exercise for 150 minutes per week — or five days a week for 30 minutes each — this does not take into account what we do the other 23.5 hours on the days that we are exercising.

In a meta-analysis (a group of 18 trials), there was a greater than two-fold increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes in those who were most sedentary, compared to those who were least sedentary (Diabetologia. 2012;55:2895-2905). If that is not enough, there was also a greater than two-times risk of having a cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack or stroke, in those most sedentary. It is a good idea to at least stand up, but also to walk around, for a few minutes every hour if possible during your waking hours.

Therefore, if there is one message I could hammer home, it would be that diet and movement do play significant roles in treating, preventing and reversing Type 2 diabetes and reducing its risk for complications. Weight and diet composition are very important to achieving these goals. Even very little exercise can have a substantial effect on diabetes risk reduction.

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 or consult your personal physician.

Most of us would like to achieve longevity, as long we also maintain a good quality of life. We are finding, however, as I mentioned in my Sept. 20 article, that calorie restriction alone may not be the route to achieving this goal.

There was a very interesting article published in the New York Times Magazine on Oct. 28 entitled, “The Enchanted Island of Centenarians,” by Dan Buettner, a modern-day explorer and educator who focuses on longevity. Of course, there was no way I was going to pass up an opportunity to read an in-depth article on this subject. He wrote about a man named Stamatis Moraitis who was born on Ikaria, a small Greek island.

At this point, you may ask yourself, “What does this have to do with me, since there are numerous stories about the Greek lifestyle?” Well, Moraitis immigrated to the United States around 1943 and lived initially in Port Jefferson. He eventually moved to Florida, where he was diagnosed with lung cancer and given less than a year to live. In response, he decided to move back to Ikaria to get his affairs in order.

Approximately 35 years after his diagnosis, he is 97 years old and fully functional, with no signs of lung cancer. One might say he overcame advanced lung cancer. The skeptics at this point are probably thinking that he was misdiagnosed initially and never had cancer. However, he had received multiple second opinions from physicians, and they all concurred on his diagnosis.

So what was on this island that helped him not only recover from his disease, but live a long and prosperous life? His recovery involved a multitude of factors, such as diet, social support, sleep, physical activity and regular sex.

While his story is anecdotal, we have seen these same results in studies looking at other societies, such as the Okinawans, the Seventh-day Adventist community of California and some provinces of China. What does the research tell us?

Diet and physical activity impact

The Women’s Health and Aging Studies I and II, one of the most recent studies on lifestyle modification, suggests that substantial disease and mortality risk reductions are possible. There were 713 participants ranging in age from 70 to 79 (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(5):862-868).

The results showed that women who were more physically active, compared to those who were least active, were significantly less likely to die with a 72 percent reduction in five-year mortality risk. And in terms of diet, there was a 50 percent reduction in death for women in the highest third of fruit and vegetable consumption compared to the lowest third. This is important, since the most rapidly expanding age group in the U.S. is those 65 and over (Demographic Res. 2000;3:1–20).

To confirm fruit and vegetable consumption in the different groups, the researchers measured carotenoid levels in the participants’ blood. Carotenoids are phytochemicals, or nutrients, found in a plant-based diet. This is the same technique I use to measure whether my patients are achieving a vegetable-rich diet. The Ikarians’ diet is also composed of vegetables, with an emphasis on greens and a variety of beans and a de-emphasis on dairy and other animal products. According to Dan Buettner, who spent time in Ikaria, most Ikarians walked up at least 20 different hills throughout the day.

The role of napping

While we have heard conflicting reports about napping, recent studies suggest that it may have beneficial effects. In the Greek portion of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) trial, there was a 34 percent reduction in the risk of death from heart disease when taking a siesta (midday nap), regardless of frequency and duration (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(3):296-301). This study involved 23,681 participants. For men, those who were working saw more significant results in mortality reduction than those who were not. In the Ikarian society, most of the individuals took naps in the middle of the day.

The influence of social connections

Who you associate with may have a significant effect on your health. In the Framingham Heart Study, the chance of becoming obese (BMI of greater than 30) increased if you had a friend who had become obese (N Engl J Med. 2007;357:370-379). In this study, which involved 12,067 participants, there was a 57 percent increased risk of obesity if your friend was obese well. The authors describe this phenomenon as a social contagion, much like how a virus spreads. Among Seventh-day Adventist communities, Buettner observed that there is a positive social contagion: at picnics you see a predominance of fruit and vegetable dishes, rather than the typical American barbecue with beef or chicken.

Though there are no formally published studies on the Ikarian society, there are studies on other societies with increased longevity, such as the Okinawans, the Seventh-day Adventists and Sardinians. Unlike many of the other society studies, which are mainly international, the Seventh-day Adventists studied live in Loma Linda, Calif., outside Los Angeles.

In a study looking at approximately 34,000 Californian Seventh-day Adventists, those at age 30 had a considerably higher life expectancy than other Caucasian Californians (Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(13):1645-1652). For men, there was a 7.28 year increase in life expectancy, and for women, there was 4.42 year advantage. The factors that play a role are similar to those that are important to the Ikarians: diet, physical activity and not smoking.

What do all of these different societies have in common? They eat a high-nutrient, plant-rich diet, physical activity is a given and strong societal networking is integral to their lifestyles.

Though we may not be able to emigrate to Ikaria or many of the other societies with greater lifespans, we can modify our lifestyles to emulate many of the benefits. We can improve our diet, make sure we get enough sleep – naps should be encouraged, rather than frowned upon – and strengthen our social connections. These changes will help to foster prevention and reversal of chronic disease and potentially increase our longevity.

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.

Multivitamins are one of the most commonly consumed supplements in the United States, taken by at least one-third of the population (J Nutr. 2011;141(2):261-266). We are bombarded by vitamin advertising. Yet we hear so much conflicting information about them from physicians and marketers. Are they beneficial or are they detrimental? At least with multivitamins, I will attempt to address these questions with several studies.

The quick and dirty answer is that it appears to depend on the demographics utilizing them and also the content of the multivitamins themselves. So the real question becomes, who should and who should not be taking them? There are studies that have been done on men and women looking at mortality risk and chronic diseases, such as cancer and age-related macular degeneration.

Cancer benefit in men

The Physicians’ Health Study II is the only well-designed, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (RCT), the gold standard of studies, to date that looks at multivitamins. This study was published in JAMA and indicates that multivitamins may be beneficial for men to prevent the overall risk of cancer (JAMA online Oct. 17, 2012). The results showed that men who took a daily multivitamin were 8 percent less likely to develop cancer overall compared to the placebo group. Even though this is a modest effect, the results were statistically significant.

For those who did have cancer, there was also a trend toward reduction in cancer mortality of 12 percent, but it did not reach the threshold of statistical significance. When they analyzed cancers individually, such as prostate and colorectal cancers, there was no difference with the placebo group. The duration of the study was considered substantially long at 11 years. The demographics included 14,641 healthy male U.S. physicians who were at least 50 years old. The multivitamin used in the study was Centrum Silver.

It may be well worth the effort for men over the age of 50 to take a multivitamin, since it is an easy way to reduce the risk of a broad category of chronic diseases, including cancer that is difficult to treat in many circumstances. The authors stressed that this should not replace a good diet and exercise, which are more likely to have larger beneficial effects on cancer.

Cancer effect for postmenopausal women

In the Women’s Health Initiative, a large observational study, there was neither an increase nor a decrease in the risk of cancer with multivitamins (Arch Intern Med. 2009(3);169:294-304). Does this mean that multivitamins don’t have the same effect in women? Not necessarily.

The design of each of the two studies was different. The previous study was a randomized controlled trial comparing a group of males who took a multivitamin to those who took a placebo, whereas this study was large, but observational — participants were observed over time — and thus is not as well designed. Therefore, the Physicians’ Health Study II had a better design and more definitive results. Interestingly, the authors of this study concluded that diet, with an emphasis on fruits and vegetables, and exercise are more beneficial than a multivitamin. This conclusion is a similar to the previous study.

Mortality effect for postmenopausal women

For postmenopausal women, taking a multivitamin may be detrimental. There was an increased risk of mortality of 6 percent in women taking a multivitamin which, though modest, is still statistically significant, according to the Iowa Women’s Health Study (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633).

However, according to this study, copper was found to have a 45 percent increased risk of mortality in postmenopausal women. I described this study in more detail in my Oct. 25, 2011 article.
So why do I mention this study? To emphasize the fact that, though this is a large observational study like the Women’s Health Initiative, it is not as well designed, nor are the results as definitive as a RCT like the Physician’s Health Study II mentioned above. For instance, I could not find details about the dose of copper nor whether one standard multivitamin was used.

Regardless, there needs to be a RCT to determine if multivitamins are harmful in postmenopausal women. What I might suggest is that postmenopausal women think twice about taking the multivitamin in the Physician’s Health Study II, since it contained copper. It is important to ask your doctor whether multivitamins are appropriate for you and, if so, which one.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and multivitamins

A multivitamin was shown to be beneficial in preventing the progression of AMD to advanced stage disease. This was a well-designed RCT called the AREDS study (Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1417-1436). The results showed a significant 28 percent reduction in risk of worsening disease in patients between the ages of 55 and 80 years old. The study’s duration was 6.3 years. The multivitamin used contained a combination of vitamin C (500 mg), vitamin E (400 IU), beta carotene (15 mg), zinc (80 mg) and copper (2 mg).

This multivitamin combination also prevented visual acuity loss by 27 percent. These results are impressive, since advanced AMD is the leading cause of central vision loss in patients 65 years and older (Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(5):653-658). The study’s conclusion suggests that patients with AMD take this multivitamin combination as long as they don’t have contraindications, such as smoking. Before starting this type of multivitamin, please consult an ophthalmologist.

To review or summarize, multivitamins in the right population have substantial risk reduction effects, such as in cancer with men. However, benefits may be dependent on the population, for with postmenopausal women, multivitamins may actually increase the risk of mortality. They may also depend on the multivitamin’s composition — not all multivitamins are created equal. For example, a certain combination of elements is beneficial for macular degeneration, not just any multivitamin. Thus, one size does not fit all. And remember, a supplement is just that, it should supplement a healthy diet.

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.

In last week’s article on fall risk, I briefly mentioned cataracts as a contributor. Cataracts, the nuclear type, reduce visual acuity in an insidious process. What is important about cataracts is that they affect so many Americans, and their incidence is rising. Well, as it turns out, cataract surgery may not only reduce the risk of falls and hip fracture but, at the same time, pressure in the eye.
A diet rich in carotenoids may also prevent the occurrence of cataracts, whereas statins may have the reverse effect by increasing risk.

Cataract surgery and hip fracture

In a recent study, elderly cataract patients who underwent surgery were significantly less likely to experience a hip fracture during a year of follow-up than those who did not have surgery (JAMA. 2012;308:493-501). This was a retrospective (backward-looking) observational study, and its size was considerable, with over one million patients 65 and older. The results showed a 16 percent reduction in the risk of hip fractures overall. Those who were older — between 80 and 84 — had the most to gain, with a 28 percent reduction in hip fracture risk.

The reason for the increased fall risk and subsequent hip fracture risk in those with cataracts is the decrease in visual acuity and depth perception and the reduction in visual field that accompanies cataracts (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Oct;57(10):1825-1832). As we know, hip fractures have tremendous impact on the ability of elderly patients to remain independent. Thus, avoiding them is the best strategy, since many of these patients do not regain their prior mobility.

Cataract surgery and intraocular pressure

Yet another benefit of cataract surgery is the potential reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP). Why is intraocular pressure (pressure within the eye) important? High IOP has been associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. A comparative case series (looking at those with and without cataract surgery) utilizing data from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study showed that those cataract patients with ocular hypertension (higher than normal pressure in the eye) who underwent cataract surgery saw an immediate reduction in IOP (Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1826-1831). This effect lasted at least three years. The removal of the cataract lowered the IOP by 16.5 percent from 23.9 mm Hg to 19.8 mm Hg. This would be close to the lower end of pressure reduction goals in glaucoma treatments, 20 to 40 percent. Therefore, cataract surgery may be synergistic with traditional glaucoma treatment.

Cataract surgery and macular degeneration risk

In a May 15, 2011 article, I wrote about a study that suggested cataract surgery increased the risk of progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). However, this may not be the case after all. There is conflicting evidence from a second study. Rather than increasing AMD risk, cataract surgery may uncover underlying AMD pathology that is hidden because the cataract obfuscates the view of the retina (back of the eye) (Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1412-1419). The study’s strengths were the use color retinal photographs and fluorescein angiography (dye in blood vessels of eye), both very thorough approaches.

Cataract prevention with dietary carotenoids

Diet may play a significant role in prevention of cataracts. In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, carotenoids, specifically lutein and zeaxanthin, seem to decrease cataract risk by 23 percent in women with high blood levels, compared to those with low blood levels (Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(3):354-364). In fact, those in the highest quintile (the top 20 percent) had an even more dramatic 32 percent risk reduction when compared to those in the bottom quintile (the lowest 20 percent). As the authors commented, it may not have been just lutein and zeaxanthin. There are more than 600 carotenoids, but these were the ones measured in the study. Some of the foods that are high in carotenoids include carrots, spinach, kale, apricots and mango, according to the USDA. Interestingly, half a cup of one of the first three on a daily basis will far exceed the recommended daily allowance. Thus, it takes a modest consistency in dietary carotenoids to see a reduction in risk.

Vitamin C effect

The impact of vitamin C on cataract risk may depend on the duration of daily consumption. In other words, 10 years seems to be the critical duration needed to see an effect. According to one study, those participants who took 500mg of vitamin C supplements for 10 or more years saw a 77 percent reduction in risk (Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Oct;66(4):911-916). However, only very few women achieved this goal in the study, demonstrating how difficult it is to maintain supplementation for a 10-year period.

Those who took vitamin C for fewer than 10 years saw no effect in prevention of cataracts. In the well-designed AREDS study, a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of studies, those who received 500 vitamin C supplements along with other supplements did not show any cataract risk reduction, compared to those who did not receive these supplements. There were 4,757 patients involved in the study with duration of 6.3 years of daily supplement consumption. Therefore, I would not rush to take vitamin C as a cataract preventative.

Statin use

Statins have both positive and negative effects, and the effect on the eyes is negative. In the Waterloo Eye Study with over 6,000 participants, those patients taking statins were at a 57 percent increased the risk of cataracts (Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:1165-1171). Diabetes patients saw an increased risk of cataracts as well. And in diabetes patients, statins seem to increase the rate at which cataracts occurred. The authors surmise that this is because higher levels of cholesterol may be needed for the development of epithelial (outer layer) cells and transparency of the lens. This process may be blocked with the use of statins. Before considering discontinuing statins, it is important to weigh the risks with the benefits.

Thus, if you have diminished vision, it may be due to cataracts. It is important to consult an ophthalmologist for cataract surgery, which can reduce your risks of falls, hip fractures and intraocular pressure. For those who do not have cataracts, a diet rich in carotenoids may significantly reduce the risk of occurrence.

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.

Falling is not a big deal when you are young, but that changes with age. Most of us have seen the commercial where the woman has fallen and can’t get up. Although this commercial has been mocked, for older adults, falling can be seriously debilitating or cause life-threatening complications. In a study, 24 percent of people over the age of 71 who had at least one fall experienced reduced quality of life (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1998;53A(2):M112-M119).

In a survey, 80 percent of women said they preferred death over the risk of a “bad” hip fracture from a fall that would cause loss of independence and nursing home admission (BMJ. 2000;320(7231):341-345). Unfortunately, falls in those over age 65 are quite common, with 30 to 40 percent falling annually (Clin Geriatr Med. 2002;18(2):141-158).

Now that I have your attention, what increases the risk of falls and what can we do to prevent them? When we think of the risk, we think of making the home safer by, for example, making sure that there are no loose rugs or by providing adequate lighting. But the potential causes and prevention go far beyond these steps. The factors that increase risk include chronic diseases, such as osteoarthritis, Parkinson’s, dementia, atrial fibrillation, AMD and cataracts, as well as obesity and medications.

Medication’s impact

Many patients over the age of 65 are on blood pressure medications. It turns out that diuretics (water pills) may increase the risk of falls. In a case-control study (those with high blood pressure compared to those without), nursing home patients who newly started diuretics or had their dose increased had a significant twofold increased risk of fall, especially the first day (Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 May;21(5):560-563). Loop diuretics, such as Lasix (furosemide), had the most damaging effects on risk.

The authors recommend close surveillance of elderly patients for at least two days when initiating diuretic medications to treat high blood pressure. High blood pressure can be effectively treated with lifestyle modifications, such as an antioxidant-rich diet like the DASH diet that focuses on fruit, vegetables and low saturated fat (Circulation. 2010;122:A18589).

Chronic diseases

Those with osteoarthritis (OA), especially of the knee, are more likely to fall. This makes sense, since it is more difficult to walk with OA. In the GLOW study, a prospective (forward-looking) study involving postmenopausal women, those with OA had a 27 percent greater risk of falling, compared with those who didn’t have the disease (Ann Rheum Dis. online June 23, 2012). There was also a 21 percent increased risk of fracture that occurred, as well. Over 50,000 women with a mean age of 68 participated in the study. I recommend reading my article on the treatment and prevention of OA from July 10 for more details.

Obesity effect

We tend to associate falls and fractures with elderly patients who are gaunt and frail. However, it turns out that obesity increases the risk of falls. In an observational study, there was a linear relationship between obesity and fall risk (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Jan;60(1):124-129). In other words, as patients increased their BMI, their fall risk went up proportionally.

Even more interesting, the risk of fracture increased with increasing BMI associated with obesity. Just a reminder that obesity is a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or over. According to the authors, the reason for obesity’s effect is that people who are obese have difficulty with balance. In this study, underweight patients did not have an increase in falls. To treat obesity, lifestyle modifications have shown significant results. And as you decrease weight and inflammation, it also helps to treat osteoarthritis.

Vitamin D

Although it is not surprising that vitamin D helps to prevent falls, since this supplement strengthens bones and muscle in the elderly, dose and frequency are determining factors of whether it is beneficial or detrimental. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the gold standard of studies, annual oral doses of 500,000 IUs of vitamin D3 actually increased the risk of falls and fracture in elderly patients, 15 percent and 26 percent respectively (JAMA. 2010;303:1815-1822).

However, when given on a daily basis, vitamin D does what we have come to expect, decreases the risk of falls and fractures with the appropriate dose. In a secondary analysis of a RCT, it was the lower doses of 200 IUs, 400 IUs and 600 IUs that were ineffective, while the higher dose of 800 IUs taken daily showed a large, statistically significant 72 percent reduction in the risk of falls (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(2):234-239).

The difference between this and the previous study on vitamin D was the frequency and dosing regimen. Hence, taking vitamin D is an easy and very efficient way to reduce falls and fractures in the elderly. Many elderly are deficient in vitamin D and should have their blood levels checked. Regardless of the results, they should receive at least 800 IUs of vitamin D — if not more — on a daily basis. This will either maintain or improve blood levels of vitamin D.

Exercise

In a RCT, exercise in women with a mean age of 65 increased the bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine by 77 percent compared to a control group, which had a 66 percent reduction in BMD. In other words, the women developed stronger bones with increased exercise. The trial design looked at the exercise group, which focused on increased exercise intensity, and compared it to a control group with low-intensity and low-frequency exercise. This translated into a significant reduction in fall risk for the exercise group.

We should be aware of the risk factors for falls. Complications from falls are the leading cause of mortality in older adults. This is not something to be taken lightly. Fortunately, many of the risk factors are modifiable with lifestyle changes, including a nutrient-dense diet, vitamin D supplementation and increased exercise.

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.

In last week’s article, (dated Sept. 27), I wrote about general dementia prevention. I thought it would be appropriate to follow up with an article on Alzheimer’s disease, one of the most debilitating neurodegenerative diseases. Its incidence continues to rise in lockstep with the fact that we are living longer, for as we age, our risk for the disease increases exponentially (Neurology 1998;51(3):728).

There is more and more evidence that points to an association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease.  Also, there may be a more definitive way to estimate disease risk and progression. This involves white matter hyperintensities (WMH) found in an MRI scan of the brain. These WMH may be tied, at least partially, to diet. Vitamin D levels are also potentially important in Alzheimer’s risk. This article will discuss and explore the potential associations in more detail by looking at the evidence.

The potential significance of white matter hyperintensities

What are WMH and why are they important? White matter hyperintensities represent small vessel cerebrovascular disease. Cerebrovascular disease involves a group of disorders that affect blood vessels, causing a significantly diminished or lack of blood flow to the brain (www.medicalnewstoday.com). For example, atherosclerosis or plaques in the arteries can be a cause, potentially leading to a cerebrovascular accident — or what we typically call a stroke.

One study utilized the Washington Heights/Inwood Columbia Aging Project (WHICAP), an observational study in Manhattan. It found significantly increased risk of Alzheimer’s with WMH, while the atrophy of the hippocampus did not correlate with disease diagnosis (Arch. Neurol. online Sept. 2012). The hippocampus is the part of the brain involved in formation, organization and storage of memory.
The study suggests that these WMH may be important for predicting disease risk and progression, even potentially more so than hippocampal atrophy or shrinkage. Further study is needed for these preliminary findings, though they are very intriguing.

If we are looking at the WMH, then the risk factors for cerebrovascular disease, including high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity, become important. This is where dietary aspects may play a role. The authors suggest that lifestyle modifications would impact cerebrovascular disease risk, which ultimately could reduce Alzheimer’s risk.

Dietary aspects

In an observational study called the Kame Project cohort, a modest dietary change had dramatically beneficial results. Those who drank fruit juice and vegetable juice three times or more a week, compared to those who drank less than once a week, saw a 76 percent reduction in the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (Am. J. Med. 2006 Sep;119(9):751-759). The authors concluded that fruit/vegetable juice may play a vital role in delaying the onset of dementia.

Ironically, at the same time that the WMH results of the previously mentioned study were published, Mark Bittman wrote in a recent article that Alzheimer’s disease has been referred to as “type 3 diabetes” (www.nytimes.com). This phrase has been around since the publication of a 2005 journal article (J. Alzheimers Dis. 2005 Feb;7(1):63-80). The reason for this phrase is that there is potentially an impaired insulin response in the brain of Alzheimer’s disease patients. It is not the phrase itself, but rather the implication of the phrase, that is important. Insulin helps the body regulate and utilize blood sugar. If the brain is not able to metabolize sugar in early Alzheimer’s, this mechanism may contribute to the disease.

To compound this potential lack of insulin response, a recent study focused on macronutrients, or more specifically carbohydrates, and their impact on Alzheimer’s. But what does Alzheimer’s disease have to do with carbohydrates?

The results of the study showed that those who ate a high-carbohydrate diet were at an 89 percent increased risk of developing dementia, such as Alzheimer’s disease (J. Alzheimers Dis. Online July 17, 2012). This should not be shocking, since carbohydrates become sugar when broken down in the body. It seems to fit what the authors are saying in the previously mentioned 2005 study conclusions.

Diabetes

It turns out that type 2 diabetes patients have twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s (Medscape.org). If we control the glucose (sugar) levels intensely in diabetics, will this reduce their risk of Alzheimer’s? Unfortunately, the ACCORD-MIND trial, a randomized clinical trial, considered the gold standard of studies, did not show a difference after 40 months between the group that had intensive control of sugars compared to standard control (Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:969-977).

The impact of vitamin D

We can’t seem to get away from vitamin D. It appears to be involved in so many different chronic diseases. In the most recent meta-analysis (a group of 37 studies), it was found that those with Alzheimer’s have a lower vitamin D blood level than those without the disease (Neurology. 2012;79:1397-1405). I have a patient with moderately severe Alzheimer’s who is not only insufficient (<30 ng/ml) but deficient (<20 ng/ml) in vitamin D. When I first tested the blood levels, the patient had a vitamin D level of 13 ng/ml.

What is also interesting is that this same patient, after being on a high nutrient, plant-rich diet for a month, had an approximately 45-minute lucid moment, something that had not been seen for years according to the caregiver. This is only anecdotal, and it has only been a month, so that the lucid moment may have been a coincidence. We will have to stay tuned to see what happens.

Ultimately, what is critically important is to realize that Alzheimer’s disease, just like many other chronic diseases, has modifiable risk factors that involve lifestyle choices. Pardon the pun, but I hope this gives you food for thought.

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.

Dementia may be diagnosed when someone experiences loss of memory plus loss of another faculty, such as executive functioning (decision-making) or language abilities (speaking, writing or reading). The latter is known as aphasia. Alzheimer’s disease is responsible for approximately 60 to 80 percent of dementia cases (www.uptodate.com).

This past weekend, there was a torrent of support for Alzheimer’s research through fundraising walks. More research is certainly needed, since there are no definitive studies that show reversal or cure for Alzheimer’s disease. This is why prevention is central to Alzheimer’s — and dementia in general — as I discussed in my May 19, 2011, article.

In terms of dementia, there is good news and some disappointing news.
We will start with the good news. Though chronological age is a risk factor that cannot be changed, biological age may be adjustable. There are studies that suggest we may be able to prevent dementia through the use of both lifestyle modifications and medications.

Telomeres’ length and biological age

Biological age may be different from chronologic age depending on a host of environmental factors that include diet, exercise and smoking. There are substances called telomeres that are found at the ends of our chromosomes. They provide stability to this genetic material. As our telomeres get shorter and shorter, our cellular aging and, ultimately, biological aging, increases.
In a recent preliminary case control study, dementia patients were shown to have significantly shorter telomere length than healthy patients (Arch Neurol. 2012 Jul 23:1-8). Interestingly, according to the authors, men have shorter telomere length and may be biologically older by four years than women of the same chronological age. The researchers caution that this is a preliminary finding and may not have clinical implications.

What I find most intriguing is that intensive lifestyle modifications increased telomere length in a small three-month study with patients who had low-risk prostate cancer (Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(11):1048-57). By adjusting their lifestyles, study participants were potentially able to decrease their biological ages.

Beta-carotene and vitamin C effect

Lifestyle modifications play a role in many chronic diseases and disorders. Dementia is no exception. In a small, preliminary case-control study (disease vs. healthy patients), higher blood levels of vitamin C and beta-carotene significantly reduced the risk of dementia, by 71 percent and 87 percent respectively (J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;31:717-724). The blood levels were dramatically different in those with the highest and lowest blood levels of vitamin C (74.4 vs. 28.9 µmol/L) and beta-carotene (0.8 vs 0.2 µmol/L).

The reason for this effect may be that these nutrients help reduce oxidative stress and thus have neuroprotective effects, preventing the breakdown of neurons. This study was done in the elderly, average 78.9 years old, which is a plus, since as we age we’re more likely to be afflicted by dementia.
It is critically important to delineate the sources of vitamin C and beta-carotene in this study. These numbers came from food, not supplements. Why is this important? First, beta-carotene is part of a family of nutrients called carotenoids. There are at least 600 carotenoids in food, all of which may have benefits that are not achieved when taking beta-carotene supplements. Second of all, beta-carotene in supplement form may increase the risk of small cell lung cancer in smokers (Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009; 169(7):815-828).

Foods that contain beta-carotene include fruits and vegetables such as berries; green leafy vegetables; and orange, red or yellow vegetables like peppers, carrots and sweet potato. It may surprise you, but fish also contains carotenoids. In my practice, I test for beta-carotene and vitamin C as a way to measure nutrient levels and track patients’ progress when they are eating a nutrient-dense diet. Interestingly, many patients achieve more than three times higher than the highest beta-carotene blood levels seen in this small study.

Impact of high blood pressure medications

For those patients who have high blood pressure, it is important to know that not all blood pressure medications are created equal. When comparing blood pressure medications in an observational study, two classes of these medications stood out. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (known as ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (known as ACE inhibitors) reduce the risk of dementia by 53 percent and 24 percent respectively, when used in combination with other blood pressure medications.
Interestingly, when ARBs were used alone, there was still a 47 percent reduction in risk, however ACE inhibitors lost their prevention advantage. High blood pressure is a likely risk factor for dementia and can also be treated with lifestyle modifications (Neurology. 2005;64(2):277). Otherwise, ARBs or ACE inhibitors may be the best choices for reducing dementia risk.

Ginkgo biloba disappoints

Ginkgo biloba, a common herbal supplement taken to help prevent dementia, may have no benefit. In the recent GuidAge study, ginkgo biloba was shown to be no more effective than placebo in preventing patients from progressing to Alzheimer’s disease (Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(10):851-859). This randomized controlled trial, considered the gold standard of study designs, was done in elderly patients over a five-year period with almost 3,000 participants. There was no difference seen between the treatment and placebo groups. This reinforces the results of an earlier study, Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory trial (JAMA. 2008;300(19):2253-2262). Longer studies may be warranted. The authors stressed the importance of preventive measures with dementia.

Fish oil: not the last word

Many of us take fish oil supplements in the hope of preventing dementia. However, in a meta-analysis (a group of three randomized controlled trials), the results did not show a difference between treatment groups and placebo in older patients taking fish oil with omega-3 fatty acids (Cochrane Summaries online June 13, 2012). The authors stress that this is not the final word, since studies have been mixed. The longest of the three studies was 40 months yet may not have been long enough to see a beneficial effect. Also participants in the meta-analysis did not necessarily have low omega-3 levels at the beginnings of the studies. This doesn’t necessarily mean fish oil doesn’t work for dementia prevention, it is just discouraging, as the authors emphasize. Fish consumption, however, has shown an inverse association with Alzheimer’s and dementia overall (Neurology. 2007;69(20):1921).

There may be ways to prevent dementia from occurring, whether through lifestyle modifications or through the selection of medications, if they are necessary. It is great that there is such enthusiasm to raise money for dementia research and, in particular, for Alzheimer’s disease. However, it’s just as important to take action now in the form of preventing this disabling disorder.

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.