Tags Posts tagged with "Heart Disease"

Heart Disease

By focusing on developing heart-healthy habits, we can improve the likelihood that we will be around for a long time. METRO photo
Modest dietary changes can have a big impact

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

With all of the attention on infectious disease prevention these past two years, many have lost sight of the risks of heart disease. Despite improvements in the numbers in recent years, heart disease in the U.S., making it the leading cause of death (1).

I have good news: heart disease is on the decline in the U.S. due to a number of factors, including better awareness, improved medicines, earlier treatment of risk factors and lifestyle modifications. We are headed in the right direction, but we can do better. It still underpins one in four deaths, and it is preventable.

Manage your baseline risks

Significant risk factors for heart disease include high cholesterol, high blood pressure and smoking. In addition, diabetes, excess weight and excessive alcohol intake increase your risks. Unfortunately, both obesity and diabetes are on the rise. For patients with type 2 diabetes, 70 percent die of cardiovascular causes (2).

Inactivity and the standard American diet, rich in saturated fat and calories, also contribute to atherosclerosis, fatty streaks in the arteries, the underlying culprit in heart disease risk (3).

Another potential risk factor is a resting heart rate greater than 80 beats per minute (bpm). In one study, healthy men and women had 18 and 10 percent increased risks of dying from a heart attack, respectively, for every increase of 10 bpm over 80 (4). A normal resting heart rate is usually between 60 and 100 bpm. Thus, you don’t have to have a racing heart rate, just one that is high-normal. All of these risk factors can be overcome.

How does medication lower heart disease risk?

Cholesterol and blood pressure medications have been credited to some extent with reducing the risk of heart disease. Unfortunately, according to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, only 43.7 percent of those with hypertension have it controlled (5). While the projected reasons are complex, a significant issue among those who are aware they have hypertension is a failure to consistently take prescribed medications, or medication nonadherence.

Statins also have played a key role in primary prevention. They lower lipid levels, including total cholesterol and LDL (“bad” cholesterol) but they also lower inflammation levels that contribute to the risk of cardiovascular disease. The JUPITER trial showed a 55 percent combined reduction in heart disease, stroke and mortality from cardiovascular disease in healthy patients — those with a slightly elevated level of inflammation and normal cholesterol profile — with statins.

The downside of statins is their side effects. Statins have been shown to increase the risk of diabetes in intensive dosing, when compared to moderate dosing (6).

Unfortunately, many on statins also suffer from myopathy (muscle pain). I have had a number of patients who have complained of muscle pain and cramps. Their goal is to reduce and ultimately discontinue their statins by following a lifestyle modification plan involving diet and exercise. Lifestyle modification is a powerful ally.

What lifestyle changes help minimize heart disease?

The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, a prospective (forward-looking) study, investigated 501 healthy men and their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. The authors concluded that those who consumed five servings or more of fruits and vegetables daily with <12 percent saturated fat had a 76 percent reduction in their risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who did not (7). 

The authors theorized that eating more fruits and vegetables helped to displace saturated fats from the diet. These results are impressive and, to achieve them, they only required a modest change in diet.

The Nurses’ Health Study shows that these results are also seen in women, with lifestyle modification reducing the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Many times, this is the first manifestation of heart disease in women. The authors looked at four parameters of lifestyle modification, including a Mediterranean-type diet, exercise, smoking and body mass index. The decrease in SCD that was dose-dependent, meaning the more factors incorporated, the greater the risk reduction. SCD risk was reduced up to 92 percent when all four parameters were followed (8). Thus, it is possible to almost eliminate the risk of SCD for women with lifestyle modifications.

How can you monitor your heart disease risk?

To monitor your progress, cardiac biomarkers are telling, including inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein, blood pressure, cholesterol and body mass index. 

In a cohort study of high-risk participants and those with heart disease, patients implemented extensive lifestyle modifications: a plant-based, whole foods diet accompanied by exercise and stress management (9). The results showed an improvement in biomarkers, as well as in cognitive function and overall quality of life. Most exciting is that results occurred over a very short period to time — three months from the start of the trial. Many of my patients have experienced similar results.

Ideally, if a patient needs medications to treat risk factors for heart disease, it should be for the short term. For some patients, it may be appropriate to use medication and lifestyle changes together; for others, lifestyle modifications may be sufficient, as long as patient takes an active role.

By focusing on developing heart-healthy habits, we can improve the likelihood that we will be around for a long time.

References:

(1) cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts. (2) Diabetes Care. 2010 Feb; 33(2):442-449. (3) Lancet. 2004;364(9438):93. (4) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Feb;64(2):175-181. (5) Hypertension. 2022;79:e1–e14. (6) JAMA. 2011;305(24):2556-2564. (7) J Nutr. March 1, 2005;135(3):556-561. (8) JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):62-69. (9) Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(4):498-507.

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

Pexels photo

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

Heart disease gets a lot of attention, because it’s still the number one cause of death in the U.S. We know that diet plays a significant role in this, but so do our genes.

What if we could tackle genetic issues with diet? 

A study involving the Paleo-type diet and other ancient diets suggests that there is a significant genetic component to cardiovascular disease, while another study looking at the Mediterranean-type diet implies that we may be able to reduce our risk factors with lifestyle adjustments. Most of the risk factors for heart disease, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, sedentary lifestyle, diabetes, smoking and obesity are modifiable (1). Let’s look at the evidence.

The role of genes

Researchers used computed tomography scans to look at 137 mummies from ancient times across the world, including Egypt, Peru, the Aleutian Islands and Southwestern America (2). The cultures were diverse, including hunter-gatherers (consumers of a Paleo-type diet), farmer-gatherers and solely farmers. Their diets were not vegetarian; they involved significant amounts of animal protein, such as fish and cattle.

Researchers found that one-third of these mummies had atherosclerosis (plaques in the arteries), which is a precursor to heart disease. The ratio should sound familiar. It aligns with what we see in modern times.

The authors concluded that atherosclerosis could be part of the aging process in humans. In other words, it may be a result of our genes. Being human, we all have a genetic propensity toward atherosclerosis and heart disease, some more than others, but many of us can reduce our risk factors significantly.

I am not saying that the Paleo-type diet specifically is not beneficial compared to the standard American diet. Rather, that this study does not support that. However, other studies demonstrate that we can reduce our chances of getting heart disease with lifestyle changes, such as with a plant-rich diet, such as a Mediterranean-type diet.

Can we improve our genetic response with diet?

The New England Journal of Medicine published study about the Mediterranean-type diet and its potential impact on cardiovascular disease risk (3). Here, two variations on the Mediterranean-type diet were compared to a low-fat diet. People were randomly assigned to three different groups. The two Mediterranean-type diet groups both showed about a 30 percent reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease, compared to the low-fat diet. Study end points included heart attacks, strokes and mortality. Interestingly, the risk profile improvement occurred even though there was no significant weight loss.

The Mediterranean-type diets both consisted of significant amounts of fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, fish, olive oil and wine. I call them “Mediterranean diets with opulence,” because both groups consuming this diet had either significant amounts of nuts or olive oil and/or wine. If the participants in the Mediterranean diet groups drank wine, they were encouraged to drink at least one glass a day.

The study included three groups: a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts (almonds, hazelnuts or walnuts), a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil (at least four tablespoons a day), and a low-fat control diet. The patient population included over 7,000 participants in Spain at high risk for cardiovascular disease.

The strength of this study, beyond its high-risk population and its large size, was that it was a randomized clinical trial, the gold standard of trials. However, there was a significant flaw, and the results need to be tempered. The group assigned to the low-fat diet was not, in fact, able to maintain this diet throughout the study. Therefore, it really became a comparison between variations on the Mediterranean diet and a standard diet.

What do the leaders in the field of cardiovascular disease and integrative medicine think of the Mediterranean diet study? Interestingly there are two opposing opinions, split by field. You may be surprised by which group liked it and which did not.

Cardiologists, including well-known physicians Henry Black, M.D., who specializes in high blood pressure, and Eric Topol, M.D., former chairman of cardiovascular medicine at Cleveland Clinic, hailed the study as a great achievement. This group of physicians emphasized that now there is a large, randomized trial measuring clinical outcomes, such as heart attacks, stroke and death. 

On the other hand, the integrative medicine physicians, Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D., and Dean Ornish, M.D., both of whom stress a plant-rich diet that may be significantly more nutrient dense than the Mediterranean diet in the study, expressed disappointment with the results. They feel that heart disease and its risk factors can be reversed, not just reduced. Both clinicians have published small, well-designed studies showing significant benefits from plant-based diets (4, 5). Ornish actually showed a reversal of atherosclerosis in one of his studies (6).

So, who is correct about the Mediterranean diet? Each opinion has its merits. The cardiologists’ enthusiasm is warranted, because a Mediterranean diet, even one of “opulence,” will appeal to more participants, who will then realize the benefits. However, those who follow a more focused diet, with greater amounts of nutrient-dense foods, will potentially see a reversal in heart disease, minimizing risk — and not just reducing it.

So, what have we learned? Even with a genetic proclivity toward cardiovascular disease, we can alter our cardiovascular destinies.

References: 

(1) www.uptodate.com. (2) BMJ 2013;346:f1591. (3) N Engl J Med 2018; 378:e34. (4) J Fam Pract. 1995;41(6):560-568. (5) Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:498-507. (6) JAMA. 1998 Dec 16;280(23):2001-2007.

Dr. David Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com.

Pairing a healthy diet with regular exercise is the best way to prevent heart disease. Stock photo
Taking an active role can reduce your risk significantly

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

Heart disease is so pervasive that men who are 40 years old have a lifetime risk of 49 percent. In other words, about half of men will be affected by heart disease. The statistics are better for women, but they still have a staggering 32 percent lifetime risk at age 40 (1).

The good news is that heart disease is on the decline due to a number of factors, including better awareness in lay and medical communities, improved medicines, earlier treatment of risk factors and lifestyle modifications. We are headed in the right direction, but we can do better. Heart disease is something that is eminently preventable.

Heart disease risk factors

Risk factors include obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, smoking and diabetes. Unfortunately, both obesity and diabetes are on the rise. For patients with type 2 diabetes, 70 percent die of cardiovascular causes (2). However, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking have declined (3).

Of course, family history also contributes to the risk of heart disease, especially with parents who experienced heart attacks before age 60, according to the Women’s Health Study and the Physician’s Health Study (4). Inactivity and the standard American diet, rich in saturated fat and calories, also contribute to heart disease risk (5). The underlying culprit is atherosclerosis (fatty streaks in the arteries).

Another potential risk factor is a resting heart rate greater than 80 beats per minute (bpm). In one study, healthy men and women had 18 and 10 percent increased risks of dying from a heart attack, respectively, for every increase of 10 bpm over 80 (6). A normal resting heart rate is usually between 60 and 100 bpm. Thus, you don’t have to have a racing heart rate, just one that is high-normal. All of these risk factors can be overcome, even family history.

The role of medication

Cholesterol and blood pressure medications have been credited to some extent with reducing the risk of heart disease. The compliance with blood pressure medications has increased over the last 10 years from 33 to 50 percent, according to the American Society of Hypertension.

In terms of lipids, statins have played a key role in primary prevention. Statins are effective at not only lowering lipid levels, including total cholesterol and LDL — the “bad” cholesterol — but also inflammation levels that contribute to the risk of cardiovascular disease. The Jupiter trial showed a 55 percent combined reduction in heart disease, stroke and mortality from cardiovascular disease in healthy patients — those with a slightly elevated level of inflammation and normal cholesterol profile — with statins.

The downside of statins is their side effects. Statins have been shown to increase the risk of diabetes in intensive dosing, compared to moderate dosing (7).

Unfortunately, many on statins also suffer from myopathy (muscle pain). I have a number of patients who have complained of muscle pain and cramps. Their goal when they come to see me is to reduce and ultimately discontinue their statins by following a lifestyle modification plan involving diet and exercise. Lifestyle modification is a powerful ally.

Lifestyle effects

There was significant reduction in mortality from cardiovascular disease with participants who were followed for a very long mean duration of 18 years. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, a prospective (forward-looking) study, investigated 501 healthy men and their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. The authors concluded that those who consumed five servings or more of fruits and vegetables daily with <12 percent saturated fat had a 76 percent reduction in their risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who did not (8). The authors theorized that eating more fruits and vegetables helped to displace saturated fats from the diet. These results are impressive and, to achieve them, they only required a modest change in diet.

The Nurses’ Health Study shows that these results are also seen in women, with lifestyle modification reducing the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Many times, this is the first manifestation of heart disease in women. The authors looked at four parameters of lifestyle modification, including a Mediterranean-type diet, exercise, smoking and body mass index. There was a decrease in SCD that was dose-dependent, meaning the more factors incorporated, the greater the risk reduction. There was as much as a 92 percent decrease in SCD risk when all four parameters were followed (9). Thus, it is possible to almost eliminate the risk of SCD for women with lifestyle modifications.

How do you know that you are reducing your risk of heart disease and how long does it take?

These are good questions. We use cardiac biomarkers, including inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein, blood pressure, cholesterol and body mass index. A cohort study helped answer these questions. It studied both high-risk participants and patients with heart disease. The results showed an improvement in biomarkers, as well as in cognitive function and overall quality of life.

Participants followed extensive lifestyle modification: a plant-based, whole foods diet accompanied by exercise and stress management. The results were statistically significant with all parameters measured. The best part is the results occurred over a very short period to time — three months from the start of the trial (10). Many patients I have seen have had similar results.

Ideally, if patient needs to use medications to treat risk factors for heart disease, it should be for the short term. For some patients, it may be appropriate to use medication and lifestyle changes together; for others, lifestyle modifications may be sufficient, as long as patients take an active role.

(1) Lancet. 1999;353(9147):89. (2) Diabetes Care. 2010 Feb; 33(2):442-449. (3) JAMA. 2005;293(15):1868. (4) Circulation. 2001;104(4):393. (5) Lancet. 2004;364(9438):93. (6) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Feb;64(2):175-181. (7) JAMA. 2011;305(24):2556-2564. (8) J Nutr. March 1, 2005;135(3):556-561. (9) JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):62-69. (10) Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(4):498-507.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.         

Fruit, like these Sumo Citrus, is a good source of fiber. Photo by Heidi Sutton
Modest lifestyle changes have a resounding effect

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

We can significantly reduce the occurrence of heart disease, the number one killer in the United States, by making modest lifestyle changes.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 790,000 heart attacks annually and 210,000 of these occur in those who’ve already had a first heart attack (1). Here, I will provide specifics on how to make changes to protect you and your family from heart disease, regardless of family history.

The evidence continues to highlight lifestyle changes, including diet, as the most important factors in preventing heart disease. Changes that garner a big bang for your buck include the consumption of chocolate, legumes, nuts, fiber and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).

Chocolate effect

Chocolate lovers, this study is for you! Preliminary evidence shows that two pieces of chocolate a week may decrease the risk of a heart attack by 37 percent, compared to those who consume less (2). However, the authors warned against the idea that more is better. In fact, high fat and sugar content and calorically dense aspects may have detrimental effects when consumed at much higher levels. There is a fine line between potential benefit and harm. The benefits may be attributed to micronutrients referred to as flavonols.

I usually recommend that patients have one to two squares – about one-fifth to two-fifths of an ounce – of dark chocolate daily. Who says prevention has to be painful?

Role of fiber

Fiber has a dose-response relationship to reducing risk. In other words, the more fiber intake, the greater the reduction in risk. In a meta-analysis of 10 studies, results showed for every 10-gram increase in fiber, there was a corresponding 14 percent reduction in the risk of a cardiovascular event and a 27 percent reduction in the risk of heart disease mortality (3). The authors analyzed data that included over 90,000 men and 200,000 women.

The average American consumes about 16 grams per day of fiber (4). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics recommends 14 grams of fiber for each 1,000 calories consumed, or roughly 25 grams for women and 38 grams for men (5). Therefore, we can significantly reduce our risk of heart disease if we increase our consumption of fiber to reach the recommended levels. Good sources of fiber are whole grains and fruits.

Omega-3 fatty acids

In a study with over 45,000 men, there were significant reductions in coronary heart disease with omega-3 PUFAs. Both plant-based and seafood-based omega-3s showed these effects (7). Good sources of omega-3s from plant-based sources include nuts, such as walnuts, and ground flaxseed.

Your ultimate goal should be to become “heart attack proof,” a term used by Dr. Sanjay Gupta and reinforced by Dr. Dean Ornish. This requires a plant-based diet. The more significant the lifestyle modifications you make, the closer you will come to achieving this goal. But even modest changes in diet will result in significant reductions in risk.

Legumes’ impact

In a prospective (forward-looking) cohort study, the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (NHEFS), legumes reduced the risk of coronary heart disease by a significant 22 percent. Those who consumed four or more servings per week, compared to those who consumed less than one serving, saw this effect. The legumes used in this study included beans, peas and peanuts (6). There were over 9,500 men and women involved, spanning 19 years of follow-up. I recommend that patients consume at least one to two servings a day, or 7 to 14 a week. Imagine the impact that would have, compared to the modest four servings per week used to reach statistical significance.

References:

(1) cdc.gov. (2) BMJ 2011; 343:d4488. (3) Arch Intern Med. 2004 Feb 23;164(4):370-376. (4) NHANES 2009-2010 Data Brief No. 12. Sep 2014. (5) eatright.org. (6) Arch Intern Med. 2001 Nov 26;161(21):2573-2578. (7) Circulation. 2005 Jan 18;111(2):157-164.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.     

By Joanna Chikwe, M.D.

February means heart health awareness, but taking care of your heart requires a year-round commitment that has lifelong benefits. What will you do differently to take better care of your heart?

Dr. Joanna Chickwe

Heart disease can affect anyone, regardless of gender, age or background. That’s why all of our cardiac care experts at Stony Brook University Heart Institute remain focused on how to best prevent heart disease and heal the heart. 

When you come to Stony Brook Heart Institute, you can depend on quality and expertise for every aspect of your cardiac care — care that exceeds national outcomes. A few examples:

• Our renowned team of interventional cardiologists have long been on the forefront for treating acute myocardial infarction, or heart attack. In fact, we exceed national outcomes and have the best outcomes on Long Island when it comes to bringing lifesaving heart emergency care to heart attack victims, as reported on the Hospital Compare* website. 

• Our heart surgeons have a high degree of expertise in providing advanced approaches to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) — a surgical procedure that uses blood vessels from other areas of your body to restore blood flow to your heart. Our Heart Institute has received a three-star rating — the highest awarded — from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) for overall patient care and outcomes in isolated CABG surgery. This distinguished award is in recognition of the isolated CABG procedures we performed from January to December 2017. The STS ratings are regarded as the definitive national reporting system for cardiac surgery. 

• For patients with severe aortic stenosis (narrowing), Stony Brook is a leader in advancing the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure and is one of a select number of sites in the U.S. to offer this minimally invasive procedure for patients who are considered high, intermediate or low-risk for open surgery. Stony Brook has excellent long-term data on patient outcomes with TAVR, and we are a tertiary referral center for evaluation of aortic valve disease.

• And, for patients with heart failure, a condition where the heart can’t pump enough blood to meet the needs of the body, our world-renowned experts at the Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathy Center help patients to restore their quality of life, limit their symptoms and understand their disease. We are proud that our patient outcomes for survival with heart failure are the best on Long Island and among the best nationally, according to Hospital Compare. 

While we hope that you and your family never need acute cardiac services, you can be assured knowing that Long Island’s only Chest Pain Center with Primary PCI and Resuscitation is right in your community. 

And, if you suspect a heart attack, please remember it’s best to call 911. Ambulances are equipped with defibrillators and most are equipped with 12-lead EKGs (electrocardiograms), which means they can transmit results to the hospital while en route. At Stony Brook, we assemble the treatment team and equipment you need before you arrive.

Want to do something today to learn about your heart health? Take a free heart health risk assessment at www.stonybrookmedicine.edu/hearthealth. Seeking a solution to a cardiac problem? Call us at 631-44-HEART (444-3278). We’re ready to help.

*Hospital Compare is a consumer-oriented national website that provides information on how well hospitals provide recommended care to their patients managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Dr. Joanna Chikwe is the director of the Stony Brook University Heart Institute, chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery and the T.F. Cheng Endowed Professor of Surgery.

The effects of high sodium are insidious

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

By now, most of us have been hit over the head with the fact that too much salt in our diets is unhealthy. Still, we respond with “I don’t use salt,” “I use very little,” or “I don’t have high blood pressure, so I don’t have to worry.” Unfortunately, these are myths. All of us should be concerned about salt or, more specifically, our sodium intake.

Excessive sodium in the diet does increase the risk of high blood pressure (hypertension); the consequences are stroke or heart disease. Approximately 90 percent of Americans consume too much sodium (1).

Now comes the interesting part. Sodium has a nefarious effect on the kidneys. In the Nurses Health Study, approximately 3,200 women were evaluated in terms of kidney function, looking at the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as related to sodium intake (2). Over 14 years, those with a sodium intake of 2,300 mg had a much greater chance of an at least 30 percent reduction in kidney function, compared to those who consumed 1,700 mg per day.

Why is this study important? Kidneys are one of our main systems for removing toxins and waste. The kidneys are where many initial high blood pressure medications work, including ACE inhibitors, such as lisinopril; ARBs, such as Diovan or Cozaar; and diuretics (water pills). If the kidney loses function, it may be harder to treat high blood pressure. Worse, it could lead to chronic kidney disease and dialysis. Once someone has reached dialysis, most blood pressure medications are not very effective.

Ironically, the current recommended maximum sodium intake is 2,300 mg per day, or one teaspoon, the same level that led to negative effects in the study. However, Americans’ mean intake is twice that level.

Excessive sodium in one’s diet can increase the risk of high blood pressure, which can lead to a stroke or heart disease. Stock photo

If we reduced our consumption by even a modest 20 percent, we could reduce the incidence of heart disease dramatically. Current recommendations from the American Heart Association indicate an upper limit of 2,300 mg per day, with an “ideal” limit of no more than 1,500 mg per day (3).

If the salt shaker is not the problem, what is? Most of our sodium comes from processed foods, packaged foods and restaurants. There is nothing wrong with eating out on occasion, but you can’t control how much salt goes into your food. My wife is a great barometer of restaurant salt use. If food from the night before was salty, she complains of not being able to get her rings off.

Do you want to lose 5 to 10 pounds quickly? Decreasing your salt intake will allow you to achieve this goal. Excess sodium causes the body to retain fluids. 

One approach is to choose products that have 200 mg or fewer per serving indicated on the label. Foods labeled “low sodium” have fewer than 140 mg of sodium, but foods labeled “reduced sodium” have 25 percent less than the full-sodium version, which doesn’t necessarily mean much. Soy sauce has 1,000 mg of sodium per tablespoon, but low-sodium soy sauce still has about 600 mg per tablespoon. Salad dressings and other condiments, where serving sizes are small, add up very quickly. Mustard has 120 mg per teaspoon. Most of us use far more than one teaspoon of mustard. Caveat emptor: Make sure to read labels on all packaged foods very carefully.

Is sea salt better than table salt? High amounts of salt are harmful, and the type is not as important. The only difference between them is slight taste and texture variation. I recommend not buying either. In addition to the health issues, salt tends to dampen your taste buds, masking the flavors of food.

If you are working to decrease your sodium intake, become an avid label reader. Sodium hides in all kinds of foods that don’t necessarily taste salty, such as breads, soups, cheeses and salad dressings. I also recommend getting all sauces on the side, so you can control how much — if any — you choose to use.

As you reduce your sodium intake, you might be surprised at how quickly your taste buds adjust. In just a few weeks, foods you previously thought didn’t taste salty will seem overwhelmingly salty, and you will notice new flavors in unsalted foods.

If you have a salt shaker and don’t know what to do with all the excess salt, don’t despair. There are several uses for salt that are actually beneficial. According to the Mayo Clinic, gargling with ¼ to ½ teaspoon of salt in eight ounces of warm water significantly reduces symptoms of a sore throat from infectious disease, such as mononucleosis, strep throat and the common cold. Having had mono, I can attest that this works.

Remember, if you want to season your food at a meal, you are much better off asking for the pepper than the salt.

References:

(1) cdc.gov. (2) Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5:836-843. (3) heart.org.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Different types of exercise have different impacts

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is one of the more common disorders that occurs as we age. But age is not the only determinant. There are a number of modifiable risk factors. MCI is feared, not only for its own challenges but also because it may lead to dementia, with Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia being the more common forms. Prevalence of MCI may be as high as one-in-five in those over age 70 (1). It is thought that those with MCI may have a 10 percent chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease (2).

Since there are very few medications presently that help prevent cognitive decline, the most compelling questions are: What increases risk and what can we do to minimize the risk of developing cognitive impairment? These are the important questions.

Many chronic diseases and disorders contribute to MCI risk. These include diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and strokes. If we can control these maladies, we may reduce the risk of cognitive decline. This involves making lifestyle modifications such as exercise and diet. We know that we can’t stop aging, but we can age gracefully.

Heart disease’s impact

Although we have made great strides, heart disease continues to be prevalent in America. In an observational study, results demonstrated that those suffering from years of heart disease are at a substantial risk of developing MCI (3). The study involved 1,450 participants who were between the ages of 70 and 89 and were not afflicted by cognitive decline at the beginning of the study. Patients with a history of cardiac disease had an almost two times greater risk of developing nonamnestic MCI, compared to those individuals without cardiac disease. Women with cardiac disease were affected even more, with a three times increased risk of cognitive impairment.

Nonamnestic MCI affects executive functioning — decision-making abilities, spatial relations, problem-solving capabilities, judgments and language. It is a more subtle form of impairment that may be more frustrating because of its subtlety. It may lead to vascular dementia and may be a result of clots. This gives us yet another reason to treat and prevent cardiac disease.

Stroke location vs. frequency

Not surprisingly, stroke may have a role in cognitive impairment. Stroke is also referred to as a type of vascular brain injury. But what is surprising is that in a study, results showed that the location of the stroke was more relevant than the frequency or the multitude of strokes (4). If strokes occurred in the cortical and subcortical gray matter regions of the brain, executive functioning and memory were affected, respectively. Thus, the locations of strokes may be better predictors of subsequent cognitive decline than the number of strokes. Clinically silent strokes that were found incidentally by MRI scans had no direct effect on cognition, according to the authors.

Exercise’s effects

Studies have shown that aerobic exercise improves brain function. Stock photo

Exercise may play a significant role in potentially preventing cognitive decline and possibly even improving MCI in patients who have the disorder. Interestingly, different types of exercise have different effects on the brain. Aerobic exercise may stimulate one type of neuronal development, while resistance training or weight lifting another.

In an animal study involving rats, researchers compared aerobic exercise to weight lifting (5). Weight lifting was simulated by attaching weights to the tails of rats while they climbed ladders. Both groups showed improvements in memory tests, however, there was an interesting divergence.

With aerobic exercise, the level of the protein BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) increased significantly. This is important, because BDNF is involved in neurons and the connections among them, called synapses, related mostly to the hippocampus, or memory center. The rats that “lifted weights” had an increase in another protein, IGF (insulin growth factor), that promotes the development of neurons in a different area of the brain. The authors stressed the most important thing is to exercise, regardless of the type.

In another study that complements the previous study, women were found to have improved spatial memory when they exercised — either aerobic or weight lifting (6). Interestingly, verbal memory was improved more by aerobic exercise than by weight lifting. Spatial memory is the ability to recall where items were arranged, and verbal memory is the ability to recall words. The authors suggest that aerobic exercise and weight lifting affect different parts of the brain, which corroborates the animal study findings above.

This was a randomized controlled trial that was six months in duration and involved women, ages 70 to 80, who had MCI at the trial’s start. There were three groups in the study: aerobic, weight lifting and stretching and toning. Those who did stretches or toning alone experienced deterioration in memory skills over the same period.

Here is the catch with exercise: We know exercise is valuable in preventing disorders like cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline, but are Americans doing enough? A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report claims the majority of the adult population is woefully deficient in exercise: Only about 1 in 5 Americans exercise regularly, both using weights and doing aerobic exercise (7).

Diet’s effects

Several studies show that the Mediterranean diet helps prevent MCI and possibly prevents conversion from MCI to Alzheimer’s (8, 9). In addition, a study showed that high levels of carbohydrates and sugars, when compared to lower levels, increased the risk of cognitive decline by more than three times (5). The authors surmise that carbohydrates have a negative impact on insulin and glucose utilization in the brain.

Cognitive decline is a disorder that should be taken very seriously, and everything that can be done to prevent it should be utilized. Though the number of Americans exercising regularly is woefully deficient, the silver lining is that there is substantial room for improvement. Exercise has potentially positive effects on neuron growth and development. We need more campaigns like the NFL’s Play 60, which entices children to be active at least 60 minutes every day, but we also need to target adults of all ages. Let’s not squander the opportunity to reduce the risk of MCI, a potentially life-altering disorder.

References: (1) Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:427-434. (2) uptodate.com. (3) JAMA Neurol. 2013;70:374-382. (4) JAMA Neurol. 2013;70:488-495. (5) J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;32:329-339. (6) J Aging Res. 2013;2013:861893. (7) Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:326-330. (8) Neurology 2013;80:1684-1692. (9) Arch Neurol. 2009 Feb.;66:216-225.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Added sugar increases risk of many diseases

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaief

We should all reduce the amount of added sugar we consume because of its negative effects on our health. It is recommended that we get no more than 10 percent of our diet from added sugars (1). However, approximately 14 percent of our diet is from added sugars alone (2).

Is all sugar bad for us? The answer is not straightforward. It really depends on the source, and when I mention source, my meaning may surprise you.

We know that white, processed sugar is bad. But I am constantly asked: Which sugar source is better — honey, agave, raw sugar, brown sugar or maple syrup? None are really good for us; they all raise the level of glucose (a type of sugar) in our blood. Forty-seven percent of our added sugar intake comes from processed food, while 39 percent comes from sweetened beverages, according to the most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2). Sweetened beverages are defined as soft drinks, sports and energy drinks and fruit drinks. Even 100 percent fruit juice can raise our glucose levels. Don’t be deceived because it says it’s natural and doesn’t include “added” sugar.

These sugars increase the risk of, and may exacerbate, chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and obesity. This is such a significant problem that municipal legislatures have considered adding warning labels to sweetened drinks (3).

However, I did say that sugar’s source impacts its effect. Most fruits have beneficial effects in preventing disease, including diabetes, and do not raise sugar levels, even in patients with diabetes. It is a myth that whole fruit raises your sugar levels. However, dried fruits, fruit juice and fruit concentrate do raise your sugar levels. Note that sugar extracted from fruit has an effect similar to that of sugar added to foods and sweetened beverages.

Let’s look at the evidence.

Heart disease

When we think of sugar’s effects, heart disease is not usually the first disease that comes to mind. However, results from a 20-year study of 31,000 U.S. adults showed that, when comparing those who consumed the least amount of added sugar (less than 10 percent of calories daily) with those who consumed 10 to 25 percent and those who consumed more than 25 percent of daily calories from sugar, there were significant increases in risk of death from heart disease (4). The added sugar was from foods and sweetened beverages, not from fruit and fruit juices.

This was not just an increased risk of heart disease but an increased risk of cardiovascular death. This is a wake-up call to rein in our sugar consumption.

Obesity and weight gain

Does soda increase obesity risk? An assessment published in PLoS One, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, showed that it depends whether studies were funded by the beverage industry or had no ties to any lobbying groups (5). Study results were mirror images of each other: Studies not affiliated with the industry show that soda may increase obesity risk, while studies funded by the beverage industry show there may not be any association.

In studies without beverage industry funding, greater than 80 percent (10 of 12) showed associations between sugary drinks and increased weight or obesity, whereas with the beverage industry-funded studies, greater than 80 percent of them did not show this result (5 of 6). The moral of the story is that patients must be diligent in understanding studies’ funding and, if the results sound odd, they probably are. If this is the case, make sure to ask your doctor about the studies’ findings. Not all studies are equally well designed.

Diabetes and the benefits of fruit

Diabetes requires the patient to limit or avoid fruit altogether. Correct? This may not be true. Several studies may help change the long-standing, commonly held paradigm that fruit should be restricted in patients with diabetes and to prevent development of diabetes.

One study found that whole fruit may reduce the risk of diabetes by reducing inflammation and reducing insulin resistance (6). Specifically, results demonstrated a reduction in the inflammatory biomarker hsCRP. Ultimately, this may result in better glucose control. A potential reason for these impressive results may be the high levels of flavonoids, specifically anthocyanins and flavones. Flavonoids, as a class, are phytochemicals (plant nutrients) that provide pigment to fruits and vegetables and may have substantial antioxidant activities. Substances that are high in these two flavonoids include red grapes, berries, tea and wine.

Another study, a meta-analysis that looked at three large studies, including the Nurses’ Health Study, NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, showed that those who consumed the highest amount of anthocyanins were likely to experience a 15 percent reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes (7). Researchers compared those in the highest quintile of anthocyanin consumption with those in the lowest quintile.

Specifically, at least two servings of blueberries per week were shown to reduce the risk of diabetes by 23 percent, and at least five servings of apples and pears per week were also shown to reduce the risk by 23 percent. These were compared to those who consumed less than one serving per month. This is a small amount of fruit for a significant reduction.

From the same three studies, it was also shown that grapes, bananas and grapefruit reduce the risk of diabetes, while fruit juice and cantaloupe may increase risk (8).

In still another diabetes study, involving those who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the risk of increasing glucose levels was no greater in those who consumed more than two servings of fruit per day compared to those who consumed fewer than two servings per day (9). The properties of flavonoids, for example, those found in whole fruit, may also result in anticancer and anticardiovascular disease properties, the opposite of added sugars (10).

Chronic disease incidence and complications from these diseases have skyrocketed in the last several decades. Therefore, any modifiable risk factor should be utilized to decrease our risk. By keeping added sugar to a minimum in our diets, we could make great strides in the fight to maintain our quality of life as we age.

We don’t have to avoid sugar completely; we still can satiate a sweet tooth by eating ripe fruits. Our access to fruit, even off-season, has expanded considerably. The most amazing thing is that fruit may actually reduce the risk of diabetes, something for years we thought might exacerbate it.

References: (1) 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (2) cdc.gov. (3) reuters.com. (4) JAMA Intern Med. online Feb 03, 2014. (5) PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001578. (6) J Nutr. 2014 Feb;144(2):202-208. (7) Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):925-933. (8) BMJ. online Aug 29, 2013. (9) Nutr J. published online March 5, 2013. (10) Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2004 Summer;59(3):113-122.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

Studies have shown that eating grapefruit reduces your risk of developing diabetes.
Be wary of ‘no sugar added’ labels

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Dr. David Dunaif

We should all reduce the amount of added sugar we consume because of its negative effects on our health. It is recommended that we get no more than 10 percent of our diet from added sugars (1). However, we are consuming at least 30 percent more added sugar than is recommended (2).

Is all sugar bad for us? The answer is not straightforward. It really depends on the source, and when I mention “source,” my meaning may surprise you.

We know that white, processed sugar is bad. But, I am constantly asked which sugar source is better: honey, agave, raw sugar, brown sugar or maple syrup. None are really good for us; they all raise the level of glucose (a type of sugar) in our blood.

Two-thirds of our sugar intake comes from processed food, while one-third comes from sweetened beverages, according to the most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2) Sweetened beverages are defined as sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks and fruit juices. That’s right: Even 100 percent fruit juice can raise glucose levels. Don’t be deceived by “no added sugar” labels.

These sugars increase the risk of, and may exacerbate, chronic diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and obesity. This is such a significant problem that several legislative initiatives have been introduced that would require a warning label on sweetened drinks (3).

However, I did say that sugar’s source impacts its effect. Most fruits have beneficial effects in preventing disease, including diabetes, and do not raise sugar levels, even in patients with diabetes. It is a myth that whole fruit raises your sugar levels. However, dried fruits, fruit juice and fruit juice concentrate do raise your sugar levels. Note that sugar extracted from fruit has an effect similar to that of sugar added to foods and sweetened beverages. Let’s look at the evidence.

Heart disease

When we think of sugar’s effects, heart disease is not usually the first disease that comes to mind. However, results from a 20-year study of 31,000 U.S. adults showed that, when comparing those who consumed the least amount of added sugar (less than 10 percent of calories daily) with those who consumed 10 to 25 percent and those who consumed more than 25 percent of daily calories from sugar, there were significant increases in risk of death from heart disease (4). The added sugar was from foods and sweetened beverages, not from fruit and fruit juices. This was not just an increased risk of heart disease, but an increased risk of cardiovascular death. This is a wake-up call to rein in our sugar consumption.

Obesity and weight gain

Does soda increase obesity risk? An assessment published in PLoS One, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, showed that it depends on whether studies were funded by the beverage industry or had no ties to any lobbying groups (5). Study results were mirror images of each other: Studies not affiliated with the industry show that soda may increase obesity risk, while studies funded by the beverage industry show there may not be any association.

In studies without beverage industry funding, greater than 80 percent (10 of 12) showed associations between sugary drinks and increased weight or obesity, whereas with the beverage industry-funded studies, greater than 80 percent of them did not show this result (5 of 6). The moral of the story is that patients must be diligent in understanding how studies are funded; and if the results sound odd, they probably are. If this is the case, make sure to ask your doctor about the studies’ findings. Not all studies are equally well designed.

Diabetes and the benefits of fruit

Diabetes requires the patient to limit or avoid fruit altogether. Correct? This may not be true. Several studies may help change the long-standing, commonly held paradigm that fruit should be restricted in patients with diabetes and to prevent development of diabetes.

One study found that whole fruit may reduce the risk of diabetes by reducing inflammation and reducing insulin resistance (6). Specifically, results demonstrated a reduction in the inflammatory biomarker hsCRP. Ultimately, this may result in better glucose control. A potential reason for these impressive results may be the high levels of flavonoids, specifically anthocyanins and flavones.

Flavonoids, as a class, are phytochemicals (plant nutrients) that provide pigment to fruits and vegetables and may have substantial antioxidant activities. Substances that are high in these two flavonoids include red grapes, berries, tea and wine.

Another study, a meta-analysis that looked at three large studies, including the Nurses’ Health Study, NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, showed that those who consumed the highest amount of anthocyanins were likely to experience a 15 percent reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes (7). Researchers compared those in the highest quintile of anthocyanin consumption with those in the lowest quintile.

Specifically, at least two servings of blueberries per week were shown to reduce the risk of diabetes by 23 percent, and at least five servings of apples and pears per week were also shown to reduce the risk by 23 percent. These were compared to those who consumed less than one serving per month. This is a small amount of fruit for a significant reduction.

From the same three studies, it was also shown that grapes, bananas and grapefruit reduce the risk of diabetes, while fruit juice and cantaloupe may increase risk (8).

In still another diabetes study, involving those who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the risk of increasing glucose levels was no greater in those who consumed more than two servings of fruit per day, when compared to those who consumed fewer than two servings per day (9).

The properties of flavonoids, which are found in whole fruit, may also result in anticancer and anticardiovascular disease properties, the opposite effect of added sugars (10).

Chronic disease incidence and complications from these diseases have skyrocketed in the last several decades. Therefore, any modifiable risk factor should be utilized to decrease our risk. By keeping added sugar to a minimum in our diets, we could make great strides in the fight to maintain our quality of life as we age.

We don’t have to avoid sugar completely; we still can satiate a sweet tooth by eating ripe fruits. Our access to fruit, even off-season, has expanded considerably. The most amazing thing is that fruit may actually reduce the risk of diabetes, something we thought for years might exacerbate it.

References: (1) health.gov: Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020, eighth edition. (2) cdc.gov. (3) reuters.com. (4) JAMA Intern Med. online Feb 3, 2014. (5) PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001578. (6) J Nutr. 2014 Feb;144(2):202-208. (7) Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):925-933. (8) BMJ. online Aug 29, 2013. (9) Nutr J. published online March 5, 2013. (10) Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2004 Summer;59(3):113-122.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

The types, quantity and quality of dietary fat all matter. Stock photo

Dietary fat is one of the most controversial and complicated topics in medicine. Experts have debated this topic for years, ever since we were told that a low-fat diet was important. There are enumerable questions, such as: Is a high-fat diet good for you? What about low-fat diets? If this is not enough, what type of fats should we be consuming?

There are multiple types of fats and multiple fat sources. For instance, there are saturated fats and unsaturated fats, which include monounsaturated and polyunsaturated. There are also trans fats, which are man-made. However, there are several things that we can agree on, like we need fat since the brain is made of at least 60 percent fat (1), and trans fats are downright dangerous. Trans fats are the Frankenstein of fats; anything created in a lab when it comes to fats is not a good thing.

How have we evolved in the fat wars? Originally we were told that a low-fat diet was beneficial for heart disease and weight loss (2). This started in the 1940s but gained traction in the 1960s. By the 1980s, everyone from physicians to the government to food manufacturers was exclaiming about a low-fat diet’s benefits for overall health. But did they go too far trying to make one size fit all? The answer is a resounding YES!!

There are only three macronutrients: fats, carbohydrates and protein. Declaring that one of the three needed to be reduced for everyone did not have the results we wanted or expected. Americans were getting fatter, not thinner, heart disease was not becoming rare, and we were not becoming healthier.

Some fats more equal than others

The biggest debate recently has been over the amount of fats and saturated fats. The most recent 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not limit the amount of fat, but do limit the amount of saturated fat to less than 10 percent of our diet (3). Does this apply to everyone? Not necessarily. Remember, it is very difficult to apply broad rules to the whole population.

However, the most recent research suggests that foods containing pure saturated fats are not useful, may be detrimental, and at best are neutral. Meanwhile, poly- and monounsaturated fats are potentially beneficial. You will want to read about the most recent study below.

Sources of fat

Pure saturated fats generally are found in animal products, specifically dairy and all meats. The exception is fish, which contains high levels of polyunsaturated fats. Interestingly, most foods that contain predominantly unsaturated fats have saturated fat as well, though the reverse is not typically true. There are also saturated plant oils, like coconut and palm. Processed foods also have saturated fats. Potentially beneficial polyunsaturated fats include fatty fish and some nuts, seeds and soybeans, while potentially beneficial monounsaturated fats are olive oil, avocados, peanut butter, some nuts and seeds (4). Let’s look at the research.

Saturated fat

takes a dive In the ongoing battle over saturated fats, the latest research suggests that it is harmful. In recent well-respected combined observational study (The Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professional Follow-up Study), results show that replacing just 5 percent of saturated fat with poly- or monounsaturated fats results in significant reductions in all-cause mortality, 27 and 13 percent, respectively (5). There were also significant reductions in neurodegenerative diseases, which include macular degeneration, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis.

However, when reduced saturated fats were replaced with refined grains, there was no difference in mortality. There were over 126,000 participants with an approximate 30-year duration. Also, the highest quintile of poly- and monounsaturated fat intake compared to lowest showed reductions in mortality that were significant, 19 and 11 percent, respectively. Not surprisingly, trans fat increased the risk of mortality by 13 percent.

The polyunsaturated fats in this study included food such as fatty fish and walnuts, while the monounsaturated fats included foods such as avocado and olive oil. Eating fish had the modest reductions in mortality, 4 percent. The authors suggest replacing saturated fats with healthy poly- and monounsaturated fats that are mostly plant-based, but not with refined grains or trans fat.

Previous study showed neutrality

This was a meta-analysis (a group of 72 heterogeneous trials, some observational and others randomized controlled trials), with results showing that saturated fats were neither harmful nor beneficial, but rather neutral (6).

However, there were significant study weaknesses. The researchers may have used foods that include both saturated fats and unsaturated fats. This is not a pure saturated fat comparison. What did those who had less saturated fat eat instead — refined grains, maybe? Also, the results in the study’s abstract partially contradicted the results in the body of the study. Thus, I would pay a lot more attention to the above study than to this one. Again, though, even the best outcomes for saturated fats in this study did not provide a beneficial effect.

What about butter?

In a meta-analysis (group of nine observational studies), results showed that butter was neither beneficial nor harmful, but rather neutral in effect (7). Then is it okay to eat butter? Not so fast! Remember, the above study showed that saturated fat was potentially harmful, and butter is pure saturated animal fat. Also, there are study weaknesses. It is not clear what participants were eating in place of butter, possibly refined grains, which would obfuscate the potential harms. It was also unclear whether there were poly- and monounsaturated fats in the diet and what effect this might have on making butter look neutral.

Unearthing a saturated fat study

In a randomized controlled trial (Minnesota Coronary Experiment), this one from 1968 to 1973 and not fully analyzed until recently, results showed that polyunsaturated fat from corn oil, compared to a diet with higher saturated fat, reduced cholesterol level while increasing the risk of mortality (8).

The researchers expected the opposite result. Is this a paradox? Fortunately, no! Corn oil is used in processed foods and has a high amount of inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids that may negate the positive results of reducing cholesterol. Plus, the patients were only consuming the corn oil for a short 15-month period, which is unlikely to be long enough to show beneficial effects on mortality.

The bottom line is this: It’s not about low-fat diets! Saturated fats have not shown any benefits, and could be potentially harmful, but at best, they are neutral. However, foods that contain high amounts of poly- or monounsaturated fats that are mostly plant-based have shown significant benefit in reducing the risk of death and neurodegenerative diseases.

However, there are several caveats. Not all unsaturated fats are beneficial. For instance, some like corn oil may contain too many omega-6 fatty acids, which could contribute to inflammation. Also, replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates, especially refined grains, does not improve health. I told you fats are not easy to understand. It can be helpful to change our perception of fats: They are not “good and bad.” Instead, think of them as “useful and useless.” For our health, we should be focused on the “useful.”

References: (1) Acta Neurol Taiwan. 2009;18(4):231-241. (2) J Hist Med Allied Sci 2008;63(2):139-177. (3) health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015. (4) https://www.heart.org. (5) JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1134-1145. (6) Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(6):398-406. (7) PLoS ONE 11(6):e0158118. (8) BMJ 2016;353:i1246.

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, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.