Archive for the ‘medically-oriented background info’ Category

Working in the Low-Salt Mines

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

We're finally catching up with reality, at least in one arena. In the past week I've read two local newspaper articles, one article in the Annals of Internal Medicine and an accompanying editorial in the same monthly journal from the American College of Physicians, all on our need to decrease our salt intake.

Those of us who've spent much of our medical careers dealing with the treatment and the consequences of high blood pressure, medically termed  hypertension, have been on a low-salt kick for years. Both of my parents and, eventually my older brother had hypertension, so I watched my blood pressure for years and, when it went up to high normal, cut way back on my salt intake. I also started to lose weight and to exercise more.

So two days ago I read an article titled "Shaking the Salt Habit." That was written for our Fort Collins paper and was followed by one today, from the Associated Press, titled "Too Much Salt: Report urges FDA to force rollback. Then there were the two medical pieces which came out in the April 20th edition of the  Annals. The editorial encapsulated the concept: "We Can reduce Dietary Sodium, Save Money, and Save Lives.

The bottom line is the American diet contains roughly twice as much salt as is optimal for health, nearly 4,000 milligrams vs. the maximum recommended of 2,300 mg. for young, healthy adults, and the 1,400 to 1,500 mg. that is the suggested maximum for people with high blood pressure, for African-Americans and for anyone older than 40. Much of the excess comes from processed foods.

Other countries have already made progress along the lines of cutting average salt intake (salt, of course, is sodium chloride, but I'm used to using either term). The UK started in 2003, and cut salt intake by an average of 9.5% The Annals article suggests if we were able to do the same, gradually perhaps so people didn't think the taste of food was inferior and started salting things at the table, we'd save lots of lives.

The consequences of hypertension include heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. That less than ten percent decrease in our dietary salt could prevent over a half million strokes and just under a half million heart attacks in our 40 to 80-year old group. That would save over $32 billion dollars in medical costs.

The UK plans further cuts in salt intake, up to a 40% decrease by 2012. Japan, Finland, Ireland, Australia and Canada plus other countries are also implementing similar programs.

We don't cook with salt for ourselves, decrease the amounts specified in recipes when we cook for others, don't add salt at the table and tend to avoid processed foods. I wondered if we were getting enough iodine, added to most or all salt you purchase, but the salt that goes into processed foods, according to the articles I read, doesn't have idoine anyways. Plus our senior vitamins have the RDA (recommended daily allowance) for iodine anyway. So I quit worrying that we'd develop thyroid problems.

The bottom line is we Americans need to wean ourselves off our excess salt habit and doing so will both improve health and save a healthy chunk of change.

There's fat and then there's fat

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

For the past few years I've heard passing references to brown fat and white fat, but never understood the difference between them. Today I read The Wall Street Journal's "Personal Journal" section and saw an article that finally clarified the two kinds of fat for me. It also led me to believe there may be developments coming in the field that could potentially (lots of qualifiers there) help our obese and overweight population.

So let's go back to the kinds of fat. Brown fat is different from the kind we tend to accumulate arround our mid-sections as adults if we eat too much and/or exercise too little. It's actually brown in color, found in babies, and contains lots of the heat-producing little cellular "engines" called mitochondria. Little kids are more at risk for hypothermia than adults, so they have more brown fat as a protective mechanism.

Can we use this natural calorie-burning mechanism when we're overweight? In a variety of places researchers are attempting to solve this question. One mechanism for revving up brown fat, at least in mice, appears to be exposure to cold. Some studies have shown that humans may adapt to cooler temperatures by increasing the amount or activity of brown fat, but we're a long ways from anything definitive.

The question isn't as simple as it may seem. Lean men seem to respond better than obese men to exposure to cold, at least in terms of brown fat activation. A map of the United States in another article showed obesity, in general terms, to be more prevalent in the Southeast, but many factors may contribute to that finding.

Harvard and MIT teams are attempting to find a way to produce more brown fat by activating a protein called PRDM16. Their initial work is near completion, but development of an actual marketable drug that works in this fashion is at least five to ten years away.

So in the meantime, should we all turn our thermostats down to say 65 degrees. I think that's a good idea; it would save fuel, decrease our emissions perhaps (thereby helping prevent global warming), and maybe, just maybe help us to lose a few pounds.

An article on eating less red meat

Friday, March 5th, 2010

I got a copy of the monthly magazine Reform Judaism yesterday and read Rabbi Eric Yoffie's article titled "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" In it he urged a decision to reduce red meat intake by at least one fifth. When I read some of the rationale behind his recommendation, I was impressed. One table listed the average amount of water needed to produce a variety of foodstuffs; those numbers ranged from 13 liters for a tomato to 135 liters for an egg to 2,400 liters for a hamburger. We're facing a water shortage in Colorado where I live, so that got my attention.

I started thinking about the Why behind that huge quantity of water as well as the Why Not about Rabbi Yoffie's suggestions. Most of our beef, at least that available in the supermarket, comes from animals that are corn-finished. So in order to bring a cow to the slaughterhouse, most producers, wanting as much meat as possible per animal, raise them in feedlots and feed them corn for a large portion of their lives. Raising all that corn consumes a lot amount of water.

The meat industry is responsible for a goodly share of our greenhouse gases; the article mentions a U.N. paper ranking  animal agriculture above the total of all transportation modalities.  One academic has suggested that cutting our meat intake by one fifth would be the equivalent of each US citizen driving a Prius instead of an ordinary, non-hybrid automobile.

At that point I thought, "For once I'm ahead of the game." Lynnette and I each bought a Prius at the end of 2006 and, as I've previously said in one of my blogs, we've cut our red meat intake markedly in the last three years. We've also purchased non-corn-finished meat, splitting a bison with three other families and recently trying some Beefmaster beef from a Colorado company that grass feeds and finishes all their animals.

Well that's a good start, but I still need to be careful of my portion control when I do eat red meat; Michael Pollan's Food Rule #23 says, "Treat meat as a flavoring or special occasion food." He's concerned about the other consequences increasingly linked to red meat; those include heart disease and some forms of cancer.

I think Lynnette is making a vegetarian dinner while I'm writing this; tonight I'll be content to eat no meat at all, red or otherwise. It seems like that is a good start on cutting my water use and staying healthy.  (more…)

Why are the kids so heavy? What will that lead to?

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

I read two scary newspaper articles yesterday, one in our local paper and the other in The Wall Street Journal. Both mentioned a research study, reported by a University of North Carolina pediatrician, that showed obese kids had a high blood levels of a significant chemical marker of inflammation. What that translates into is three to five year-old American kids already having signs they are increasing their risk for early-onset heart disease. I remembered seeing a New England Journal of Medicine article from December of 2007 (NEJM, vol. 357: 2329-2337) that had first warned me of this issue. That one followed over a quarter million Danish schoolchildren and concluded that a high body-mass-index during childhood (BMI is a term that correlates weight and height) is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease as an adult.

The other study, reported on in the Associated Press article that was reprinted locally, pointed toward an increased risk of being obese in Black and Hispanic children. That is partly due to income levels, but partly also to cultural factors, according to the authors of the study. Twenty percent of these kids, all under the age of twenty, were obese, vs. fifteen percent of Caucasian kids. The NEJM article had a footnote saying an estimated 19% of US kids age 6 to 11 have a BMI greater than the 95% percentile for their age and gender.

So what's going on here and how can we change this grim picture?  Number one is to let people know about this issue.  Secondly we can look really hard at what we're feeding our kids from an early age on and what kind of food they eat as they get older. Thirdly we have to have a realistic look at our kids. I hear lots of young parents wanting their child to have weights high up on the growth charts; that's not the only way to measure their progress, folks. Is your kid (or grandkid) slender, chunky or just plain fat?

There are other factors in the lives of our children that we can all influence: what about our own BMI; how does that send a signal to our kids? And what about food choices? Can we start them eating the right things (mostly vegetables and fruits; less red meat). And can we, the American public, influence what the fast-food industry offers to their customers and to the kids in particular? Is there a way to get young people interested in more exercising and less sitting in front of their computers, TVs and all those hand-held devices?

I've heard people speculate that the Boomer generation may be the first to live average shorter lifespans than their parents. I don't know the data here, but these are adults who presumably are fully competent to make their own choices. That's not true of our kids. it's time we turn this slide into obesity around for their sakes.

Wall Street Journal: The teaser vs. actual article

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

I picked up our copy of The Wall Street Journal from the driveway this morning, and was startled to see a front-page teaser "Why Evolution is Making Us Fatter." I immediately turned to the Personal Journal section which had A Health and Wellness theme today and read the article which actually was titled "Obesity? Big Feet? Blame Darwin" with a subtitle "Evolution Helped Humans Have Children and Survive, but It Also Led to Modern-day Maladies, Scientists Say."

Many modern scientists think we're a collection of compromises arising from our predecessors' adaptation to changing environments. The obesity related sections were certainly there, but they were a minority among paragraphs on the evolution of lactose tolerance, skin color, immunity and brain size, among other topics. But I wanted to concentrate on the weight-related arena. The first such mentioned the move from hunter-gatherer status to agriculturalists roughly 10,000 years ago and the subsequent dietary shift to more carbohydrates leading to a decrease in average population height and more obesity. Most populations have adapted over the centuries to the new foods; those that made this change more recently were said to have higher rates of obesity and diabetes type 2.

Then there is the hormone leptin, our body's signal to stop eating. I found British Medical Journal articles dated 1996 on its discovery and chemistry, but the initial promise that it could be used to help the obese lose weight was stymied by the finding that obese humans usually develop leptin resistance. I also found a current website from a clinical nutritionist advertising the "leptin diet," a set of five eating rules that mostly made common sense. The first three: never eat after dinner; eat three meals a day and don't snack; don't eat big meals are all concepts that I'd agree with: the other two: eat a high-protein breakfast and decrease the amount of carbs eaten, I'd modify. I've moved away from eating white bread, white rice and white potatoes in excess, but complex carbohydrates are certainly still on my list of good foods to eat. And I have decreased my overall intake of red meat as a source of protein, so no more breakfast steaks.

Overall leptin seems to play an important role in our bodies. There was a 2009 article on the website www.medicalnewstoday.com which reported that there were several FDA-approved oral drugs that can sensitize the brain to leptin. Investigators at Boston's Children's Hospital were working toward  clinical trials.

I need to see more research before to be convinced that leptin levels markedly decrease when you diet and therefore you burn less of ingested calories and regain weight.  And, for now, I'm not at all interested in the websites which offered "pro-biotic and herbal cleansing" products to overcome leptin resistance.

Normal-weight Obesity

Friday, February 12th, 2010

I read an interesting article in The Wall Street Journal (Jan 26, 2010) titled "The Scales Can Lie: Hidden Fat." It talks about a Mayo Clinic study which says your weight  can be okay, but you can still have life-threatening obesity. I chuckled a bit over the illustration, which shows three young attractive women, with one supposedly representing a person with a normal body-mass index (BMI) but still obese, and two others with lower percentages of body fat. There was no clearcut difference between them. I think, if they didn't need to sell papers, they could have chosen different models.

The concept itself makes sense to me, although other experts noted this study needs to be repeated to become generally accepted. The authors say as many as 30 million Americans may fit this category and be unaware of their increased risk for heart disease (among other problems). There are apparently scales coming out that can measure your body fat percentage as well as your weight and some health clubs are doing this currently.

I think it's easier than that. I go into the men's locker room at our health club and see lots of guys with well-developed muscles, especially upper body muscles, but considerable rolls around the mid-section. Last June, when I started my own diet again, I was in that group (the ones with belly fat, although I didn't have anywhere near their big muscles).

One day that month I had tried on a pair of really nice suit pants, ones I had purchased (on sale) in 1988, and had to suck in my gut to put them on. That was also the day I looked at a BMI chart and realized I was borderline overweight. My weight hadn't changed more than three pounds in nearly twenty years; its distribution clearly had.

This morning I'm twenty-nine pounds lighter, have a waistline that's at least four inches less and can't "pinch an inch" at my flanks, not even a quarter of an inch. I didn't need to buy a fancy scale or have an expensive body fat measurement done.

I was at my men's book club yesterday and watched everyone eat homemade sweet rolls. Some of the guys were relatively slender, some showed signs of normal weight obesity. I decided to skip the sweet rolls.

The shorter answer to a reader's comment on eating organic

Saturday, December 26th, 2009

I'm heading out for a family event 80 miles away, but wanted to post a brief answer to reader Jayraj's question on eating all or partly organic. First, I'd like to clarify his comment that the age of puberty has dropped from 17 to 12. I'll drop in a link I found on the National Library of Medicine website, (NLM.org). I think of puberty as a process with a number of stages; NLM says the onset of the initial stages in girls (early breast development and pubic hair) varies from age 8 to 13 and typically precedes onset of menstruation by 2 to2.5 years. (http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/growing/understanding_puberty.html# There has been some change in the timing of puberty, but I'll need to spend some more time researching if there's a consensus on the linkage to hormones and antibiotics in food and milk.

In the meantime, both from my reading and my own personal views, I think buying organic is a good idea, if you can afford it, if the food products are locally produced and if they are available during the season you're stocking your larder for.  I could go to a large food store in town, part of a huge chain, that has many additional organic products, essentially year-round, but lots of them come from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. There's a cost, often a hidden cost, to buying these. Some of the transportation costs are likely subsidized and therefore invisible to us. There's also the cost to our planet in emissions that I think clearly contribute to global warming (I do believe in it; I've seen pictures of the glaciers receding and the Arctic ice sheet going away). So it's a balancing act, depending on where you live, what your finances are and what season of the year it is. I don't eat as much organic fruits and vegetables as our Boulder-based friend does; we do buy organic milk and eggs through a local dairy and, as I've said before, have purchased lamb, beef and bison that are organic. In answer to Jayraj, I'd say go as far along the organic pathway as you can logically do.