Archive for the ‘Obesity’ Category

Dietary therapy in hypertension

Friday, November 5th, 2010

High blood pressure, commonly called hypertension by physicians and other medical professionals, is a major problem in the united Sates, Canada and Europe. The numbers are staggering; roughly 30% of the adult population in the US and Canada, over 405 in a survey done in six European countries.

Why is this connected to diet? The incidence figures have gone up over the past twenty years and are most likely closely tied to the increased weight in members of our Western civilization. The consequences of poorly controlled hypertension are dire: strokes, kidney disease, cognitive impairment and heart problems are all more likely in the hypertensive group.

So what came first, the high blood pressure or the increased weight? And what can we do about hypertension?

I read an article in thew June 3rd, 2010 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM 362:2102-2112) and then read a host of comments to the editor that were published in October 2010.

The article itself was something I saw mentioned in the "Harvard heart letter." It seemed fairly straight-forward at first. The two authors, Dr. Frank M. Sacks and Hannia Campos have published lots of research articles together; one is a physician and a senior Harvard professor; the other a PhD and a member of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard. This time they focused on hypertension, beginning with a breif case study, then telling us the astounding figures about high blood pressure and it's consequences.

It isn't just a BP of 140 over 90 and above; any blood pressure over 115 is associated with all those medical problems. Worldwide, according to Sacks and Campos, that level of blood pressure, 115 and above, is the most important determinant of the risk of death. In the cardiovascular arena alone it's a major factor in over seven and a half million deaths a year.

So Sacks and Campos looked at three major factors in this problem: eating a healthy diet, cutting body fat and decreasing salt intake. Once again a diet rich in fruits and veggies, along with low-fat dairy, fish, nuts and poultry were their answer. They looked at the DASH study (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension)  and subsequent diet-therpay studies, mostly those with reduced salt being a major component.

Their conclusions were along the lines I had suspected: people with high blood pressure should reduce their salt intake, eat fish, nuts and legumes instead of red meat, consume more fruits and veggies insated of desserts, eat whole grain products, use healthy oils (olive, canola, soybean etc.) and stay away from juices as substitues for whole friuts.

Well, we do that now, I thought. Then I read the letters to the editor. I've already written a post on iodized salt, but another letter wanted Sacks and Campos to mention the benefits of more potassium in the diet, quoting a study that showed a 50% reduction in the need for BP meds with increased dietary potassium. That one I'd leave up to your own doc; I agree with the general premise...as long as you don't have significant kidney disease.

One of the other letters focused on dietary sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages, with a recent, but not randomized and controlled study, saying that cutting sugar intake lowers blood pressure. And one group of docs didn't seem to have the time for all that; they'd just start the patient on BP meds.

Whew! That was a bit of information overload. I think what I carried away was a lesson learned over and over; we're too fat as a civilization and eat the wrong things. That's unhealthy in many ways. It's time to make a change in both spheres.

What's an obese person going to do now?

Friday, October 29th, 2010

It's not surprising to me; the drug Qnexa wasn't approved by the FDA for use in weight loss. Why not? After all it's a combination of low doses of two medications that are already approved. Phentermine was first approved by the FDA in 1959 and for weight loss even, although we're talking short-term use in combination with dieting. The other drug, topiramate, was approved in 1996 for epilepsy and more recently for prevention of migraines.

I hadn't heard of Qnexa when I saw the article in the New York Times yesterday, but today I've had time to look at it's pros and cons and put the risks in perspective.

Qnexa is made by a company called Vivus; their stock went up 28.06% today; I guess that was in anticipation of the medication being approved. When I looked at the company's website, they detail the problem of obesity. It's a major factor in diabetes type 2, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and stroke. Some have called it the second leading cause of preventable deaths in America.

Over 400 million people worldwide are obese and it's said to be responible for 9.1% of the annual US healthcare spending; that nearly 150 billion dollars.

And Qnexa has gone through Phase 3 trials on over 4,500 patients with three trials. Its results were impressive; one article mentioned a 14.7% (37 pound) weight loss over a 56-week period. Another controlled trial result said 10.6% compared to 1.7% for those who got placebos.

So why not approve the drug? Well, the answer lies in what pre-clinical and clinical trials do and don't show.

Let's start with Phase Zero through III. Those are conducted with human subjects, initially with tiny doses looking at how the body processes the drug and how it works, progressing to is the drug reasonably safe and tolerable studies with small groups closely observed. Then we go to larger groups for activity and safety and finally to randomized controlled multi-center studies.

At that point the dug may be approved, but, there is Phase IV, post marketing surveillance. That is to detect rare or long-term adverse effects in much larger groups of patients.

Several drugs have been withdrawn or subjected to limited use in Phase IV.  There have been some risks shown in early trials; millions of people would potentially take the drug if it were to be approved. Side effects would conceivably be greater and more serious than smaller studies have shown. Lots of lawsuits could result.

So it's not just the name of the drug being hard to pronounce (who came up with Qnexa?).

I suspect the medication may eventually be approved, but time will tell.

Does sleeping longer help us lose more fat?

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

I read an intriguing article in the 5 October, 2010 edition of Annals of Internal Medicine, then saw the accompanying editorial. The article was titled "Insufficient Sleep Undermines Dietary Efforts to Reduce Adiposity" and was densely scientific, even for me; the editorial was titled "Sleep Well and Stay Slim: Dream or Reality." I decided to start with the commentary and then return to the study itself.

Having read both in detail, I'm comfortable with what's said and what the limitations of the study, done at the University of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin, might be. So let's start there.

The researchers put newspaper ads in local papers to recruit a small number of subjects for a short-term study. They ended up with ten volunteers who didn't smoke, were overweight, but otherwise healthy. The study protocol was detailed ,but basically each of the subjects was on a two-week diet with eight hours or sleep and another similar period with five and a half hours of sleep.

They lost similar amounts of weight in both study periods, but lost more fat during the time they when they dieted and slept well. So sleeping less and dieting resulted in the loss of "fat-free body mass." In other words they lost more fat and less muscle when they slept longer and vice versa when they slept less.

How does this apply to the rest of us? Well there is some data linking a decreased sleep duration with an increase in obesity rates in larger groups. There are rodent studies supporting the theory. There are some larger human studies showing shorter periods of sleep are associated with changes in two hormones that affect appetite and one that showed an association between snacking and less sleep.

So there's a lot of data accumulating that strongly suggests, but does not yet, from a strictly scientific point of view prove, that if we need to lose fat we should diet and also get adequate amounts of sleep.

It makes sense to me. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for large studies in general populations that confirm this small-scale research. We are a chronically under-slept nation, a number of sources have proclaimed, and I think they're right.

So cutting your hours of sleep while you diet appears to be self-defeating and sleeping a full eight hours, give or take a little, is probably better if you want to lose fat.

Do your genes determine the size of your jeans?

Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

An article in the the October 10th edition of the journal Nature Genetics looked at the overall body mass index, BMI (a height to weight ratio that's is commonly used to determine if you're lean, overweight or obese), in nearly a quarter of a million people. The researchers involved in these studies found a number of genes, nearly half of which were previously unknown, linked to obesity.

This news doesn't translate well into common English for most of us, even those of us who've been involved in medicine for most of our lives. So let's go a step or two into what is actually going on.

We all know people who seem like they can eat anything and not gain weight; most of us also know others who say they 'eat "like birds" and just can't lose weight.

Many of the genes that have been linked to obesity seem to play a role here, both in terms of how much we eat (appetite regulation) and how we burn calories (energy balance). Does that help us solve who is going to become obese and who isn't?

One obesity guru commenting on the article relating to BMI said asking patients if their parents were obese or not is a more accurate predictor of that person's  person's likelihood of obesity than all the genetic information in these studies.

Another was quoted as saying the information obtained by all this genetic information is little better "than a flip of (a) coin" in predicting someone's risk of becoming obese.

So I think these studies are important, but suggest you don't rush out to get a DNA analysis. We're a long ways from being able to use this information clinically. If someone recommends you get a lab test based on this new data, they're probably going to make money from the test and you're probably not going to find out anything that will help you lose weight.

I've done basic science research, in my case many years ago, and it's critically important to the advancement of knowledge. But it usually doesn't give us direct answers to real-world problems, at least not immediately.

We've got physicians and researchers from other disciplines exploring obesity in detail. Let's applaud their work and support their studies.

But wait for the breaking news before opening your purses and wallets.

Food Stamps and Obesity

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

In 2004 the state of Minnesota tried, unsuccessfully, to ban the purchase of "junk food" with food stamps. The request was eventually denied by the USDA on rather strange grounds, that it would "perpetuate the myth" that food-stamp users made bad choices in their grocery shopping.

In the meantime the obesity epidemic in the United States rolled on and now, in an article in today's New York Times, I read that the mayor of New York City has asked the federal government for permission to stop food-stamp recipients from purchasing sugared drinks, sodas, of course, being the major culprit in this case.

I'm waiting for the answer, but my bet is the request is denied, although we already, according to the article, ban the use of food stamps to purchase other items that can be health-detrimental, especially cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. The beverage industry will obviously lobby against the plan.  Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit consumer advocacy group with a focus on nutrition and health, food safety, and alcohol policy, suggested we should instead use educational programs to teach food-stamp recipients about the dangers of sugared drinks.

So is Mayor Blomberg in favor of a Big Brother era? He already has lobbied for a state tax on sugared drinks (unsuccessfully), tightened rules on food advertising and brought the city's schools a tougher policy on which food items they can sell.

Yet almost 40% of the kids in NYC's public schools at the K-8th grade level are overweight or obese, with rates still higher in poorer areas of the city. In those same neighborhoods, studies are said to show sugared beverages are consumed at higher rates than in leaner sections of the metro area. Diabetes is twice as prevalent in poor areas of NYC as it is in more affluent ones.

So where do we stop? I totally agree that we're at a crisis point as a society, one fueled by the food industry. I personally deplore the use of food stamps to purchase sugared beverages as much as I do their being used to procure cigarettes and alcohol-containing drinks.  But who gets to decide what our choices are in a free society?

Tough questions without easy answers.

Should you go on the HCG diet?

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

A friend told me how much weight she had lost on the HCG diet and I have to admit I was impressed. She mentioned others people I know who also had been trying the program.

So I tried to find out more about the diet, which more appropriately should be called the hCG diet. Human chorionic gonadotropin was first discovered in urine samples of pregnant women in 1927 and it plays a number of roles as a hormone in pregnancy. One is making sure the fetus gets the calories needed for growth and development.

The peak level of hCG in the serum of a pregnant woman is found relatively early in the gestational period, usually at nine to twelve weeks after the last menstrual period. Many women are unaware they are pregnant at this point and may not be "eating for two" (I put this in quotes because I'm certainly not an Ob-Gyn physician and I'm unaware of what current dietary recommendations are for pregnancy).  Fat is released from storage areas (hips, buttocks, thighs and abdomen) when hCG is present and, if the Mom-to-be isn't eating enough for normal fetal growth, the fat calories and other nutrients can sustain fetal development.

From there it was only a step to the research of Dr. A.T.W. Simeons showing that daily injections of hCG might result in weight loss when accompanied by a severely calorie-restricted diet (500 calories per day). I'll paste in the original diet from Dr. Simeons.

Breakfast:Tea or coffee in any quantity without sugar. Only one tablespoonful of milk allowed in 24 hours. Saccharin or Stevia may be used.

Lunch: 1.    100 grams of veal, beef, chicken breast, fresh white fish, lobster, crab, or shrimp. All visible fat must be carefully removed before cooking, and the meat must be weighed raw. It must be boiled or grilled without additional fat. Salmon, eel, tuna, herring, dried or pickled fish are not allowed. The chicken breast must be removed from the bird. 2.    One type of vegetable only to be chosen from the following: spinach, chard, chicory, beet-greens, green salad, tomatoes, celery, fennel, onions, red radishes, cucumbers, asparagus, cabbage. 3.    One breadstick (grissino) or one Melba toast. 4.    An apple, orange, or a handful of strawberries or one-half grapefruit.

Dinner : The same four choices as lunch.

Simeons  published a 1954 article in the British medical journal the Lancet reporting on a group of patients who followed his program for forty days and lost twenty to thirty pounds. He stated 70% had maintained their weight loss after finishing his diet.

Now things get convoluted with many controlled studies over the next forty years denying Simeons' findings and position papers from major medical organizations against the hCG diet.

But in 2007 a popular book was published that rejuvenated interest in the program and ever since then it has received enormous amounts of public attention and hCG clinics have become widespread. There are both injectable and, now, oral forms of hCG advertised on the Web.  Programs with the injectable form run from 26 to 43 days, with daily injections on all but three of those days.

Incidentally the author of that book has served jail time for fraud, was sued by a number of states for running a pyramid scheme (he and his company settled the suit with the states for $185,000)  and, in 2004, agreed to a lifetime ban on informercials, excluding his books. I've just watched "20/20" interview with him and would not buy a used car from him.

So that's the background I've been able to find on the hCG diet. More to come, I'm sure. My real question is what happens after the program is finished? I want to see if the weight loss can be maintained. At the moment I'm a skeptic.

Bill Clinton meets The China Study

Friday, September 24th, 2010

Back in July I wrote about The China Study, a book written by a PhD named T. Colin Campbell who advocates our switching to a plant-based diet. Both Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn have extended Campbell's work into the clinical arena. Their diet and lifestyle programs are being followed by many who've wished to reverse deleterious effects of the typical Western diet they'd followed for years.

Yesterday I got an email from a friend asking if I'd write a blog post on the subject and mentioning that former President Bill Clinton was now on the plan. This afternoon I Googled "Bill Clinton's Diet" and found articles and a video interview of Mr. Clinton with Wolf Blitzer. Clinton had coronary artery surgery and his stent had begun to clog up with new deposits of lipid-rich material. He wants to live to see grandchildren, so he's adopted the plant-based diet fully.

Mr. Clinton is eating veggies and fruit, drinking almond milk instead of anything dairy. He occasionally eats fish, but no other meat; he does add a protein powder to a fruit shake daily. Thus far he's lost twenty-four pounds and his image on the video I watched was clearly that of a much slimmer man than before.

I have to admit I'm impressed. Mr. Clinton stated that 82% of those who've followed a similar diet have "begun to heal." Those figures go as far back as 1986.

I think if I had coronary artery disease I'd be tempted to change my eating habits completely, as has the former President. At the moment I'm about 80 to 90% of the way there. I drink soy milk (in my  case because of lactose intolerance) and eat a lot more veggies and fruit and much less meat than I did up to May of 2009 when I went back on the diet and lifestyle plan I came up with in 1996. I did so primarily to lose more weight and I'm roughly 25 pounds lighter today.

But, in the absence of any clinical atherosclerotic artery disease, I haven't gone the next step. I still occasionally eat red meat, though much smaller portions than in past years (a quarter the size of the steaks I used to love). I had some Swiss cheese at lunchtime (about 2 ounces) and I do eat chicken and fish.

As more evidence turns up I may further alter my dietary pattern. For now, since I'm lean with a Body Mass Index (BMI )of 20.5 and haven't been pushed by chest pain or any other signs of blood vessels being clogged, I'll settle for my part-way-there status.

I do think all of us in the US and much of Europe, plus some in other parts of the world, need to move away from the Western Diet and need to get our BMIs down below 25. Now two-thirds of us in America are above this figure which marks the boundary of being overweight (anyone with a BMI over 30 is obese).

Thanks, Mr. President, for setting an example for us to follow.

I'd be bugged too, or would I?

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

I picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning and saw an article, "Virus linked to Obesity." The virus in question is called adenovirus 36, or Ad-36 for short and, when I started combing medical articles, was first found in 1978 in the feces of a girl with a bowel disease. Its kin cause respiratory, eye and bowel infections, but Ad-36 is the only known virus that can attack fat cells directly.

There are a host of articles on Ad-36 and similar viruses; many of them associating it with obesity in other species, chickens and mice among them. Several studies have found antibodies to Ad-36 in humans, more freqently in those who are obese.

An article that was just published online in the journal Pediatrics is causing quite a stir. That came from a pediatric subspecialist in San Diego and studied Ad-36 antibodies in obese and non-obese children aged 8 to 18. Of the 124 kids in the study group, over half were obese and of that group 22% had antibodies to Ad-36. This is in contrast to 7% of the non-obese group, so 78% of the kids who were Ad-36 positive were obese

Now there are articles out there that don't support the same linkage. Another San Diego group, this one a US Navy research unit studied 300 military subjects, half of whom were lean and half obese, and found antibodies to Ad-36 in 34% of the obese group vs. 39% of the lean group. That article was published last November in the Journal of Obesity.

The animal research seems to imply that Ad-36 infection can lead to obesity and maybe that's true in people also. The question in humans remains as to which came first, the obesity or the infection.

And we shouldn't forget that only 30% or thereabouts of obese people in these research papers had the antibodies. If Ad-36 does lead to weight gain in humans, what about the other 70%?

This is a fascinating new subject and isn't confined to the us.  Antibodies to Ad-36 have been found in Australia and England as well. I'm sure we'll be hearing hear more about viral infections and their link to our obesity epidemic.

Freeze or puncture your fat cells?

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

I read a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, but ended up with several caveats.  The FDA has recently approved two new gadgets that physicians can now use in office-based procedures to get rid of fat.

I had to read that several times before I fully understood what was and what was not going on. Let's talk about the devices themselves first. One freezes fat cells, leading them to shut down over a few months. The other is laser-based and basically punctures fat cells; they then empty out mch of their fat, but don't die.

Wow, that sounds wonderful, but is it? These new therapeutic tools can be used without anesthesia or any major pain, on outpatients and remove fat deposits. The problems are you don't actually lose any weight, the treatments are relatively expensive ($1,500 to $3,000) and they release fat into the blood stream, so it ends up elsewhere.

So let's go back to why someone would want to have such devices used on them in the first place. Fat deposits in our bodies may end up in subcutaneous areas, one such area, fondly named "love handles" by many, would be an example.  They are unsightly and lots of us would like to get rid of them.

Pinch an inch...or more?

Pinch an inch...or more?

On the other hand, fat can be deposited in visceral areas, for instance in and around your heart and liver, and that's much more of a problem.

The "subQ" fat cells can actually be helpful in some senses. They take in fat that's in the bloodstream, package it nicely in large globs and act as storage tanks, releasing the fat when your body needs energy. These are "healthy" fat cells, as opposed to the potentially deadly ones affecting your vital organs.

We've still got a lot to learn about fat cells, but there have been some relatively new discoveries concerning their natural history. Lean folk have perhaps a third the number of fat cells as do the very obese; fat cells die and we get new ones on a regular basis; the distribution of our fat cells changes as we age (less subQ, more visceral). And they produce a number of chemical agents, including estrogen and leptin (the latter influences your appetite).

The issue many experts have with the new tools is serious and would make me want to think twice about having these procedures. One real problem is the what happens to the fat that's released after either device is used; another is what happens to your leptin levels (if they go down, you may want to increase your calorie intake.

All in all I'm not real impressed by either of these brand new modalities. Remember they can remove localized fat deposits, but they don't cause people to lose weight. But I'll bet they get used a lot. Let's look back at this issue in a few years.

Drinking your calories

Friday, September 10th, 2010

We have a close friend who always says, "No dessert for me; I'd rather drink my calories." Now she's fairly slender and doesn't drink to excess, but today I heard a story from another writer about a visiting relative and her drinking and eating patterns that made me look up data on calories in alcoholic beverages.

I do drink, almost always wine and very rarely more than two to three standard-sized glasses a week. I've had reaction to Cabernet in the past and don't like dry white wines, so these days I usually prefer sweet Riesling or, if I'm elsewhere and the only white wine offered is Chardonnay, I'll have a glass of Merlot or Shiraz.

There are some medical data I've read in the past few years that talk of health benefits from wine, especially red wine. The term "in moderation" is always attached; there are obviously lots of medical concerns with excess alcohol consumption.

The story I heard today is of a woman who typically has at least two or three drinks, gets a little tipsy and then starts munching on snacks. She's not going to be driving, so that at least is something positive, but I wondered about her calorie intake.

Let's start with wine. Five ounces of Chablis is 120 calories, according to several references I found. A dessert wine, sweeter by a considerable measure, may weigh in at 165 calories. Twelve ounces of a light beer gives you 100 calories; a regular beer 150 calories.

Then there are rum, vodka, tequila and gin, all offering at 80 proof (40% alcohol), 100 calories per ounce and a half shot. Mixed drinks up the ante. A frozen margarita is 246 calories and a Daiquiri 314 calories.

In one of my posts I talked about cutting your calorie intake by 50 calories per day. That adds up, over the course of a year, to losing five pounds. If you add 50 calories of exercise (and don't eat extra) you can lose ten pounds in a year. Those numbers are approximates, as 3,500 calories is the equivalent of a pound. So 100/day x 365 days equals 36,500 calories or somewhat over ten pounds.

Now go the other direction. If you eat the same amount as usual, but add a glass of wine a day, you can gain ten pounds or more in a year. If  you typically have a mixed drink or two, we're talking weight gains of twenty pounds or more. And that's before the snacks. No wonder some people who think they eat a fairly healthy diet and complain they can't lose weight, turn out to be "drinking their calories" and still eating dessert as well.