Archive for the ‘Life Expectancy’ Category

How much do I need to exercise?

Friday, April 30th, 2010

I keep running across short articles on exercise and its resultant health improvements; they vary a lot! One, taken from USA Today and published in the Journal of the American medical Society, reported on a long-term study done by researchers at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School. This was a huge project, following 34,000 women for thirteen years. The group's average age was 54 when the project began and the women were eating a regular diet and not trying to lose weight. Over the extended period of the study the average weight gain was six pounds. Not very surprisingly, those who exercised more gained less than those who were relatively inactive. But notice they weren't dieting, just exercising.

A second article included multiple takes on excercise. A cardiologist from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester mentioned an overweight patient who started to consume a better diet and got moderate exercise. He lost weight and clearly improved his lipid panel results (the surprise ending to that story was he was his own patient in this instance).

Comments made at the yearly meeting of the American College of Cardiology supported the moderate exercise concept, with a number of studies showing more aggressive approach to preventing heart disease were no more effective than moderate ones. Other studies showed that adding multiple drugs to lower lipids didn't seem to offer additional benefit and a large NIH study concluded that aggressively lowering systolic blood pressure (that's the upper number your doc looks at when you have, for example a blood pressure of 145 over 95) wasn't more effective in preventing strokes or heart attacks in a group of over 4,700 diabetic patients.

What does this all translate into for you. At least my approach is to eat well, keep my weight down and get some exercise as often as possible, sometimes by going to the gym and sometimes by walking up and down the stairs to my second-floor office. I've stayed away from using lots of meds for minimal changes in my lipids and don't have a blood panel done very often (The last time I had one, all my results were okay). Of course I've worked hard at losing the roll around my middle (I've gone from a 37-38 inch waist to 33-34 inches in the past year) and cut my weight 25+ pounds. The dose of my blood pressure medicine was cut in half when I did so.

Listen to what your own doc tells you, but I strongly suggest you take some steps yourself to improve your health. They don't always have to be huge ones, but, in the final essence, you're the person who can do the most to extend your lifespan. Start by doing some walking; think about small things you can do arround the house that burn calories (like my extra stair climbing), ask your doc if you're okay to do more strenuous exercise and if you do so, very gradually increases in your workout pattern make sense to me).

But whatever you do, don't just sit there and let the pounds accumulate, especially pounds around your waist.

So what should I weigh?

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

I've been reading some of the background material  from one of the articles that appeared in The Wall Street Journal 4-27-2010, in the "Personal Journal" section which today featured Health and Wellness. There were several controversies in other articles: I scanned two: chocolate as a potential antidepressant vs. chocolate being consumed more by those who are depressed; sun-lovers and benefits from sun exposure vs. shade-seekers and harmful effects from excess sun exposure.

The one I was most interested in was titled "A Case for Those Extra 10 Pounds." This one seemed aimed at those who are carrying a little extra in the hips and thighs, rather than the belly. It quoted lots of medical data suggesting there might even be some benefit to a "few extra pounds," an increase in estrogen production  and an accompanying decrease in osteoporosis risk; a Dermatology article was quoted as saying that women who are overweight appear younger than those who are of normal weight or underweight.

So let's go back to basics. One third of all adult Americans are frankly obese, not just a few pounds overweight. They clearly have a higher risk of a number of serious diseases. Many of those in the middle ground between normal weight and obesity, i.e., those who are termed "overweight," carry excess belly fat as well as extra poundage in the thighs and buttocks. I see this all the time in the men's locker room at our gym; my wife says she also notes the same in women. Those folk are also at risk of cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and, according to some sources, even some types of cancer.

On the other hand, in general, it's not healthy to be underweight People who are underweight may be so because of underlying diseases such as cancer. I should, of course, note that some people who are very slender may be perfectly healthy and are thin because of lifelong exercise (long distance runners come to mind).

We all tend to look for excuses and to rationalize our issues away. So if you're lean around the midsection and carry a little extra elsewhere, perhaps you are okay. But I'd suggest you should take a good hard look at your waistline before concluding that you're one of the folk who can safely carry some excess pounds or not.

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.

Pushing the edge: a hodgepodge

Friday, April 16th, 2010

I wrote recently about Springfield's horseshoe sandwiches using them as one example of things in our society's food frenzy that I don't want to join in. Since then I've run into a number of other examples and, fortunately, some opposition to these. I'm going to quickly describe a few of the trends I view as potentially dangerous for those of us who want to stay slim (or become slender) and remain healthy.

One article described how high-end restaurants are experiencing a boom, in some case having up to 30% more business. I read that with perhaps a touch of envy, but decided that the trend for fancy dining came from abundant crops and cheaper prices for strawberries, wild mushrooms,and some varieties of carrots.  Those things I can buy for myself in the farmer's market or the supermarket

My greater concern came from reading two articles on foods being offered for sale that offer much greater risks than fancy restaurant meals. One was on bushmeats, illegally-imported flesh that comes from bats, monkeys and rodents...considered by some to be delicacies and apparently smuggled into the NYC area. Now you may not live near the New York City so this may appear to be of distant interest, but those strange meats have been found to contain a strain of a virus that is distantly related to HIV and many scientists think that consuming such products is how humans first came to be infected with HIV.

Then there's the unpasteurized milk debate. Public health officials (my Dad was one of those), are absolutely against drinking "raw milk," though its advocates claim it has many health benefits lost when the milk is pasteurized, defined as being heated enough to kill harmful bacteria.  In March the FDA reported twelve cases of sickness in the Midwest that apparently were tied to a dairy selling "raw milk." The agency is reviewing its policy on hard cheeses made from raw milk. At present you can purchase those if they are aged sixty days or more. Fresh cheeses made from raw milk have also been linked to disease out breaks.

So you make your choices and decide for yourself. There's a range of food available from the exotic to the expensive to the somewhat mundane. Just remember, to start with, that prior to 1938, when pasteurization became the norm, cow's milk was responsible for a quarter of all water- and food-borne illness. And bushmeat may have led to our current HIV epidemic. As for fancy restaurants, I'll save them for special occasions.

Things I don't want to eat

Monday, April 5th, 2010

I found an article in The Wall Street Journal recently that raised my hackles.  On March 30th, 2010 the paper talked about a food fad in Springfield, IL, quoting the owner of a local eatery there as saying, "We've made something very unhealthy even unhealthier."

Apparently the city has an area favorite, the horseshoe sandwich, which is incredible enough in its original form (large plate sized, open-face with bread, meat, lots of fries absolutely doused with melted cheese, versions ranging from pony shoes at 1,300 calories to regular horseshoes at 1,900 calories each). That many calories is the equivalent of gulping down nine jelly doughnuts according to the article. One place in Springfield briefly tried a relatively healthy version, but found it unpopular.

Now the featured restaurant came up with a  extra-grease-added format with the fries and meat inserted into a tortilla, then deep fried and finally given a river of cheese sauce. It's a 2,700 calorie horseshoe sandwich said to be equivalent to five Big Macs.

This local tradition, that is the horseshoe sandwich itself, has been around since 1928, flourished since the 1970s  and in 2009 the Springfield convention center hosted the initial World Horseshoe Cook-off.

All of which wants me to stay away from Springfield and its restaurants. I had cousins there many years ago, but, even as a once-a-year birthday "treat," the horseshoe is not for me.

For years I've been amazed at some of the food monstrosities our American fast-food places serve. I understand they're trying to get with the trend toward healthier eating and maybe they're succeeding, but here's one town where the opposite has happened. One state worker is quoted as saying, before her monthly indulgence, that she eats salad all week.

None of us is perfect in following a diet; I ate more yesterday at my relatives' home for the holiday dinner than I normally would and even ate some things (chocolate-covered apricots) that I'd never purchase for myself. But falling off the diet wagon..briefly (I'm still within my three-pound-over-target-weight limit), is one thing; eating these culinary death traps regularly is quite another. I just talked to my CPA about picking up our tax forms and, in doing so, mentioned the horseshoe. He called it "a heart attack on a plate."

So that's Springfield and its own tradition; the problem I have is what can I find to eat when I eat out elsewhere? I look carefully at menus, choose Subway if I have to eat at a fast-food restaurant on the road and usually stick to my favorite Thai place for meetings and treats. I think that our love affair with restaurant food has been a major health hazard for many of us. It's time for a change.

Finally, I'm back home with a lesson learned

Friday, March 26th, 2010

We've been on the road for thirteen days, driving to Phoenix and back for my wife's Integrative Mental Health meeting. The trip covered nearly 2,000 miles and we got a chance to visit six sets of old friends. I weighed myself this morning, expecting to be way up, but I'm only at the top of my acceptable limit, three pounds over my current goal weight. That didn't make sense at first as we've eaten out a lot and had home-cooked meals in three places; those were delicious, but not what I've been eating while I'm dieting. I had also spent four days in the car and several more with friends who didn't exercise regularly.

Then I realized I still got a fair amount of exercise along the way, snowshoeing in Angel Fire and walking four miles a day in Phoenix while Lynnette was in her meeting.

My central focus in losing weight has been eating less, but when we're home I'm in the gym six or seven days a week. I've said before the vast majority of people have to modify their intake of calories to lose weight, but I don't think you can keep it off without exercising.

So I pulled out an article I picked up at a hotel we stayed at on the trip (we spent three nights there and two more on Air Force bases). This on was from USA Today and focused on "older women." It came at the issue from a different slant, that of normal-weight women who want to avoid weight gain as they age. A group of Harvard researchers followed a large group (34,000 participants)of women over an extended time frame (13 years). These women were healthy, didn't need to lose weight initially and eat a normal diet.

The conclusions fit with my premise; the relatively small cohort (13%) who never gained more than five pounds during the entire length of the study regularly did an hour a day of moderate-intensity exercise. The researchers didn't extend their findings to men or younger women (or kids), but I firmly believe the way to keep weight off for all of us is through some kind of exertion. Whether you chose to walk for an hour (at least five days a week) or do something more strenuous for shorter time periods, get off your couch and find a form of exercise that fits with your age, health condition and inclinations. Even shorter periods or exercise will convey at least some health benefits. You'll be ahead of most of your fellow countrymen and women if you do so.

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.

Review: The Spectrum by Dean Ornish, M.D.

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

I briefly reviewed three books a while back, then said I want to go through them in more detail. I've done so for two of the three and now I'd like to discuss Dean Ornish's fascinating book, The Spectrum. Dr. Ornish is Clinical Professor of Medicine at UC, San Francisco and heads the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute. His five previous books have espoused a comprehensive diet and lifestyle approach toward preventing and, in some cases, reversing some of the major diseases especially afflicting those of us who eat the Western diet. He's been doing research since he was a medical student in the 1970s, conducted multiple demonstration projects in the United States since the early 1990s and finally garnering enough data for Medicare to agree to cover his program for reversing heart disease.

I basically knew this, had read some of his earlier books and had used some of the recipes from two of his publications, Eat More, Weigh Less and Everyday Cooking with Dr. Dean Ornish. One of our all time favorites, as I've previously mentioned, is a recipe called Fruited Grain. We've made this in a variety of ways and, especially when fresh plums are in season, make it frequently.

The Spectrum extends his approach. As the name implies it gives a thorugh spectrum of dietary and lifestyle choices for people who have significant disease and also for those who are healthy. Its DVD of guided meditations was written by Anne Ornish, a yoga and meditation teacher who is Dean Ornish's wife. It also has a hundred recipes, most with optional variants, developed by chef Art Smith, who was the 2007 recipient of the James Beard Humanitarian Award.

Much of this I've said, in briefer form, before. What's most interesting about this book is its blend of plain common sense and ground-breaking collaborative medical research.  I was aware of Dr. Ornish's research on coronary artery disease; I knew nothing of his work, done with UCSF and Sloan-Kettering on prostate cancer. I'll follow his studies and publications with considerable interest and think you should also.

It's time for Exercise

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

We're 68+ years old and exercise daily...in some fashion. We started doing this as a couple when we were assigned to Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS (1991-1993) and I  commanded the Air Force medical center there. I had lost a considerable amount of weight as I got more into senior positions, but here I'd be one of a very small group of unit commanders and really had to set an example.

Lynnette and I decided to meet for "non-lunch." We'd come to the running track that was near my hospital and not far from her Family Support Center, bring a sack lunch and do much more exercising than eating. It worked well for both of us; I got down to two pounds over my high school weight.

Since then we've exercised regularly; Lynnette goes to a Pilates class at our health club twice a week and attends a Strong Women, Strong Bones class twice a week (lifting relatively light weight and taking them slowly through a range of motion (ROM) pattern). She also does daily stretches and goes to the gym two to four times a week with me. I go to the gym at least six days a week and ride a recumbent bike, do a series of stretches and use six weight machines. I've gradually built up my ride so now I burn ~650 Kcal. and ride >20 miles in 65 minutes on days when I'm feeling up to it.

But, we're both sensible. My right total knee replacement (done nine years ago) limits how much weight I should use on several machines; my tendency toward developing tendinitis means I limit ROM on two other machines. If I've done a lot on the bike the day before and my legs are tired, I go slower and add minutes to reach my calorie and mile goals.

We also vary our exercise: we dance, walk stairs, snow shoe (more about this later) and ride street bikes.

I tell people who see me ride and comment I must be in great shape that it took me seven years before I got to this point. I think "couch potatoes" should start by walking, a relatively short distance and most people at my age should see their doc before attempting anything strenuous. I also think there are lots of ways to burn a few extra calories; parking a long ways out from the store and walking back and forth to your car is a simple one. One friend said he hid his TV remote so he had to get up to change channels or turn the set on and off.

I don't think exercising is the way to lose weight, but it's a great adjunct and is clearly important in keeping weight off once you've lost some.