Omega-3 Fatty Acids Lower Risk for Type 1 Diabetes
Omega-3 fatty acids when consumed regularly by the children at risk of developing type 1 diabetes are revealed by a preliminary research to help lower that risk. This was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.With type 1 diabetes, the beta cells in the pancreatic islets are destroyed. No one knows why this happens although the hypothesis has been that this is caused by both heredity and environment. Nutritional factors are also thought of as related to type 1 diabetes so Dr. Jill Norris wanted to see if the regular consumption of Omega-3 Fatty Acids were a factor in the destruction of the beta cells that produce insulin.From 1994-2006, Dr. Norris and her team studied 1770 children who were at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes. They followed this case up for more than six years on the average with the subjects taking polyunsaturated fatty acids since when the children were one year old. They found out that the regular consumption of the Omega-3 Fatty Acids lowered the risk by 55%.The following are some of the findings related to Omega-3 Fatty Acids:The tendency of the diabetics to have low HDL and high triglyceride levels makes it essential to consume omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil. Since they are considered essential to maintain health and are not manufactured by the body, they must be consumed through foods such as tuna, salmon, and halibut, lake trout, mackerel and sardines at least twice a week.Another essential fatty acid is the omega-6 but the trouble is there has to be the correct balance between these two. An imbalance could contribute to the development of disease while a proper balance will do the opposite, that is, maintain and improve health. The usual American diet in order to be healthy should contain approximately two to four times more omega-6 fatty acids than the omega-3 but the trouble is that is not the case in what we usually eat. What we have instead is a usual diet with 14 to 25 times more of the omega-6 than the omega-3 fatty acids.
This post is from freediabesesalert.blogspot.com.
The blog contains excellent material on Diabetes, but missees the real point. Type 1 Diabestes is caused by the the destruction of the islet cell of the pancreas by an auto immune disorder. Those children who took more Omega-3 either from food or supplements have lower measured antibodies against the islet cells. Omega-3 is an anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating agent.
Do not forget to take some today and give some to your loved ones.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Doctor Lundell’s Arizona Ironman report
I began this ironman with great trepidation; my first Ironman, having only considered triathlon two years ago, not being able to run or swim at that time, not feeling at peak fitness for cycling, only my second 2.4 mile swim, being undertrained for running because of a tibial stress fracture in the spring and multiple hamstring and foot issues.
That being said my few successes in life have been achieved more with determination than talent, so I was determined to finish with the goal of 16 hours 59 minutes.
Knowing that I am a slow swimmer in spite of Ann Wilson’s great instructions, I started near the back. The swim was comfortable and I thought I was doing OK until I saw Jeff and Shawn who were volunteers on the swim course. They said 1:23 had already passed and the Mill Ave Bridge was still in front of me, disappointed but still determined. I was out of the swim at 1:42:50. Happy to be done and feeling good, but with 2065 people in front of me.
The bike leg went well. I followed Bill Wilson’s instructions and took it easy, got in all the calories and electrolytes per the plan, and finished the bike segment in 5:48:02 having passed 847 faster swimmers.
The run was starting out poorly, running too fast then getting tired and walking. On the first Mill Ave Bridge crossing, to my humiliation Sharon caught me walking. Sharon is my sweetheart and training partner. When you run with Sharon there is no run-walk strategy it is all run. She encouraged me, so it was back to running and only walking at the aid stations. At the end of the first lap she told me that the internet spies said I was first in age group by 40 min coming off the bike, now the pressure was on. I kept a steady, but slow pace on the second loop. Sharon and her friend Jacque were at multiple locations on the course to encourage me; they may have covered more miles than I did. Sharon reported that I had lost time to my pursuer so my determination really kicked in. The last lap was my fastest segment, my legs felt OK so I picked up the pace. I saw Preston out on the course and his encouragement was vital in keeping me going for the last segment. What a beautiful sight that left turn arrow is at the bottom of the park to be followed by a more beautiful sight, the finish!
I am amazed that I finished, amazed that I was less than 13 hours and amazed to be first in age group, truly humbled to qualify for Kona.
I am extremely thankful for all support and encouragement from friends especially the TriScottsdale friends. To have children and grandchildren at the finish to celebrate was very special. I have much to be thankful for.
Special thanks to Ann and Bill from Camelback Coaching, Nate and the other pros at Endurance Rehab, Karyn Hendrickson at One Stop Fitness for getting this old carcass across the finish line.
Very special thanks to Sharon Johnston for her love, encouragement and all the great time we have spent training, she is the real Ironman.
I began this ironman with great trepidation; my first Ironman, having only considered triathlon two years ago, not being able to run or swim at that time, not feeling at peak fitness for cycling, only my second 2.4 mile swim, being undertrained for running because of a tibial stress fracture in the spring and multiple hamstring and foot issues.
That being said my few successes in life have been achieved more with determination than talent, so I was determined to finish with the goal of 16 hours 59 minutes.
Knowing that I am a slow swimmer in spite of Ann Wilson’s great instructions, I started near the back. The swim was comfortable and I thought I was doing OK until I saw Jeff and Shawn who were volunteers on the swim course. They said 1:23 had already passed and the Mill Ave Bridge was still in front of me, disappointed but still determined. I was out of the swim at 1:42:50. Happy to be done and feeling good, but with 2065 people in front of me.
The bike leg went well. I followed Bill Wilson’s instructions and took it easy, got in all the calories and electrolytes per the plan, and finished the bike segment in 5:48:02 having passed 847 faster swimmers.
The run was starting out poorly, running too fast then getting tired and walking. On the first Mill Ave Bridge crossing, to my humiliation Sharon caught me walking. Sharon is my sweetheart and training partner. When you run with Sharon there is no run-walk strategy it is all run. She encouraged me, so it was back to running and only walking at the aid stations. At the end of the first lap she told me that the internet spies said I was first in age group by 40 min coming off the bike, now the pressure was on. I kept a steady, but slow pace on the second loop. Sharon and her friend Jacque were at multiple locations on the course to encourage me; they may have covered more miles than I did. Sharon reported that I had lost time to my pursuer so my determination really kicked in. The last lap was my fastest segment, my legs felt OK so I picked up the pace. I saw Preston out on the course and his encouragement was vital in keeping me going for the last segment. What a beautiful sight that left turn arrow is at the bottom of the park to be followed by a more beautiful sight, the finish!
I am amazed that I finished, amazed that I was less than 13 hours and amazed to be first in age group, truly humbled to qualify for Kona.
I am extremely thankful for all support and encouragement from friends especially the TriScottsdale friends. To have children and grandchildren at the finish to celebrate was very special. I have much to be thankful for.
Special thanks to Ann and Bill from Camelback Coaching, Nate and the other pros at Endurance Rehab, Karyn Hendrickson at One Stop Fitness for getting this old carcass across the finish line.
Very special thanks to Sharon Johnston for her love, encouragement and all the great time we have spent training, she is the real Ironman.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Another reason to stay healthy
The number of serious drug reactions and deaths reported to the government shot up in the first three months of this year to set a new record, a health industry watchdog group said Wednesday.
The Food and Drug Administration received nearly 21,000 reports of serious drug reactions, including more than 4,800 deaths, said an analysis of federal data by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, known as ISMP.
Two drugs accounted for a large share of the latest reports. One was heparin, the tainted blood thinner from China that caused an international safety scandal. The other was Chantix, a new kind of anti-smoking drug from Pfizer.
Clearinghouse for informationThe watchdog group that prepared the analysis has served hospitals and pharmacists for years as a clearinghouse for information on medication errors. Known as ISMP, the organization is now trying to reach consumers with regular reports on drug safety trends.
“We believe that one of the most important tools to promote is to monitor trends on a regular basis,” said Thomas J. Moore, a senior scientist with ISMP. “Knowing which drugs are causing injuries and how many people are being hurt is the raw material we need to fashion sound measures to promote patient safety.”
The FDA defines serious drug reactions as ones that cause hospitalization, require medical intervention, or place a life in jeopardy. The agency’s monitoring system relies on voluntary reports from doctors and is only believed to capture a fraction of overall problems.
The 20,745 cases reported from January through March was 38 percent higher than the average for the previous four calendar quarters, and the highest for any quarter, the report said.
The number of deaths, 4,824, was a nearly threefold increase from the last calendar quarter of 2007. The FDA said heparin was largely to blame.
Previous ISMP research has shown that reports of serious drug safety problems had increased markedly since the late 1990s.
The FDA case reports provide a signal of possible problems with a drug, but a cause-and-effect connection can only be established through painstaking investigation. If the FDA were a police agency, the reports would indicate “probable cause,” but not necessarily “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
‘Significant drug safety problem’The ISMP study found that heparin accounted for 779 reports of serious problems, including 102 deaths. The FDA, using data that covers a longer time period, has reported 238 deaths possibly linked to heparin.
Heparin “illustrates an example of a significant drug safety problem that was promptly and effectively resolved by the drug manufacturers and the FDA once the issue was detected and understood,” the report said.
Most physicians believe the problem of drug reaction is severely under reported be cause of the amount of paperwork the doctor must do to make a report.
The number of serious drug reactions and deaths reported to the government shot up in the first three months of this year to set a new record, a health industry watchdog group said Wednesday.
The Food and Drug Administration received nearly 21,000 reports of serious drug reactions, including more than 4,800 deaths, said an analysis of federal data by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, known as ISMP.
Two drugs accounted for a large share of the latest reports. One was heparin, the tainted blood thinner from China that caused an international safety scandal. The other was Chantix, a new kind of anti-smoking drug from Pfizer.
Clearinghouse for informationThe watchdog group that prepared the analysis has served hospitals and pharmacists for years as a clearinghouse for information on medication errors. Known as ISMP, the organization is now trying to reach consumers with regular reports on drug safety trends.
“We believe that one of the most important tools to promote is to monitor trends on a regular basis,” said Thomas J. Moore, a senior scientist with ISMP. “Knowing which drugs are causing injuries and how many people are being hurt is the raw material we need to fashion sound measures to promote patient safety.”
The FDA defines serious drug reactions as ones that cause hospitalization, require medical intervention, or place a life in jeopardy. The agency’s monitoring system relies on voluntary reports from doctors and is only believed to capture a fraction of overall problems.
The 20,745 cases reported from January through March was 38 percent higher than the average for the previous four calendar quarters, and the highest for any quarter, the report said.
The number of deaths, 4,824, was a nearly threefold increase from the last calendar quarter of 2007. The FDA said heparin was largely to blame.
Previous ISMP research has shown that reports of serious drug safety problems had increased markedly since the late 1990s.
The FDA case reports provide a signal of possible problems with a drug, but a cause-and-effect connection can only be established through painstaking investigation. If the FDA were a police agency, the reports would indicate “probable cause,” but not necessarily “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
‘Significant drug safety problem’The ISMP study found that heparin accounted for 779 reports of serious problems, including 102 deaths. The FDA, using data that covers a longer time period, has reported 238 deaths possibly linked to heparin.
Heparin “illustrates an example of a significant drug safety problem that was promptly and effectively resolved by the drug manufacturers and the FDA once the issue was detected and understood,” the report said.
Most physicians believe the problem of drug reaction is severely under reported be cause of the amount of paperwork the doctor must do to make a report.
Are Arizona Workers Healthier?
Are Employers Noticing the Difference in the Bottomline?
The Salt River Project (SRP) Teams with the Healthy Humans Foundation to Implement Employee Wellness Program
October 22,2008—The Healthy Humans Foundation, a non-profit focused on the open communication of health and wellness research and advocacy, extended its employee health program with visits and seminars at two Arizona power plants.
Dwight Lundell M.D., founder of the Healthy Humans Foundation, led seminars at two Arizona power generating stations—the Navajo Generating Station in Page, and the Agua Fria Station in Peoria, with 400 employees participating.
“It’s smart business,” says Dr. Lundell. “Providing employees with information that can significantly change their lives not only shows employees that they’re recognized and appreciated, but it dramatically lessen health insurance claims and associated expenses. We’ll see more companies follow suit.”
Dr Lundell shared the simple and startling message that heart disease can be prevented and cured by simple dietary and behavior changes that recognize our human biology in the modern environment. Employees at both plants showed tremendous participation in the question and answer sessions—proving acceptance and appreciation to SRP for showing a concern about their health.
“SRP (Salt River Project) is a very forward thinking company who recognizes that health of their employees goes beyond just reducing medical claims, but goes to job satisfaction, productivity and loyalty,” says Dr. Lundell. “I’m honored to play a role in their positive forward movement.”
The power plants purchased Dr Lundell’s book The Cure for Heart Disease: Truth Will Save a Nation, Co-Authored by Todd Nordstrom, for all the employees at the two plants.
“The economy is forcing businesses to rethink their relationships with their employees,” says Lundell. “Health insurance rates are eating the bottom line, and employee engagement is a huge topic during turbulent times. Implementing a wellness program addresses both issues.”
The SRP employee health programs follows similar successful programs conducted by Dr. Lundell at the SRP Santan Generating Station, Henry Brown GMC Pontiac, and a 10% weight loss challenge at Waste Management done in cooperation with the Triscottsdale Foundation.
“Modern medicine, with all its benefits, is focused on treatment of disease,” says Lundell. “The Healthy Humans Foundation is focused on prevention and reversal of disease and disability through education about human biology and nutrition.”
Dr. Lundell says recent interest in Employee Wellness programs has spiked, and feedback from both the employers and the employees has been phenomenal.
“We want people to feel alive and vibrant,” says Lundell. “Companies want their employees to feel young, energized, and engaged too. The feedback we’ve received has been overwhelming. Obviously employees are feeling the results of the programs, and their employers are seeing the results in the workplace.”
For more information about The Healthy Humans Foundation, go to: www.healthyhumansfoundation.com
For more information about the book, The Cure for Heart Disease, go to: www.thecureforheartdisease.net.
Or to inquire about Dr. Lundell speaking at your organization, call:
Are Employers Noticing the Difference in the Bottomline?
The Salt River Project (SRP) Teams with the Healthy Humans Foundation to Implement Employee Wellness Program
October 22,2008—The Healthy Humans Foundation, a non-profit focused on the open communication of health and wellness research and advocacy, extended its employee health program with visits and seminars at two Arizona power plants.
Dwight Lundell M.D., founder of the Healthy Humans Foundation, led seminars at two Arizona power generating stations—the Navajo Generating Station in Page, and the Agua Fria Station in Peoria, with 400 employees participating.
“It’s smart business,” says Dr. Lundell. “Providing employees with information that can significantly change their lives not only shows employees that they’re recognized and appreciated, but it dramatically lessen health insurance claims and associated expenses. We’ll see more companies follow suit.”
Dr Lundell shared the simple and startling message that heart disease can be prevented and cured by simple dietary and behavior changes that recognize our human biology in the modern environment. Employees at both plants showed tremendous participation in the question and answer sessions—proving acceptance and appreciation to SRP for showing a concern about their health.
“SRP (Salt River Project) is a very forward thinking company who recognizes that health of their employees goes beyond just reducing medical claims, but goes to job satisfaction, productivity and loyalty,” says Dr. Lundell. “I’m honored to play a role in their positive forward movement.”
The power plants purchased Dr Lundell’s book The Cure for Heart Disease: Truth Will Save a Nation, Co-Authored by Todd Nordstrom, for all the employees at the two plants.
“The economy is forcing businesses to rethink their relationships with their employees,” says Lundell. “Health insurance rates are eating the bottom line, and employee engagement is a huge topic during turbulent times. Implementing a wellness program addresses both issues.”
The SRP employee health programs follows similar successful programs conducted by Dr. Lundell at the SRP Santan Generating Station, Henry Brown GMC Pontiac, and a 10% weight loss challenge at Waste Management done in cooperation with the Triscottsdale Foundation.
“Modern medicine, with all its benefits, is focused on treatment of disease,” says Lundell. “The Healthy Humans Foundation is focused on prevention and reversal of disease and disability through education about human biology and nutrition.”
Dr. Lundell says recent interest in Employee Wellness programs has spiked, and feedback from both the employers and the employees has been phenomenal.
“We want people to feel alive and vibrant,” says Lundell. “Companies want their employees to feel young, energized, and engaged too. The feedback we’ve received has been overwhelming. Obviously employees are feeling the results of the programs, and their employers are seeing the results in the workplace.”
For more information about The Healthy Humans Foundation, go to: www.healthyhumansfoundation.com
For more information about the book, The Cure for Heart Disease, go to: www.thecureforheartdisease.net.
Or to inquire about Dr. Lundell speaking at your organization, call:
Think fish oil
Emerging research is now showing that Omega-3 fatty acids can reduce the risk of cognitive conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia. An article on WebMD dated Dec. 26, 2007, by Daniel J. DeNoon, titled Fish Oil Prevents Alzheimer’s Plaques: Brain Needs Fish Oil Fatty Acid to Make Plaque-Fighting Protein, discusses how the brain needs the fish oil fatty acid DHA in order to produce a plaque-fighting protein. Researchers at UCLA, under the leadership of Greg M. Cole, PhD, found that those people who took a lot of DHA reduced the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and determined that it was due to DHA’s ability to cause brain cells to increase the production of the protein LR11 (also called SorLA).
LR11 acts to help clear the brain of amyloid precursor protein. Amyloid precursor protein is essential for the production of beta-amyloid plaque, the plaque that seems to clog the brains of people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease. It is estimated that approximately 15% of people with Alzheimer’s disease carry a genetic mutation that reduces LR11.
Just last month, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published an article citing more evidence that Omega-3s may reduce the risk of dementia and depression. The article, Low plasma eicosapentaenoic acid and depressive symptomatology are independent predictors of dementia risk by Samieri C et al., discusses how plasma Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to be inversely related to the risk of dementia and to depression, frequently associated with dementia.
Samieri reports that a high level of plasma EPA (Omega-3 fatty acid) concentration may decrease the risk of dementia. Further, it is reported that ratios of Omega-6 fatty acids to Omega-3 fatty acids may actually increase risk. This was especially true when the ratio of Arachidonic acid (AA, an Omega-6) to DHA (docosahexanoinc acid, an Omega-3) was high. The increased risk due to the high ratios of Omega-6 to Omega-3s was especially applicable in depressed older persons. Samieri concludes by stating that the role of EPA in dementia warrants further research.
The research into the therapeutic benefit of Omega-3s will continue and new revelations regarding their incredible health benefits will undoubtedly continue to accumulate.
Emerging research is now showing that Omega-3 fatty acids can reduce the risk of cognitive conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia. An article on WebMD dated Dec. 26, 2007, by Daniel J. DeNoon, titled Fish Oil Prevents Alzheimer’s Plaques: Brain Needs Fish Oil Fatty Acid to Make Plaque-Fighting Protein, discusses how the brain needs the fish oil fatty acid DHA in order to produce a plaque-fighting protein. Researchers at UCLA, under the leadership of Greg M. Cole, PhD, found that those people who took a lot of DHA reduced the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and determined that it was due to DHA’s ability to cause brain cells to increase the production of the protein LR11 (also called SorLA).
LR11 acts to help clear the brain of amyloid precursor protein. Amyloid precursor protein is essential for the production of beta-amyloid plaque, the plaque that seems to clog the brains of people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease. It is estimated that approximately 15% of people with Alzheimer’s disease carry a genetic mutation that reduces LR11.
Just last month, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published an article citing more evidence that Omega-3s may reduce the risk of dementia and depression. The article, Low plasma eicosapentaenoic acid and depressive symptomatology are independent predictors of dementia risk by Samieri C et al., discusses how plasma Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to be inversely related to the risk of dementia and to depression, frequently associated with dementia.
Samieri reports that a high level of plasma EPA (Omega-3 fatty acid) concentration may decrease the risk of dementia. Further, it is reported that ratios of Omega-6 fatty acids to Omega-3 fatty acids may actually increase risk. This was especially true when the ratio of Arachidonic acid (AA, an Omega-6) to DHA (docosahexanoinc acid, an Omega-3) was high. The increased risk due to the high ratios of Omega-6 to Omega-3s was especially applicable in depressed older persons. Samieri concludes by stating that the role of EPA in dementia warrants further research.
The research into the therapeutic benefit of Omega-3s will continue and new revelations regarding their incredible health benefits will undoubtedly continue to accumulate.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Great Statin Scam
The television ad featuring artificial heart inventor Dr. Robert Jarvik, who by the way can't row a skull, and never practiced medicine, claims that Lipitor will lower heart attack risk by 36%. Now who wouldn't want to do that? However, the fine print required, says “in a large clinical study. 3% of people taking placebo had a heart attack and 2% of those taking Lipitor had a heart attack.
Let's do the math. For every 100 people in the trial, which lasted for 3 1/2 years, three people on placebo, and two people on Lipitor, had a heart attack. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people. In other words, 100 people had to take the drug 3 1/2 years to prevent one heart attack. What this really means is that 99 out of 100 people, taking the drug had no benefit.
This is explained in a little known statistic called number needed to treat (NNT). In the case of Lipitor, 100 patients would have to be treated for 3 1/2 years to possibly eliminate one heart attack. Let's compare that to today's antibiotic treatment to eradicate ulcer causing H. pylori stomach bacteria. The NNT is 1.1; give the antibiotic to 11 people and 10 will be cured.
Several recent scientific papers peg the NNT for statins at 250. Dr. Jerome R. Hoffman, professor of clinical medicine at UCLA asks “What if you put 250 people in a room and told them that they each would have to pay over $1000 per year for a medicine they must take every day, that may give them diarrhea and muscle pain, and that 249 would get no benefit. How many would take that?”
Marketing over Medicine!
Drug companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit, and we need them to develop new medicines. But when they grossly overstate the benefits and spend huge amounts of money influencing physicians it turns bad and leads to potential corruption.
The National Cholesterol Education Program, (NCEP) 2004 guidelines that lowered the targets for cholesterol treatment and recommended that many more Americans take statins was issued by a panel on which 8 of 9 experts had financial ties to the drug industry.
“The guideline and process went awry” says Dr. Henry C. Barry of the Michigan State University College of medicine. Dr. Barry and 34 other experts sent a petition of protest to the National Institutes of Health, saying the evidence was weak and the panel biased because of its ties to the drug industry.
I and all other physicians who speak out take great risks; medicine and government agencies do not like criticism.
At a recent meeting, a prominent statin boosting physician who advises the NCEP
said that Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School “should be held accountable in a court of law for doing things to kill people” because Dr. Hayward had the audacity to suggest that ”current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether”.
We would expect this kind of vitriol from zealots and extremists not from government agencies or scientists.
If we spent a fraction of the money that we spend on cholesterol testing, cholesterol lowering drugs, and doctor visits instead on educating people about proper diet, exercise and weight loss we would be far healthier.
The television ad featuring artificial heart inventor Dr. Robert Jarvik, who by the way can't row a skull, and never practiced medicine, claims that Lipitor will lower heart attack risk by 36%. Now who wouldn't want to do that? However, the fine print required, says “in a large clinical study. 3% of people taking placebo had a heart attack and 2% of those taking Lipitor had a heart attack.
Let's do the math. For every 100 people in the trial, which lasted for 3 1/2 years, three people on placebo, and two people on Lipitor, had a heart attack. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people. In other words, 100 people had to take the drug 3 1/2 years to prevent one heart attack. What this really means is that 99 out of 100 people, taking the drug had no benefit.
This is explained in a little known statistic called number needed to treat (NNT). In the case of Lipitor, 100 patients would have to be treated for 3 1/2 years to possibly eliminate one heart attack. Let's compare that to today's antibiotic treatment to eradicate ulcer causing H. pylori stomach bacteria. The NNT is 1.1; give the antibiotic to 11 people and 10 will be cured.
Several recent scientific papers peg the NNT for statins at 250. Dr. Jerome R. Hoffman, professor of clinical medicine at UCLA asks “What if you put 250 people in a room and told them that they each would have to pay over $1000 per year for a medicine they must take every day, that may give them diarrhea and muscle pain, and that 249 would get no benefit. How many would take that?”
Marketing over Medicine!
Drug companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit, and we need them to develop new medicines. But when they grossly overstate the benefits and spend huge amounts of money influencing physicians it turns bad and leads to potential corruption.
The National Cholesterol Education Program, (NCEP) 2004 guidelines that lowered the targets for cholesterol treatment and recommended that many more Americans take statins was issued by a panel on which 8 of 9 experts had financial ties to the drug industry.
“The guideline and process went awry” says Dr. Henry C. Barry of the Michigan State University College of medicine. Dr. Barry and 34 other experts sent a petition of protest to the National Institutes of Health, saying the evidence was weak and the panel biased because of its ties to the drug industry.
I and all other physicians who speak out take great risks; medicine and government agencies do not like criticism.
At a recent meeting, a prominent statin boosting physician who advises the NCEP
said that Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School “should be held accountable in a court of law for doing things to kill people” because Dr. Hayward had the audacity to suggest that ”current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether”.
We would expect this kind of vitriol from zealots and extremists not from government agencies or scientists.
If we spent a fraction of the money that we spend on cholesterol testing, cholesterol lowering drugs, and doctor visits instead on educating people about proper diet, exercise and weight loss we would be far healthier.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The tragic and untimely death of Tim Russert raises many questions. Could his death from a heart attack have been prevented or was it inevitable?
By all reports he had excellent medical care, he was on medication for high blood pressure, and it reportedly was under control. He was being treated for high cholesterol, with a statin drug and enjoyed an excellent response. His LDL was 68, below, the new recommended level of 70. His HDL had been raised from the low 20s to 38. He had passed a stress test this past April, and reportedly was trying to lose weight and had begun to exercise on a stationary bike.
Mr. Russert and his family had the false hope as do countless others that taking a statin drug or some other medication solves the problem of heart disease.
Mr. Russert died in spite of excellent conventional medical care. His death was caused by a ruptured plaque in the left anterior descending coronary artery, which blocked it and caused ventricular fibrillation. Sadly this same thing happens to about 90 people every single day, it just does not make headlines.
So what are we to do to prevent this from happening to us or our loved ones?
Modern heart care is excellent at treating symptomatic heart disease and intervening in a crisis, but is very poor at prevention or predicting future events. This is because we have focused on cholesterol levels and ignored the real cause of plaque and plaque rupture; inflammation!
Inflammation is caused by bad diets, inactivity, and excess body weight. Inflammation can be controlled, heart disease can be prevented, tragedies can be avoided.
To learn how please read a new book called The Cure for Heart Disease available at Amazon and www.thecureforheartdisease.net.
By all reports he had excellent medical care, he was on medication for high blood pressure, and it reportedly was under control. He was being treated for high cholesterol, with a statin drug and enjoyed an excellent response. His LDL was 68, below, the new recommended level of 70. His HDL had been raised from the low 20s to 38. He had passed a stress test this past April, and reportedly was trying to lose weight and had begun to exercise on a stationary bike.
Mr. Russert and his family had the false hope as do countless others that taking a statin drug or some other medication solves the problem of heart disease.
Mr. Russert died in spite of excellent conventional medical care. His death was caused by a ruptured plaque in the left anterior descending coronary artery, which blocked it and caused ventricular fibrillation. Sadly this same thing happens to about 90 people every single day, it just does not make headlines.
So what are we to do to prevent this from happening to us or our loved ones?
Modern heart care is excellent at treating symptomatic heart disease and intervening in a crisis, but is very poor at prevention or predicting future events. This is because we have focused on cholesterol levels and ignored the real cause of plaque and plaque rupture; inflammation!
Inflammation is caused by bad diets, inactivity, and excess body weight. Inflammation can be controlled, heart disease can be prevented, tragedies can be avoided.
To learn how please read a new book called The Cure for Heart Disease available at Amazon and www.thecureforheartdisease.net.
Friday, May 16, 2008
WANT TO LIVE AN EXTRA 14 YEARS?
DON'T SMOKE
BE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE
MODERATE ALCOHOL INTAKE
EAT 5 SERVINGS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES DAILY
This important study reported in January in the Journal PLosMedicine is elegant in it's simplicity and rigorous in its follow-up and analysis.
Between 1993 and 1997, about 20,000 men and women aged 45–79 living in Norfolk UK, none of whom had cancer or cardiovascular disease (heart or circulation problems), completed a health and lifestyle questionnaire, had a health examination, and had their blood vitamin C level measured as part of the EPIC-Norfolk study.
A health behavior score of between 0 and 4 was calculated for each participant by giving one point for each of the following healthy behaviors:
1) Current non-smoking
2) Not physically inactive (physical inactivity was defined as having a sedentary job and doing no recreational exercise)
3) Moderate alcohol intake (1–14 units a week; a unit of alcohol is half a pint of beer, a glass of wine, or a shot of spirit)
4) A blood vitamin C level consistent with a fruit and vegetable intake of at least five servings a day.
Deaths among the participants were then recorded until 2006. After allowing for other factors that might have affected their likelihood of dying (for example, age), people with a health behavior score of 0 were four times as likely to have died (in particular, from cardiovascular disease) than those with a score of 4. People with a score of 2 were twice as likely to have died.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that the combination of four simply defined health behaviors predicts a 4-fold difference in the risk of dying over an average period of 11 years for middle-aged and older people. They also show that the risk of death (particularly from cardiovascular disease) decreases as the number of positive health behaviors increase.
Finally, they can be used to calculate that a person with a health score of 0 has the same risk of dying as a person with a health score of 4 who is 14 years older. They strongly suggest that modest and achievable lifestyle changes have a marked effect on the health of populations. Quality of life is strongly correlated with mortality.
Two other things struck me;
1) those who took vitamin supplements had no increase death rate, contradicting the meta-analysis mentioned in a previous post.
2) it reinforces the importance of fruits and vegetables as a source of vitamins, minerals and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant nutrients.
BE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE
MODERATE ALCOHOL INTAKE
EAT 5 SERVINGS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES DAILY
This important study reported in January in the Journal PLosMedicine is elegant in it's simplicity and rigorous in its follow-up and analysis.
Between 1993 and 1997, about 20,000 men and women aged 45–79 living in Norfolk UK, none of whom had cancer or cardiovascular disease (heart or circulation problems), completed a health and lifestyle questionnaire, had a health examination, and had their blood vitamin C level measured as part of the EPIC-Norfolk study.
A health behavior score of between 0 and 4 was calculated for each participant by giving one point for each of the following healthy behaviors:
1) Current non-smoking
2) Not physically inactive (physical inactivity was defined as having a sedentary job and doing no recreational exercise)
3) Moderate alcohol intake (1–14 units a week; a unit of alcohol is half a pint of beer, a glass of wine, or a shot of spirit)
4) A blood vitamin C level consistent with a fruit and vegetable intake of at least five servings a day.
Deaths among the participants were then recorded until 2006. After allowing for other factors that might have affected their likelihood of dying (for example, age), people with a health behavior score of 0 were four times as likely to have died (in particular, from cardiovascular disease) than those with a score of 4. People with a score of 2 were twice as likely to have died.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that the combination of four simply defined health behaviors predicts a 4-fold difference in the risk of dying over an average period of 11 years for middle-aged and older people. They also show that the risk of death (particularly from cardiovascular disease) decreases as the number of positive health behaviors increase.
Finally, they can be used to calculate that a person with a health score of 0 has the same risk of dying as a person with a health score of 4 who is 14 years older. They strongly suggest that modest and achievable lifestyle changes have a marked effect on the health of populations. Quality of life is strongly correlated with mortality.
Two other things struck me;
1) those who took vitamin supplements had no increase death rate, contradicting the meta-analysis mentioned in a previous post.
2) it reinforces the importance of fruits and vegetables as a source of vitamins, minerals and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant nutrients.
PLoS Medicine - Combined Impact of Health Behaviours and Mortality in Men and Women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study
PLoS Medicine - Combined Impact of Health Behaviours and Mortality in Men and Women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study: "What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that the combination of four simply defined health behaviors predicts a 4-fold difference in the risk of dying over an average period of 11 years for middle-aged and older people. They also show that the risk of death (particularly from cardiovascular disease) decreases as the number of positive health behaviors increase. Finally, they can be used to calculate that a person with a health score of 0 has the same risk of dying as a person with a health score of 4 who is 14 years older. These findings need to be confirmed in other populations and extended to an analysis of how these combined health behaviors affect the quality of life as well as the risk of death. Nevertheless, they strongly suggest that modest and achievable lifestyle changes could have a marked effect on the health of populations. Armed with this information, public-health officials should now be in a better position to encourage behavior changes likely to improve the health of middle-aged and older people."
These findings indicate that the combination of four simply defined health behaviors predicts a 4-fold difference in the risk of dying over an average period of 11 years for middle-aged and older people. They also show that the risk of death (particularly from cardiovascular disease) decreases as the number of positive health behaviors increase. Finally, they can be used to calculate that a person with a health score of 0 has the same risk of dying as a person with a health score of 4 who is 14 years older. These findings need to be confirmed in other populations and extended to an analysis of how these combined health behaviors affect the quality of life as well as the risk of death. Nevertheless, they strongly suggest that modest and achievable lifestyle changes could have a marked effect on the health of populations. Armed with this information, public-health officials should now be in a better position to encourage behavior changes likely to improve the health of middle-aged and older people."
PLoS Medicine - Combined Impact of Health Behaviours and Mortality in Men and Women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study
PLoS Medicine - Combined Impact of Health Behaviours and Mortality in Men and Women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study: "What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
Between 1993 and 1997, about 20,000 men and women aged 45–79 living in Norfolk UK, none of whom had cancer or cardiovascular disease (heart or circulation problems), completed a health and lifestyle questionnaire, had a health examination, and had their blood vitamin C level measured as part of the EPIC-Norfolk study. A health behavior score of between 0 and 4 was calculated for each participant by giving one point for each of the following healthy behaviors: current non-smoking, not physically inactive (physical inactivity was defined as having a sedentary job and doing no recreational exercise), moderate alcohol intake (1–14 units a week; a unit of alcohol is half a pint of beer, a glass of wine, or a shot of spirit), and a blood vitamin C level consistent with a fruit and vegetable intake of at least five servings a day. Deaths among the participants were then recorded until 2006. After allowing for other factors that might have affected their likelihood of dying (for example, age), people with a health behavior score of 0 were four times as likely to have died (in particular, from cardiovascular disease) than those with a score of 4. People with a score of 2 were twice as likely to have died."
Between 1993 and 1997, about 20,000 men and women aged 45–79 living in Norfolk UK, none of whom had cancer or cardiovascular disease (heart or circulation problems), completed a health and lifestyle questionnaire, had a health examination, and had their blood vitamin C level measured as part of the EPIC-Norfolk study. A health behavior score of between 0 and 4 was calculated for each participant by giving one point for each of the following healthy behaviors: current non-smoking, not physically inactive (physical inactivity was defined as having a sedentary job and doing no recreational exercise), moderate alcohol intake (1–14 units a week; a unit of alcohol is half a pint of beer, a glass of wine, or a shot of spirit), and a blood vitamin C level consistent with a fruit and vegetable intake of at least five servings a day. Deaths among the participants were then recorded until 2006. After allowing for other factors that might have affected their likelihood of dying (for example, age), people with a health behavior score of 0 were four times as likely to have died (in particular, from cardiovascular disease) than those with a score of 4. People with a score of 2 were twice as likely to have died."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Selective Science
We were concerned when the headlines screamed "Antioxidants increase mortality" "Antioxidants do no good, may harm". The article below demonstrates how "selective science" can lead to misinformation. Sadly most reporters read no further than the first line, adding to the confusion.
One of the reasons for founding Healthy Humans Foundation is to sort through the nonsense and provide you with the most accurate information about your health.
Article in NutraIngredients.com:
A meta-analysis of 67 randomised trials with antioxidant supplements has reported that vitamins A and E, and beta-carotene may increase mortality risk by up to 16 per cent.
On the other hand, vitamin C did not have an effect on mortality and the antioxidant mineral selenium was associated with a nine per cent decrease in all-cause mortality.
"We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases," said Goran Bjelakovic from the Copenhagen Trial Unit at the Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.
A republishing of last year's antioxidant meta-analysis in the prestigious Cochrane Systematic Review today looks set to refocus attention on the efficacy of antioxidant supplements, and raise questions over their safety.
The meta-analysis was originally published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2007, Vol. 297, pp. 842-857) last year and attracted criticism from both inside and outside of the dietary supplements industry.
The authors admit that this report contained errors and corrections were subsequently published in JAMA (2008, Vol. 299, pp. 765-766). "The present version of the review incorporates all these corrections," they state.
Review details
Bjelakovic and collaborators from the University of Nis in Serbia, and Ospedale V. Cervello in Palermo, followed the Cochrane Collaboration method for meta-analysis and systematically reviewed 67 randomised clinical trials including 232,550 participants, and focusing on beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium supplements versus placebo.
Seven hundred and forty seven trials were excluded for several reasons, including no mortality in the study groups (405 trials), the studies were not randomised trials (69 trials), they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (245 trials), or the studies are ongoing (four).
Bjelakovic and co-workers report no reduction in mortality, and note that 13.1 per cent of the participants randomised to antioxidant supplements died, compared to 10.5 per cent randomised to placebo or no intervention.
"The findings of our review show that if anything, people in trial groups given the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality. There was no indication that vitamin C and selenium may have positive or negative effects. So regarding these antioxidants we need more data from randomised trials," said Bjelakovic.
"The bottom line is that current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general healthy population or in patients with certain diseases.
"The reviewers highlighted several possible explanations or mechanisms behind the potentially detrimental effects of antioxidant supplements, noting that elimination of free radicals may interfere with some essential defensive mechanisms, including programmed cell death (apoptosis), detoxification, and phagocytosis. "Better understanding of mechanisms and actions of antioxidants in relation to a potential disease is needed," they added.
Dr. Bjelakovic was contacted by NutraIngredients.com and asked to comment on the exclusion of the 405 death-free trials, and to contextualise why most of the trials included in the meta-analysis tested for secondary prevention, looking at how a nutrient works in diseased populations, instead of primary prevention studies in healthy populations. No response was received by NutraIngredients.com in time for publication.
Stinging criticism
The dietary supplements industry has responded strongly to the review, with the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), an industry association, releasing a statement that read:
"Although [the authors] have updated their meta-analysis, by handpicking additional studies and correcting a litany of minor mistakes made in previous versions, it is for all intents and purposes not a new study, nor is it truly new information.
"In fact, it appears to be a systematic attempt by the authors to publish work that supports their own pre-determined conclusions about antioxidants and the way they should be regulated."
John Hathcock, Ph.D., senior vice president, scientific and international affairs, CRN, was quick to draw attention to the exclusion criteria employed by the researchers.
"With nearly 750 studies to choose from, it's interesting that they chose to include only 67 studies - less than nine percent of the total clinical trials on antioxidants that are available," said Dr. Hancock.
"Moreover, the possible 750 clinical trials do not even account for other sources of evidence, such as observational studies, which were not considered by the authors at all. It is their exclusions, not the inclusions, where the fault lies."
"The conclusions one can reach from this meta-analysis are very limited."When the meta-analysis was published initially in JAMA, Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health who was not connected to the meta-analysis, told the Associated Press that the studies reviewed were too different to be able to pool them together.
"This study does not advance our understanding, and could easily lead to misinterpretation of the data," Stampfer told the AP.Similar comments were forthcoming from the UK natural health industry association, the Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA). A spokesperson stated that the review was "systematically flawed."
"The analysis focused on one broad category of study, then evaluated just 67 of the 748 studies that could be included in the review. Therefore, the paper's conclusions are drawn on less than nine per cent of available evidence.
In no way can this review be considered comprehensive," said the spokesperson."Antioxidant supplements cannot be expected to undo a lifetime of unhealthy living, but combined with good lifestyle choices, can play an important role in promoting overall health and wellbeing."Pointing out the practicalities Andrew Shoa, Ph.D., CRN's vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs said: "It really comes down to whether or not this meta-analysis should mean anything to consumers or scientists. And from a practical standpoint, it doesn't mean much.
"We maintain that healthy consumers who are using antioxidant supplements in the manner that they were meant to be used-as complements to, not in place of-other healthy lifestyle habits, can continue to feel confident in the benefits these supplements provide. "For those consumers who are seriously ill with cancer, heart disease, etc., they should talk with their doctor about everything they put into their bodies."Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007176. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007176."Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases"Authors: G. Bjelakovic, D. Nikolova, L.L. Gluud, R.G. Simonetti, C. Gluud
One of the reasons for founding Healthy Humans Foundation is to sort through the nonsense and provide you with the most accurate information about your health.
Article in NutraIngredients.com:
A meta-analysis of 67 randomised trials with antioxidant supplements has reported that vitamins A and E, and beta-carotene may increase mortality risk by up to 16 per cent.
On the other hand, vitamin C did not have an effect on mortality and the antioxidant mineral selenium was associated with a nine per cent decrease in all-cause mortality.
"We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases," said Goran Bjelakovic from the Copenhagen Trial Unit at the Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.
A republishing of last year's antioxidant meta-analysis in the prestigious Cochrane Systematic Review today looks set to refocus attention on the efficacy of antioxidant supplements, and raise questions over their safety.
The meta-analysis was originally published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2007, Vol. 297, pp. 842-857) last year and attracted criticism from both inside and outside of the dietary supplements industry.
The authors admit that this report contained errors and corrections were subsequently published in JAMA (2008, Vol. 299, pp. 765-766). "The present version of the review incorporates all these corrections," they state.
Review details
Bjelakovic and collaborators from the University of Nis in Serbia, and Ospedale V. Cervello in Palermo, followed the Cochrane Collaboration method for meta-analysis and systematically reviewed 67 randomised clinical trials including 232,550 participants, and focusing on beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium supplements versus placebo.
Seven hundred and forty seven trials were excluded for several reasons, including no mortality in the study groups (405 trials), the studies were not randomised trials (69 trials), they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (245 trials), or the studies are ongoing (four).
Bjelakovic and co-workers report no reduction in mortality, and note that 13.1 per cent of the participants randomised to antioxidant supplements died, compared to 10.5 per cent randomised to placebo or no intervention.
"The findings of our review show that if anything, people in trial groups given the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality. There was no indication that vitamin C and selenium may have positive or negative effects. So regarding these antioxidants we need more data from randomised trials," said Bjelakovic.
"The bottom line is that current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general healthy population or in patients with certain diseases.
"The reviewers highlighted several possible explanations or mechanisms behind the potentially detrimental effects of antioxidant supplements, noting that elimination of free radicals may interfere with some essential defensive mechanisms, including programmed cell death (apoptosis), detoxification, and phagocytosis. "Better understanding of mechanisms and actions of antioxidants in relation to a potential disease is needed," they added.
Dr. Bjelakovic was contacted by NutraIngredients.com and asked to comment on the exclusion of the 405 death-free trials, and to contextualise why most of the trials included in the meta-analysis tested for secondary prevention, looking at how a nutrient works in diseased populations, instead of primary prevention studies in healthy populations. No response was received by NutraIngredients.com in time for publication.
Stinging criticism
The dietary supplements industry has responded strongly to the review, with the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), an industry association, releasing a statement that read:
"Although [the authors] have updated their meta-analysis, by handpicking additional studies and correcting a litany of minor mistakes made in previous versions, it is for all intents and purposes not a new study, nor is it truly new information.
"In fact, it appears to be a systematic attempt by the authors to publish work that supports their own pre-determined conclusions about antioxidants and the way they should be regulated."
John Hathcock, Ph.D., senior vice president, scientific and international affairs, CRN, was quick to draw attention to the exclusion criteria employed by the researchers.
"With nearly 750 studies to choose from, it's interesting that they chose to include only 67 studies - less than nine percent of the total clinical trials on antioxidants that are available," said Dr. Hancock.
"Moreover, the possible 750 clinical trials do not even account for other sources of evidence, such as observational studies, which were not considered by the authors at all. It is their exclusions, not the inclusions, where the fault lies."
"The conclusions one can reach from this meta-analysis are very limited."When the meta-analysis was published initially in JAMA, Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health who was not connected to the meta-analysis, told the Associated Press that the studies reviewed were too different to be able to pool them together.
"This study does not advance our understanding, and could easily lead to misinterpretation of the data," Stampfer told the AP.Similar comments were forthcoming from the UK natural health industry association, the Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA). A spokesperson stated that the review was "systematically flawed."
"The analysis focused on one broad category of study, then evaluated just 67 of the 748 studies that could be included in the review. Therefore, the paper's conclusions are drawn on less than nine per cent of available evidence.
In no way can this review be considered comprehensive," said the spokesperson."Antioxidant supplements cannot be expected to undo a lifetime of unhealthy living, but combined with good lifestyle choices, can play an important role in promoting overall health and wellbeing."Pointing out the practicalities Andrew Shoa, Ph.D., CRN's vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs said: "It really comes down to whether or not this meta-analysis should mean anything to consumers or scientists. And from a practical standpoint, it doesn't mean much.
"We maintain that healthy consumers who are using antioxidant supplements in the manner that they were meant to be used-as complements to, not in place of-other healthy lifestyle habits, can continue to feel confident in the benefits these supplements provide. "For those consumers who are seriously ill with cancer, heart disease, etc., they should talk with their doctor about everything they put into their bodies."Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007176. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007176."Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases"Authors: G. Bjelakovic, D. Nikolova, L.L. Gluud, R.G. Simonetti, C. Gluud
Preventing Heart Disease with Fruit Juice
This well done study demonstrates that atherosclerosis can be prevented by anti-oxidants from fruit sources. The fatty streaks in the arteries was reduced by 93% by the consumption of purple grape juice which is rich vitamin C along with polyphenols and caretenoids. This study showed that the juice was more powerful than the fruit.
Dr. Lundell
Long term supplementation of antioxidant-rich apples and purple grapes, particularly in juice form, may prevent artery hardening, researchers from France have reported for the first time.
Measures of atherosclerosis were reduced in hamsters with high cholesterol levels following consumption of the fruit and their respective juices, but the benefits were significantly greater for the juices, report researchers from the University of Montpellier 1 and 2, and the Victor Ségalen University in Bordeaux 2 in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research."The present results clearly show for the first time that apple and purple grape prevent diet-induced atherosclerosis in hamsters, and that the fruit processing can have a major impact on the potential health benefits of fruit in pathological conditions," wrote the researchers, led by Jean-Max Rouanet. "These findings, therefore, provide encouragement that fruit and fruit juices may have a significant clinical and public health relevance."
Atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries, is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which causes almost 50 per cent of deaths in Europe, and is reported to cost the EU economy about €169bn ($202bn) per year.
New dataRouanet and co-workers took 40 male Syrian golden hamsters and randomly divided them into five groups. The animals were fed a diet to promote the development of artery hardening, and supplemented with mashed apple or purple grape, or the same volume of apple juice or purple grape juice, or water (control group) for 12 weeks.At the end of the study, they found that total cholesterol levels were significantly reduced in the animals fed the fruit-supplemented diets, by 11 per cent in apple group and 24 per cent in the apple juice group, and 30 per cent in the purple grape and 34 per cent in the purple grape juice group. This was attributed to the reductions in levels of non-HDL cholesterol.The juices also outperformed the fruit for protecting against atherosclerosis, measured by the aortic fatty streak lesion area or AFSA. This value was reduced by 93 and 78 per cent for the purple grape juice and the fruit, respectively, and by 60 and 48 per cent for apple juice and apple, respectively.
"The results show for the first time that long-term consumption of antioxidants supplied by apple and purple grape, especially phenolic compounds, prevents the development of atherosclerosis in hamsters, and that processing can have a major impact on the potential health benefits of a product," stated the researchers.
Mechanism of protection; Commenting on the underlying mechanism, Rouanet and co-workers stated that the greater potency of the purple grape and its juice may be due to the flavonoids content.
"Flavonoids, especially anthocyanins and catechins in purple grape and purple grape juice, generally have more hydroxyl groups than phenolic acids found in apple and apple juice," wrote the authors. "This could explain why purple grape juice and purple grape displayed a better efficacy than apple and apple juice against early atherosclerosis. "Nevertheless, these beneficial effects cannot only be attributed to their phenolic contents, but to the result of the action of different antioxidant compounds present in the fruits (vitamin C, carotenoids, polyphenols) and to possible synergistic and antagonist effects still unknown," they added.
Source: Molecular Nutrition & Food Research2008, Volume 52, Pages 400-407, doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200700141"Phenolics from purple grape, apple, purple grape juice and apple juice prevent early atherosclerosis induced by an atherogenic diet in hamsters"Authors: Kelly Décorde, P.-L. Teissèdre, C. Auger, J.-P. Cristol, J.-M. Rouanet
Dr. Lundell
Long term supplementation of antioxidant-rich apples and purple grapes, particularly in juice form, may prevent artery hardening, researchers from France have reported for the first time.
Measures of atherosclerosis were reduced in hamsters with high cholesterol levels following consumption of the fruit and their respective juices, but the benefits were significantly greater for the juices, report researchers from the University of Montpellier 1 and 2, and the Victor Ségalen University in Bordeaux 2 in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research."The present results clearly show for the first time that apple and purple grape prevent diet-induced atherosclerosis in hamsters, and that the fruit processing can have a major impact on the potential health benefits of fruit in pathological conditions," wrote the researchers, led by Jean-Max Rouanet. "These findings, therefore, provide encouragement that fruit and fruit juices may have a significant clinical and public health relevance."
Atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries, is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which causes almost 50 per cent of deaths in Europe, and is reported to cost the EU economy about €169bn ($202bn) per year.
New dataRouanet and co-workers took 40 male Syrian golden hamsters and randomly divided them into five groups. The animals were fed a diet to promote the development of artery hardening, and supplemented with mashed apple or purple grape, or the same volume of apple juice or purple grape juice, or water (control group) for 12 weeks.At the end of the study, they found that total cholesterol levels were significantly reduced in the animals fed the fruit-supplemented diets, by 11 per cent in apple group and 24 per cent in the apple juice group, and 30 per cent in the purple grape and 34 per cent in the purple grape juice group. This was attributed to the reductions in levels of non-HDL cholesterol.The juices also outperformed the fruit for protecting against atherosclerosis, measured by the aortic fatty streak lesion area or AFSA. This value was reduced by 93 and 78 per cent for the purple grape juice and the fruit, respectively, and by 60 and 48 per cent for apple juice and apple, respectively.
"The results show for the first time that long-term consumption of antioxidants supplied by apple and purple grape, especially phenolic compounds, prevents the development of atherosclerosis in hamsters, and that processing can have a major impact on the potential health benefits of a product," stated the researchers.
Mechanism of protection; Commenting on the underlying mechanism, Rouanet and co-workers stated that the greater potency of the purple grape and its juice may be due to the flavonoids content.
"Flavonoids, especially anthocyanins and catechins in purple grape and purple grape juice, generally have more hydroxyl groups than phenolic acids found in apple and apple juice," wrote the authors. "This could explain why purple grape juice and purple grape displayed a better efficacy than apple and apple juice against early atherosclerosis. "Nevertheless, these beneficial effects cannot only be attributed to their phenolic contents, but to the result of the action of different antioxidant compounds present in the fruits (vitamin C, carotenoids, polyphenols) and to possible synergistic and antagonist effects still unknown," they added.
Source: Molecular Nutrition & Food Research2008, Volume 52, Pages 400-407, doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200700141"Phenolics from purple grape, apple, purple grape juice and apple juice prevent early atherosclerosis induced by an atherogenic diet in hamsters"Authors: Kelly Décorde, P.-L. Teissèdre, C. Auger, J.-P. Cristol, J.-M. Rouanet
Fish Oil, Low Calorie Diet Reduce the Risk of Inflammation
A diet high in fish oil and low in calories could reduce markers of inflammation by up to 90%, according to a study published in the journal Life Sciences.
The study looked at the effects of fish oil and/or low-calorie diets on markers of inflammation-such as lipid oxidation levels and concentrations of superoxides, prostaglandins and leukotriene B4-in both young and old mice. The animals received either corn oil or fish oil and those on calorie-restricted diets received the same dosages of corn oil or fish oil as did the controls.
Older mice on the corn oil diet had superoxide levels about 18% higher than their younger counterparts. Younger mice on the calorie-restricted diet had superoxide levels about 35% lower, while for those on the fish oil diet the decrease was about 60%. In calorie-restricted younger mice consuming fish oil, superoxide levels were decreased by 90%.
Life Sciences 78(21):2523-2532, 2006
Dr Lundell's comments:
Oxidative stress occurs when we have more oxidation than the body can overcome with its native antioxidant systems. Oxidative stress is connected with premature aging, cancer,tissue and DNA damage. This study emphasizes the connection between inflammation and oxidation and shows how important Omega 3 from fish oil is in reducing both. Think about this when you order supersize french Fries cooked in corn oil.
The study looked at the effects of fish oil and/or low-calorie diets on markers of inflammation-such as lipid oxidation levels and concentrations of superoxides, prostaglandins and leukotriene B4-in both young and old mice. The animals received either corn oil or fish oil and those on calorie-restricted diets received the same dosages of corn oil or fish oil as did the controls.
Older mice on the corn oil diet had superoxide levels about 18% higher than their younger counterparts. Younger mice on the calorie-restricted diet had superoxide levels about 35% lower, while for those on the fish oil diet the decrease was about 60%. In calorie-restricted younger mice consuming fish oil, superoxide levels were decreased by 90%.
Life Sciences 78(21):2523-2532, 2006
Dr Lundell's comments:
Oxidative stress occurs when we have more oxidation than the body can overcome with its native antioxidant systems. Oxidative stress is connected with premature aging, cancer,tissue and DNA damage. This study emphasizes the connection between inflammation and oxidation and shows how important Omega 3 from fish oil is in reducing both. Think about this when you order supersize french Fries cooked in corn oil.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
TROUBLE IN THE TEMPLE OF LDL
The ENHANCE Study widely discussed in the press and in the halls of Congress was reported as showing that Vytorin was a bad drug for heart disease.
The study compared Vytorin, which is a combination of a simvastatin (a statin) and Zetia (a drug that blocks cholesterol absorption), we have all seen the clever commercials, with simvastatin alone, both drugs at high doses.
The study measured the effect of the drugs on the thickness of the line of the carotid artery (CIMT); this measures the progress of arteriosclerosis.
The thickness of the lining of the artery increased in both groups, 0.0111 mm in the Vytorin group and 0.0058 mm in the simvastatin group.
LDL cholesterol, the so-called bad cholesterol was reduced by 58% in the Vytorin group and only 41% in the simvastatin group.
Lost in all the fuss about the delay in reporting the study is the fact that this study destroys the theory that “lower is better” which is the main mantra in the Temple of LDL.
If lower is better, then the Vytorin group should have had better results, they didn't.
Cardiologists from university centers either ignored this inconvenient truth or lamely try to explain it away.
Eric Topol M.D. famously ran out of the Cleveland Clinic for daring to speak out against a drug produced by a company, which heavily supported the Cleveland Clinic, was the only one who said that we should rethink our worship in the Temple of LDL.
Overwhelming evidence shows that heart disease is caused by low-grade inflammation.
Statin drugs do lower LDL cholesterol, statin drugs do help reduce heart attacks in certain groups of people. But this effect occurs, long before the LDL is lowered. Statin drugs have been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect.
Marketing has triumphed over medicine and stifled the progress in understanding and eliminating heart disease. There is beginning to be cracks in the Temple of LDL.
The ENHANCE Study widely discussed in the press and in the halls of Congress was reported as showing that Vytorin was a bad drug for heart disease.
The study compared Vytorin, which is a combination of a simvastatin (a statin) and Zetia (a drug that blocks cholesterol absorption), we have all seen the clever commercials, with simvastatin alone, both drugs at high doses.
The study measured the effect of the drugs on the thickness of the line of the carotid artery (CIMT); this measures the progress of arteriosclerosis.
The thickness of the lining of the artery increased in both groups, 0.0111 mm in the Vytorin group and 0.0058 mm in the simvastatin group.
LDL cholesterol, the so-called bad cholesterol was reduced by 58% in the Vytorin group and only 41% in the simvastatin group.
Lost in all the fuss about the delay in reporting the study is the fact that this study destroys the theory that “lower is better” which is the main mantra in the Temple of LDL.
If lower is better, then the Vytorin group should have had better results, they didn't.
Cardiologists from university centers either ignored this inconvenient truth or lamely try to explain it away.
Eric Topol M.D. famously ran out of the Cleveland Clinic for daring to speak out against a drug produced by a company, which heavily supported the Cleveland Clinic, was the only one who said that we should rethink our worship in the Temple of LDL.
Overwhelming evidence shows that heart disease is caused by low-grade inflammation.
Statin drugs do lower LDL cholesterol, statin drugs do help reduce heart attacks in certain groups of people. But this effect occurs, long before the LDL is lowered. Statin drugs have been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect.
Marketing has triumphed over medicine and stifled the progress in understanding and eliminating heart disease. There is beginning to be cracks in the Temple of LDL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
