Skip to content

Category: healthy aging

Published on

It is important to identify protective factors as well as risk factors for cataracts because cataract surgery is the only treatment for cataracts. Cataracts are a medical condition resulting in clouding of the normally clear lens of the eye, which results in blurred vision.

From Medscape: Physical Activity May Reduce Cataract Risk

High levels of total and long-term physical activity, as well as specific types of physical activity, may decrease the risk for age-related cataract later in life, researchers report in an article published in the February issue of Ophthalmology. Of 52,660 men and women 45 to 83 years of age who completed questionnaires to assess physical activity as part of two large population-based cohorts, 11,580 developed age-related cataract during a 12-year follow-up period...

Participants with the highest quartile of physical activity had a 13% decreased risk of developing cataracts relative to those with the lowest levels of physical activity, after adjustments for multiple factors including fruit and vegetable intake, antioxidant supplement use, and alcohol intake ...In addition, increased amounts of long-term total physical activity both at 30 years of age and at the beginning of the study (mean age, 59.4 years) decreased the risk for cataract by 24% compared with low levels of activity, according to the researchers .

When the investigators looked at specific activities, they found that walking or bicycling 60 minutes per day or more decreased the risk for cataract by 12% compared with hardly ever walking or bicycling, and work or occupational activity requiring heavy manual labor decreased the risk for cataract by 16% compared with mostly sedentary occupations. Compared with individuals reporting less than 1 hour of leisure time inactivity per day, those who were physically inactive for 6 or more hours of leisure time daily were 27% more likely to develop age-related cataract, they write.

"Our results on different types of physical activity suggest that being physically active on a regular daily basis may contribute to decreased risk of cataract, rather than short weekly episodes of exercising/training," Selin explained in an interview with Medscape Medical News.

Keep in mind that statin use is linked to increased risk of cataracts. From Science Daily:

New study strengthens evidence of connection between statin use and cataracts; any risks should be weighed against benefits

Published on

Discussions of the benefits of dietary fiber seem to be everywhere this week.

From Forbes: Eat Whole Grains For A Long Life, New Study Says

Eating lots of whole grains – especially those high in cereal fiber – may help people live longer, according to new research. The study out in BMC Medicine this week suggests that eating hefty amounts of cereal fibers can help reduce the risk of death from a number of causes, including cancer and diabetes, by almost 20%. Previous research has certainly linked whole grains to the reduction of certain chronic diseases and to reduced mortality, but this one is the largest of its kind to show a reduction in death from a number of different causes. So if you want to live longer, grab a bowl of cereal. The less refined, the better.

Whole grains are grains in their most unadulterated form, still containing the endosperm, bran, and germ – most of the plant’s nutritional value lies in the bran and germ. When grains go through milling to become processed or refined, they’re typically stripped of the bran and germ parts, along with a number of B vitamins, fiber, and iron.

In the new study, the Harvard Medical School team tracked over 367,000 healthy people who were taking part in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, for an average of 14 years. ..It turned out that people who ate more whole grains – 1.2 ounces of per day, on average – had a 17% reduced risk of death, compared to those who ate much less, around 0.13 ounces per day. And when it came to the cereal fiber itself, people who ate the most had a 19% reduced risk of death from any cause, compared to those who ate the least.

The researchers even broke it down by disease: People who ate the highest amounts of whole grains had a 48% reduced risk of death from diabetes, and an 11% reduced risk of dying from respiratory diseases. And people who ate the most cereal fiber had 15% and 34% reduced risk of death from cancer and diabetes, respectively. 

The study cannot of course determine causation, since it’s just observational...Still, a number of studies have pointed to a strong connection between whole grains and improved health and longevity in recent years. It may be the anti-inflammatory properties of fiber per se – and its effect of reducing c-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor – that are responsible for their health benefits. If you’re going to up your grain intake, make sure to choose whole ones, like steel cut oats, quinoa, or even whole grain bread, over refined ones like cereal flakes or white bread. 

From Scientific American: Fiber-Famished Gut Microbes Linked to Poor Health

Your gut is the site of constant turf wars. Hundreds of bacterial species—along with fungi, archaea and viruses—do battle daily, competing for resources. Some companies advocate for consuming more probiotics, live beneficial bacteria, to improve microbial communities in our gut, but more and more research supports the idea that the most powerful approach might be to better feed the good bacteria we already harbor. Their meal of choice? Fiber.  

Fiber has long been linked to better health, but new research shows how the gut microbiota might play a role in this pattern. One investigation discovered that adding more fiber to the diet can trigger a shift from a microbial profile linked to obesity to one correlated with a leaner physique. Another recent study shows that when microbes are starved of fiber, they can start to feed on the protective mucus lining of the gut, possibly triggering inflammation and disease.

"Diet is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing the microbiota," Justin Sonnenburg, a biologist at Stanford University, said earlier this month at a Keystone Symposia conference on the gut microbiome. "Dietary fiber and diversity of the microbiota complement each other for better health outcomes." In particular, beneficial microbes feast on fermentable fibers—which can come from various vegetables, whole grains and other foods—that resist digestion by human-made enzymes as they travel down the digestive tract. These fibers arrive in the large intestine relatively intact, ready to be devoured by our microbial multitudes. Microbes can extract the fiber's extra energy, nutrients, vitamins and other compounds for us. Short-chain fatty acids obtained from fiber are of particular interest, as they have been linked to improved immune function, decreased inflammation and protection against obesity.

Today's Western diet, however, is exceedingly fiber-poor by historical standards. It contains roughly 15 grams of fiber daily, Sonnenburg noted. For most of our early history as hunter-gatherers, we were likely eating close to 10 times that amount of fiber each day. "Imagine the effect that has on our microbiota over the course of our evolution," he said.

Not all helpful fiber, however, needs to come from the roots and roughage for which our ancestors foraged, new research suggests. Kelly Swanson, a professor of comparative nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and his team found that simply adding a fiber-enriched snack bar to subjects' daily diets could swing microbial profiles in a matter of weeks... The findings were published in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

As gut microbes are starved of fermentable fiber, some do die off. Others, however, are able to switch to another food source in the gut: the mucus lining that helps keep the gut wall intact and free from infection. In a recent study presented at the Keystone meeting, Eric Martens of the University of Michigan Medical School, postdoctoral researcher Mahesh Desai and their colleagues found that this fuel switch had striking consequences in rodents. A group of mice fed a high-fiber diet had healthy gut lining, but for mice on a fiber-free diet, "the mucus layer becomes dramatically diminished," he explained at the meeting. This shift might sometimes have severe health consequences. Research by a Swedish team, published last year in the journal Gut, showed a link between bacteria penetrating the mucus layer and ulcerative colitis, a painful chronic bowel disease.

A third group of mice received high-fiber chow and fiber-free chow on alternating days—"like what we would do if we were being bad and eating McDonald's one day and eating our whole grains the next," Martens joked. Even the part-time high-fiber diet was not enough to keep guts healthy: these mice had a mucus layer about half the thickness of mice on the consistently high-fiber diet. If we can extend these results to humans, he said, it "tells us that even eating your whole fiber foods every other day is still not enough to protect you. You need to eat a high-fiber diet every day to keep a healthy gut." Along the same lines, Swanson's group found that the gut microbiomes of his adult subjects reverted back to initial profiles as soon as the high-fiber bars were discontinued.

Published on

There are a number of very good health reasons to cut back or totally eliminate soda from your diet. The following articles and earlier posts discuss some of the ways both diet and regular soda are linked to health problems. Note in the second article that there's currently no federal limit for a byproduct of some types of caramel color called 4-MEI (a carcinogen) in food or beverages. California's Proposition 65 Law (aimed at reducing consumers' exposure to toxic chemicals) requires a  health-warning label on sodas with too high levels of 4-MEI resulted in manufacturers producing soda with lower levels of that chemical in the state. But sodas out of California may have higher levels! From Science Daily:

Diet soda linked to increases in belly fat in older adults

Increasing diet soda intake is directly linked to greater abdominal obesity in adults 65 years of age and older. Findings raise concerns about the safety of chronic diet soda consumption, which may increase belly fat and contribute to greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. Metabolic syndrome--a combination of risk factors that may lead to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke--is one of the results of the obesity epidemic.

The San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging (SALSA) enrolled 749 Mexican- and European-Americans who were aged 65 and older at the start of the study (1992-96). Diet soda intake, waist circumference, height, and weight were measured at study onset, and at three follow-ups in 2000-01, 2001-03, and 2003-04, for a total of 9.4 follow-up years. At the first follow-up there were 474 (79.1%) surviving participants; there were 413 (73.4%) at the second follow-up and 375 (71.0%) at the third follow-up.

Findings indicate that the increase in waist circumference among diet soda drinkers, per follow-up interval, was almost triple that among non-users: 2.11 cm versus 0.77 cm, respectively. After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, interval waist circumference increases were 0.77 cm for non-users, 1.76 cm for occasional users, and 3.04 cm for daily users. This translates to waist circumference increases of 0.80 inches for non-users, 1.83 inches for occasional users, and 3.16 inches for daily users over the total 9.4-year SALSA follow-up period.

From Medical Xpress:

Popular soda ingredient poses cancer risk to consumers, new study suggests

Public health researchers have analyzed soda consumption data in order to characterize people's exposure to a potentially carcinogenic byproduct of some types of caramel color. Caramel color is a common ingredient in colas and other dark soft drinks. The results show that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of six typically have at least one can of soda per day, possibly more, potentially exposing them to 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a possible human carcinogen formed during the manufacture of some kinds of caramel color.

"Soft drink consumers are being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk from an ingredient that is being added to these beverages simply for aesthetic purposes," says Keeve Nachman, PhD, senior author of the study and director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the CLF and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. ."

In 2013 and early 2014, Consumer Reports partnered with the CLF to analyze 4-MEI concentrations of 110 soft drink samples purchased from retail stores in California and the New York metropolitan area...While the 2014 study of the 110 samples of soda brands was not large enough to recommend one brand over another or draw conclusions about specific brands, results indicated that levels of 4-MEI could vary substantially across samples, even for the same type of beverage. 

Researchers also found sharply contrasting levels of 4-MEI in some soft drinks purchased in the New York metropolitan area, versus California. "Our study also found that some of the soft drink products sold in California that we sampled had lower levels of 4-MEI than the samples we looked at of the same beverages sold outside the state, particularly in our earlier rounds of testing. It appears that regulations such as California's Proposition 65 may be effective at reducing exposure to 4-MEI from soft drinks, and that beverages can be manufactured in ways that produce less 4-MEI," suggests Nachman. ."

From Medical Daily: Bye-Bye Sugary Drinks: This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Soda

Published on

This review study suggests that the effect from loneliness and social isolation on mortality is equivalent to obesity, and that past studies put it into the same category as being an alcoholic, or smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Bottom line: Friendships and having a social network are important to health! Note that the study also found: "...loneliness and social isolation better predict premature death among populations younger than 65 years." From Medical Xpress:

Prescription for living longer: Spend less time alone

Ask people what it takes to live a long life, and they'll say things like exercise, take Omega-3s, and see your doctor regularly. Now research from Brigham Young University shows that loneliness and social isolation are just as much a threat to longevity as obesity. Loneliness and social isolation can look very different. For example, someone may be surrounded by many people but still feel alone. Other people may isolate themselves because they prefer to be alone. The effect on longevity, however, is much the same for those two scenarios.

The association between loneliness and risk for mortality among young populations is actually greater than among older populations. Although older people are more likely to be lonely and face a higher mortality risk, loneliness and social isolation better predict premature death among populations younger than 65 years.

The study analyzed data from a variety of health studies. Altogether, the sample included more than 3 million participants from studies that included data for loneliness, social isolation, and living alone. Controlling for variables such as socioeconomic status, age, gender, and pre-existing health conditions, they found that the effect goes both ways. The lack of social connections presents an added risk, and the existence of relationships provides a positive health effect. 

Previous research from Holt-Lunstad and Smith puts the heightened risk of mortality from loneliness in the same category as smoking 15 cigarettes a day and being an alcoholic. This current study suggests that not only is the risk for mortality in the same category as these well-known risk factors, it also surpasses health risks associated with obesity.

Published on

The last few years have been brutal for those unemployed and having trouble finding employment. Some recent studies highlight how devastating being laid off and unemployed is to one's mental and physical health.

From Science Daily: Stress markers in unemployed linked to poor health

It appears that stress markers in unemployed people can be found, independent of smoking, alcohol consumption and overweight/obesity. Results from a study suggest that long-term unemployment may be especially damaging to health. Authors also note that older job seekers appear more affected than younger counterparts.

Research from the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL suggests direct biological effects of stress during unemployment may help explain the increased mortality and morbidity among job seekers. The study used biological signatures in blood samples called inflammatory markers, which are influenced by stress and are clinically important because mildly raised levels predict atherosclerosis (narrowing of the arteries due to fatty deposits) and heart disease.

From Medical Xpress: One in five suicides is associated with unemployment

Every year, around 45,000 people take their own lives because they are out of work or someone close to them is affected by unemployment, as a study by the University of Zurich now reveals. It includes data of 63 countries and demonstrates that during the 2008 economic crisis the number of all suicides associated with unemployment was nine times higher than previously believed.

Unemployment can drive people to suicide. Numerous studies have demonstrated that there is a relationship between unemploymentand poor health and that (the threat of) losing a job and prolonged unemployment can constitute a serious situation for those affected as well as their relatives...Every year, around one in five suicides is associated with unemployment," says first author Carlos Nordt.

Every year, almost a million people die by suicide worldwide. In order to find out how many suicides are associated with unemployment, the UZH researchers included data from 63 countries between 2000 and 2011 in their study. The countries were divided into four regions: North and South America, northern and western Europe, southern and eastern Europe, and Non-Americas and non-Europe. No data was available from China or India. "Despite country-specific particularities, we found a similarly strong association between unemployment and suicide rates in all four regions," summarises sociologist Nordt. Moreover, a changing unemployment rate affected both sex as well as different age groups equally.

From Medical Xpress: Unemployment changes your core personality, according to study

The psychological damage caused by unemployment is greater than previously thought, according to a study led by researchers at the University of Stirling. Stirling's behavioural scientists have found that unemployment, well-known to cause substantial drops in personal well being, can also cause large changes to a person's core personality.

Personality is typically considered stable across time but the researchers found that the experience of unemployment led to reduced levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness; signifying that individuals lose motivation, become less considerate and sympathetic, and less curious about the world around them. These changes were greater the longer an individual spent unemployed.

Lead researcher Dr Christopher Boyce, from the University of Stirling's Behavioural Science Centre, said: "The results challenge the idea that our personalities are 'fixed' and show that the effects of external factors such as unemployment can have large impacts on our basic personality."

Published on

A large study found that eating nuts or peanuts several times a week is associated with lower death rates, especially from cardiovascular disease. Note that a serving is a small handful or 1.5 ounces of whole nuts or 2 tablespoons of nut butter.

From Science Daily: Peanut consumption associated with decreased total mortality and mortality from cardiovascular diseases

If you're looking for a simple way to lower your risk of dying from a heart attack, consider going nuts. Researchers at Vanderbilt University and the Shanghai Cancer Institute examined the association of peanut and nut consumption with mortality among low-income and racially diverse populations and found that intake of peanuts was associated with fewer deaths, especially from heart disease.

"Nuts are rich in nutrients, such as unsaturated fatty acids, fiber, vitamins, phenolic antioxidants, arginine and other phytochemicals. All of them are known to be beneficial to cardiovascular health, probably through their anti-oxidative, anti-inflammatory and endothelial function maintenance properties," Shu said.

While research has previously linked nut consumption with lower mortality, those studies focused mainly on higher-income, white populations. This study was the first to discover that all races -- blacks, whites and Asians alike -- could potentially increase heart health by eating nuts and peanuts.

This study was based on three large ongoing cohort studies. Participants included more than 70,000 Americans of African and European descent from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS), who were mostly low-income, and more than 130,000 Chinese from the Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS) and the Shanghai Men's Health Study (SMHS).... In total, more than 14,000 deaths were identified, with a median follow-up of 5.4 years in the SCCS, 6.5 years in the SMHS, and 12.2 years in the SWHS.

Peanut consumption was associated with decreased total mortality, particularly cardiovascular mortality (i.e., 17-21 percent reduction in total mortality, and 23-38 percent reduction in cardiovascular mortality for the highest quartile intake group compared to the lowest quartile group) across all three racial/ethnic groups, among both men and women, and among individuals from low-SES groups.

The American Heart Association recommends eating four servings of unsalted, unoiled nuts a week. However, nutrient-rich nuts are also high in calories, so don't eat too many if you're watching your weight. A serving size is a small handful or 1.5 ounces of whole nuts or 2 tablespoons of nut butter.

Published on

A variation of this study - intermittent fasting (one day eat normally, then have a low-calorie day, repeat) has shown to result in health benefits and weight loss. But both versions show that having some low calorie days are beneficial to health. And once again, antioxidants do not have any health benefits. From Science Daily:

Feast-and-famine diet could help extend life, study suggests

University of Florida Health researchers have found that putting people on a feast-or-famine diet may mimic some of the benefits of fasting, and that adding antioxidant supplements may counteract those benefits.

Fasting has been shown in mice to extend lifespan and to improve age-related diseases. But fasting every day, which could entail skipping meals or simply reducing overall caloric intake, can be hard to maintain..."We started thinking about the concept of intermittent fasting.”

Michael Guo, a UF M.D.-Ph.D. student who is pursuing the Ph.D. portion of the program in genetics at Harvard Medical School, said the group measured the participants’ changes in weight, blood pressure, heart rate, glucose levels, cholesterol, markers of inflammation and genes involved in protective cell responses over 10 weeks.“We found that intermittent fasting caused a slight increase to SIRT 3, a well-known gene that promotes longevity and is involved in protective cell responses,” Guo said.

The SIRT3 gene encodes a protein also called SIRT3. The protein SIRT3 belongs to a class of proteins called sirtuins. Sirtuins, if increased in mice, can extend their lifespans, Guo said. Researchers think proteins such as SIRT3 are activated by oxidative stress, which is triggered when there are more free radicals produced in the body than the body can neutralize with antioxidants. However, small levels of free radicals can be beneficial: When the body undergoes stress -- which happens during fasting -- small levels of oxidative stress can trigger protective pathways, Guo said. “The hypothesis is that if the body is intermittently exposed to low levels of oxidative stress, it can build a better response to it,” Wegman said.

The researchers found that the intermittent fasting decreased insulin levels in the participants, which means the diet could have an anti-diabetic effect as well.

The group recruited 24 study participants in the double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. During a three-week period, the participants alternated one day of eating 25 percent of their daily caloric intake with one day of eating 175 percent of their daily caloric intake. For the average man’s diet, a male participant would have eaten 650 calories on the fasting days and 4,550 calories on the feasting days. To test antioxidant supplements, the participants repeated the diet but also included vitamin C and vitamin E.

At the end of the three weeks, the researchers tested the same health parameters. They found that the beneficial sirtuin proteins such as SIRT 3 and another, SIRT1, tended to increase as a result of the diet. However, when antioxidants were supplemented on top of the diet, some of these increases disappeared. This is in line with some research that indicates flooding the system with supplemental antioxidants may counteract the effects of fasting or exercise, said Christiaan Leeuwenburgh, Ph.D., co-author of the paper and chief of the division of biology of aging in the department of aging and geriatric research.“You need some pain, some inflammation, some oxidative stress for some regeneration or repair,” Leeuwenburgh said. 

On the study participants’ fasting days, they ate foods such as roast beef and gravy, mashed potatoes, Oreo cookies and orange sherbet -- but they ate only one meal. On the feasting days, the participants ate bagels with cream cheese, oatmeal sweetened with honey and raisins, turkey sandwiches, apple sauce, spaghetti with chicken, yogurt and soda -- and lemon pound cake, Snickers bars and vanilla ice cream.

Published on

This article raises serious questions about the recently published American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association calculators to predict future cardiovascular events (heart attack, strike, etc) which then give recommendations for who needs to take daily statins while they are still healthy. This calculator (ACC/AHA risk calculator) has sparked much debate because many experts believe it overestimates risk. Now a study that looked at untreated people (MESA) showed that the calculator (as well as 3 other calculators) seriously overpredict the chance of a future cardiovascular event. In other words, many, many healthy people told they "may" have a chance of an event in the future are actually not at risk and so statins would not help them, but may harm them. Remember, all medicines have side-effects. Written by cardiac electrophysiologist Dr. John Mandrola (who has his own blog-site www,drjohnm.org) . From Medscape:

Statins in Primary Prevention: Welcome to the Gray Zone

A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine confirmed something that ought to be obvious: predicting the future is hard—especially when it comes to cardiovascular events.

We know cardiovascular disease is the number-one killer of humans; we know its first manifestation is often heart attack, stroke, or death; and we know all medical therapy comes with trade-offs. Medical treatment of healthy people in the name of preventing something that may or may not happen in the future is dicey. Think do no harm. That is where risk prediction comes in. You have to know the odds of something (or nothing) happening without treatment. The gamble of statins and aspirin, for instance, looks most favorable in patients who are most likely to have an event.

 But where to draw that line, at what future risk is it worth taking a chemical, is the issue at hand. The extreme cases are easy. Most everyone agrees that statins and aspirin provide enough benefit in patients who have suffered a cardiovascular event. For secondary prevention, future risk is high, so benefits outweigh harms. It's the opposite in very low-risk patients. The middle ground is not so easy.

Here is where we have to consider the tools—calculators—to predict future risk. We know certain conditions, such as age, gender, blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, biomarkers, family history, and coronary calcium, contribute to future risk. Numerous expert panels, including the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, have compiled different calculators to predict the future. The ACC/AHA risk calculator for atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) has sparked debate because many experts believe it overestimates risk.

Dr Andrew DeFillippis (University of Louisville, KY) and a team of Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) coinvestigators used this community-based, sex-balanced, multiethnic cohort to compare the calibration and discrimination of the new ASCVD risk score with alternative risk scores.They compared the observed and expected events for the ASCVD score with three Framingham-based scores and the Reynolds risk score in 4227 MESA subjects aged 50 to 74 years over a 10-year follow-up. Using this real-world population, they found four of the five risk scores overestimated risk. Calibration was worse in men: overestimates ranged from 37% to 154%. In women, three of four scores overestimated risk by 46% to 67%, and the Reynolds Risk score underestimated risk by 21%. 

It's worth saying this another way: when the ACC/AHA ASCVD score predicted event rates of 7.5 to 10%—a range deemed above the statin-benefit cutoff—the actual events were just 3%.

Speaking by phone (we live in the same city), lead author Dr DeFillippis explained to me the important business of looking only at untreated patients. He described their sensitivity analysis, which excluded all patients who received aspirin or any lipid-lowering or antihypertensive drug. To lessen the chance of bias, they analyzed this drug-free group of 790 patients separately and found the same overprediction.The authors concluded that if these findings are validated, overestimation of ASCVD risk may have substantial implications for individual patients and the healthcare system.

On that modern theme, Dr DeFillippis made an interesting point to me about the overall best-performing Reynolds Risk score. He noted the Reynolds score uses genetics (family history) and CRP (inflammation) levels to predict the future. Bookmark that for the future—genetics and inflammation, that is.

These findings have major implications. Drugs are not free. Aspirin and statins come with side effects and dollar costs. The patient who takes these drugs in hopes of preventing future events makes the gamble that the costs are worth the benefit. Policy makers who recommend these drugs expose millions of people to a therapy that turns on delicate balance between future benefit and harm.

The final point to make is that the use of statins and other drugs for the prevention of future events is not a doctor's or professional society's decision. The human being who swallows a drug must ultimately decide whether the gamble is favorable.

Published on

I am starting to read more and more negative comments from physicians and researchers about the big pharma and medical society recommendations for treating currently healthy people with statins in the hope it may prevent a cardiovascular event in the future. Many point out that statin health benefits are overstated while negatives and side-effects have been minimized. Many are pointing out that instead of statins, there should be recommendations for lifestyle changes, such as reducing weight, increasing exercise, not smoking, reducing stress, and cutting back on alcohol consumption. After all, these lifestyle changes ONLY have positive effects, and zero negative side effects. From Medical Xpress:

Safety and life-saving efficacy of statins have been exaggerated, says USF scientist

Hailed as miracle drugs when they hit the market two decades ago, statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to prevent heart attacks, are not as effective nor as safe as we have been led to believe, say Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and an expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

According to Diamond and Ravnskov, statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but they have "failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes." They further state that the many studies touting the efficacy of statins have not only neglected to account for the numerous serious adverse side effects of the drugs, but supporters of statins have used what the authors refer to as "statistical deception" to make inflated claims about their effectiveness.

Their paper is an analysis of the data in the statin trials which led them to conclude that "statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are 'wonder drugs,' when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects."

The paper also describes how the basis of the deception is in how authors of the statin studies present the rate of beneficial and adverse effects. The effect of the drugs on the population is called the 'absolute risk,' which has shown that statins benefit only about 1% of the population. This means that only one out of 100 people treated with a statin will have one less heart attack. Statin researchers, however, don't present the 1% effect to the public. Instead they transform the 1% effect using another statistic, called the "relative risk," which creates the appearance that statins benefit 30-50% of the population. The exaggeration of beneficial effects of statin treatment was illustrated in their analysis of a subset of statin studies, including the Jupiter Trial (Crestor), the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA), and the British Heart Protection Study.

"In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point," said Ravnskov and Diamond.... there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group. The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk.

The adverse effects suffered by people taking statins are more common than reported in the media and at medical conferences" explains Diamond and Ravnskov. According to the authors, "Increased rates of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairments and musculoskeletal disorders more than offset the modest cardiovascular benefits of statin treatment."

The authors emphasized that low cholesterol levels related to statin use have frequently been associated with an increased risk of cancer. They also noted that most statin trials are terminated within two to five years, a period too short to see most cancers develop. Nevertheless, studies have shown a greater incidence of cancer in people who take statins, and one long-term study demonstrated a dramatic increase in the incidence of breast cancer among women who had used statins for more than 10 years.

They emphasized that the public needs to be wary of conflicts of interest in the medical community and pharmaceutical industry when it comes to touting the benefits of statins and skewing the data in such a way as to make the drugs seem more effective at lowering cardiovascular disease and heart attack risks than they may actually be.

The authors advocate other health beneficial strategies that are known to reduce cardiovascular risk, such as cessation of smoking, weight control, exercise and stress reduction. They also emphasized the great value of a low carbohydrate diet for normalizing all of the biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, with excellent outcomes, especially for people with type 2 diabetes.

Published on

Once again "conventional medical wisdom" is shown to be wrong. My big question - why has it taken so long to find out what is NORMAL for women?  From NY Times:

Up to 14 Years of Hot Flashes Found in Menopause Study

Conventional wisdom has it that hot flashes, which afflict up to 80 percent of middle-aged women, usually persist for just a few years. But hot flashes can continue for as long as 14 years, and the earlier they begin the longer a woman is likely to suffer, a study published on Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine found.

In a racially, ethnically and geographically diverse group of 1,449 women with frequent hot flashes or night sweats — the largest study to date — the median length of time women endured symptoms was 7.4 years. So while half of the women were affected for less than that time, half had symptoms longer — some for 14 years, researchers reported.

Over all, black and Hispanic women experienced hot flashes for significantly longer periods than white or Asian women. And in a particularly unfair hormonal twist, the researchers found that the earlier hot flashes started, the longer they were likely to continue. Among women who got hot flashes before they stopped menstruating, the hot flashes were likely to continue for years after menopause, longer than for women whose symptoms began only when their periods had stopped.

In this study, only a fifth of cases started after menopause. One in eight women began getting hot flashes while still having regular periods. For two-thirds of women, they began in perimenopause, when periods play hide and seek but have not completely disappeared.

In numerical terms, women who started getting hot flashes when they were still having regular periods or were in early perimenopause experienced symptoms for a median of 11.8 years. About nine of those years occurred after menopause, nearly three times the median of 3.4 years for women whose hot flashes did not start until their periods stopped. Hot flashes, which can seize women many times a day and night — slathering them in sweat, flushing their faces — are linked to drops in estrogen and appear to be regulated by the hypothalamus in the brain.

Researchers found significant differences between ethnic groups. African-Americans reported the longest-lasting symptoms, continuing for a median of 10.1 years — twice the median duration of Asian women’s symptoms. The median for Hispanic women was 8.9 years; for non-Hispanic whites, 6.5 years. Reasons for ethnic differences are unclear. “It could be genetic, diet, reproductive factors, how many children women have,” Dr. Avis said.The study also found that women with longer-lasting symptoms tended to have less education, greater perceived stress, and more depression and anxiety.