Check out this study.

Researchers found that when “teenage” rats (30-45 days old) consumed massive amounts of sugar, they became extremely difficult to train as adults. For two weeks or so during adolescence, one group of rats had free access to a tasty 5% sucrose solution, while the control group only had water available. Similar to some American teenagers, the experimental group of rats consumed about 20% of their daily caloric intake as simple sugar.

To give you some background, it’s extremely easy to train adult rats to perform simple tasks, such as pulling levers or pressing buttons in return for a food reward. However, the researchers couldn’t motivate the rats that had consumed large amounts of sugar as teenagers to learn the task. My first reaction while reading this paper was: “Big deal. That group of rats just had sugar overload. It no longer had any real value for them, so there was no incentive to learn the new task”.

But here’s where the story gets interesting: if you repeat the experiment, but replace the teenage rats with adult rats, you get strikingly different results. When adult rats have free access to a sugary drink for two weeks, they never lose motivation for the sweet reward, and easily learn the new lever-pull task later in life. So it’s not that rats are simply sick of the sweet reward, but rather, it seems the sweet drink over-stimulated the reward pathway in the brain during adolescent development, leading to problems with motivation in adulthood.

Were the calories in the sugary drink or the sweet taste to blame for hyper-activating the reward circuits in the brain? To answer this, the authors took another group of teenage rats and gave them free access to a drink flavored with artificial sweetener, which has no calories. These rats were also unmotivated and rather difficult to train later in life, so the authors concluded that the sweet taste, but not the sugar itself, was hyper-activating the brain’s reward circuits.

Besides, ahem, crazy neuroscientists writing for health blogs, who cares about lazy rats? Well, the authors argue that a sign of depression in rodents is lack of motivation to perform simple tasks. Given that incidence rates for depression and other psychological illness are increasing in today’s society, it’s interesting to see how seemingly benign events during adolescence — a critical time in brain development — affect the mental state of adult animals.

Tweet This Post

We’ve all heard the mantra: keep LDL levels – the “bad” cholesterol – down, and the “good” HDL cholesterol up. But thanks in part to the ubiquity of statins, such as Lipitor, which allow us to simply pop a pill to limit LDL production in the body, we’ve recently adopted tunnel vision when thinking about managing cholesterol. LDL levels are all we seem to care about now, as we strive for lower and lower numbers at each visit to the doctor’s office.

However, I think we’re missing the bigger picture by focusing solely on LDL. First, it’s made us reliant on medication to solve a problem that can many times be addressed with changes in diet and exercise regimes. Once someone starts Lipitor treatment, they’ll be taking it for life, and if LDL levels don’t quite get as low as they should, it’s all too easy to solve the problem by increasing the dose. When patients first begin Lipitor treatment, physicians typically prescribe the lowest possible amount, 10mg. However, dosing can go as high as 80mg, which begs the question: Do higher doses of the drug really improve outcomes?

Read more…

Tweet This Post

Diets high in simple sugars and refined carbs cause metabolic disorders and Type II diabetes in millions of Americans. But to make matters worse, new evidence suggests that high sugar diets may be even more dangerous than we initially thought.

Having too much excess sugar in the bloodstream is never a good thing, and can lead to medical complications such as kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, and eye problems. But could high blood sugar also cause cancer? A Swedish research team addressed this question by tracking over 500,000 patients for 10-25 yeas, and published their results in the December issue of PLoS Medicine.

Similar to the findings of a study conducted in Korea in 2005, the European research team discovered that having elevated blood glucose levels increased the risk of developing certain types cancer later in life, such as pancreatic tumors in women and liver tumors in men. Not only had more cases of cancer occurred when people had high blood sugar, but the chance of survival also plummeted, especially when the person had cervical, espohageal, or colorectal cancers.

The authors present two theories on why elevated blood glucose levels could cause cancer: 1.) high sugar diets may cause an overproduction of insulin or insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), both of which promote rapid growth of new cells, the catalyzing step to tumor formation. 2.) More glucose in the blood stream could simply be adding fuel to the fire, feeding rogue tumor cells that need lots of energy to run.

Because the studies lacked certain controls, we can’t say for sure whether elevated blood glucose levels cause certain tumors to form. For example, the people with high blood glucose levels may have been sedentary, and so the lack of exercise may be what’s actually increasing the chances of developing cancer. Regardless, this study gives yet another example of unhealthy lifestyles contributing to comorbidity, a topic discussed at length by Thomas in The Decision Tree book.

Tweet This Post

An insightful post by Susannah Fox of the Pew Internet Project called “What’s the Point of Health 2.0″ was stuck in my mind all week.  For the people already living their lives as “e-patients”, the concepts we talk about here at The Decision Tree simply make sense.  They’ll say, “Of course I should track some aspect of my personal health”.  Or, “Why wouldn’t I engage with other people on the internet who have a similar medical condition as me?”  But what about the rest of the people out there?  How can I best convince them of the power of the Health 2.0 movement?

In her post, Susannah said that Esther Dyson helps her understand that even though the Health 2.0 crowd is relatively small right now, these e-patients provide a glimpse of how powerful and interactive health care can become in the future.

For similar reasons, expecting moms give me hope for the future of Health 2.0.  They constantly read up on the latest baby health information.  They post comments on blogs, forums, and social networks, sharing insider tips and trends.   Read more…

Tweet This Post

One morning, a little over a year ago, I woke up with a very sore, and slightly swollen elbow. I remembered that I had cut my arm on a neighborhood bar table while watching a football game with some friends a few days prior, and I wondered if the cut was infected. I made an appointment with my primary care physician, who quickly diagnosed me with bursitis, an inflammation of the fluid-filled sac that pads the elbow. Since I had broken skin, the doctor wisely prescribed clindamycin, an antibiotic, to treat any tissue infection that may have seeped in.

As the hours crept by, the pain in my elbow worsened, until I woke up in the middle of the night with extreme arm pain. I immediately checked the elbow that had been swollen the previous day. The swelling had doubled in size, and the skin was an angry-red color. The following morning, I was back in the clinic, and my doctor started to suspect that this was no ordinary infection on my elbow, and may in fact be a drug-resistant staph infection. Gulp. Nonetheless, he felt confident that the clindamycin should clear it up.

Read more…

Tweet This Post

A smart post by The Sunlight Foundation’s Nancy Watzman has me thinking about what it really means to have access to all of our personal health data. In the past, I’ve myopically viewed personal health data as anything that my body produced, in one way or another, and now sits in my shadowy file at the doctor’s office. Things like X-rays, MRIs, and blood test results. No doubt, I should have access to all of this information.

What about prescription medication? Sure, I can easily make a list of the meds I’m currently taking, or get my doctor to hand this list over if memory fails me. But how much do I really know about these drugs? Most people, myself included, take our doctor’s word when he or she decides to put us on a commonly prescribed medications. For example, let’s say a patient has blood-work that shows elevated LDL cholesterol on two consecutive screenings, comes from a family where cardiovascular disease runs rampant, and was previously unable to regulate cholesterol levels with strict diet and exercise regimes. If the doctor prescribed Lipitor to treat the problem, a patient may not even think twice about taking it. After all, we see commercials for such drugs on our TV, and we flip past their ads in our magazines. Direct-to-consumer marketing by pharmaceutical companies makes drugs familiar and, presumably, safe.

But regardless of what advertisements say, the FDA is ultimately responsible for giving drugs the safety stamp of approval. The decision to approve a drug is based on substantial amounts of preclinical (testing in animals) and clinical (testing in humans) data submitted to the FDA by the drug manufacturer.

Let’s say someone – a doctor, a patient, a concerned citizen – wants to review the data that the FDA uses to approve a drug. If the drug you’re taking was approved after 1998, you can find the FDA’s review documents online. If you’re prescribed an older medicine, you may strike out when trying to find what the FDA has to say about it. The government’s information on drugs approved through 1997 may be released if someone makes a request through the Freedom of Information Act, but the FDA reserves the right to not publish reports if the agency deems the preserved documents are of “poor quality”. In fact, Watzman found that online safety information is missing for 9 of the 25 most commonly prescribed drugs.

For older and newer drugs alike, when the FDA publishes a review online, it’s never in a text-searchable format. Rather, the agency prints the original paperwork, edits with white-out to cover “propriety information”, scans the newly edited document, and finally, posts the altered PDFs online.

Are these edited documents, with words covered with white-out and entire sections omitted, really providing us with useful information? Somewhere along the drug approval process, there has to be a succinct memo that circulates around the FDA headquarters describing the agency’s major findings on a particular drug. Why can’t the FDA publish a simple summary of their findings?

Skeptics may argue that detailed information about a drug already published by pharmaceutical companies in medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) or the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), should suffice. However, there are two problems with the information reported in medical journals. First, most of these journals are not open access, meaning the average consumer cannot access them without paying for the article. Second, many drug companies only publish positive findings, and bury negative results that show less than desirable efficacy or safety.

Watzman’s report is an eye-opening look at what’s wrong with the flow of drug information as it goes from pharmaceutical company to the FDA to the consumer. If pharmaceutical companies are allowed to market directly to consumers, we should demand the right to know what the FDA has to say about the safety of these drugs.

Tweet This Post

I just finished reading Dave Dobbs’ new article in the the December issue of The Atlantic, “The Science of Success”.  Dobbs turns the classic question of Nature vs. Nurture, whether our genes or our environment are the deterministic drivers of our fate, on its head.  Traditionally, those who support “nature” say that our genes are most influential in defining us.  On the other hand, those that support the “nurture” side say that our environment plays a more important role.

Based on new research, Dobbs introduces the idea of two types of people, “dandelions” and “orchids”.  Dandelions can thrive anywhere, despite their environment or upbringing.  Orchids, however, are more temperamental, and require a stable environment to survive.  At first glance, the orchids may seem like a liability, and in fact, they often carry genes that make them susceptible to mood disorders and psychological disease.  The astounding part of Dobbs’ report is that he shows that given the right care, or environment, the orchids don’t just do OK, but far surpass the dandelions in perfomance.  In other words, given the right training, orchids may in fact be destined for greatness.

This finding redefines conditions we typically may have classified as undesirable.  ADHD, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder, are no longer conditions to dread, because given the right training, people with these predispositions may in fact be the true “movers and shakers” in the world.

Please read the full article for yourself.  And, as always, I’d welcome a discussion here…

Tweet This Post

While attending the Institute for the Future’s Health Horizons Fall Conference on Monday, one thing became eminently clear. The 21st century will be the era of brain, the last great scientific frontier. Due to societal shifts, environmental changes, and the fact that we are just living longer, we are poised to see a sharp rise in cases of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The only thing worse than the increasing prevalence of brain disease is the sobering fact that few viable treatments currently exist.

For years, we’ve heard the mantra of behavior change and health. Exercise more and you’ll cut your risk for heart disease and stroke. Eat more fruits and vegetables and you can decrease your risk for colon cancer (or possibly prostate cancer, as discussed in a previous Decision Tree post, “Why Behavior Change is Better Medicine than Drugs”). Could behavior change serve our brain health as well as it did other organs of the body?

Read more…

Tweet This Post

Usually, we think of preventive medicine as a first-person experience, e.g. what we can do to keep ourselves healthy. But preventive medicine includes steps to keep our families healthy as well, as in the case of an elderly relative, or a newborn baby.

My first postdoc stint was in a developmental neuroscience lab at UCSF, where many talented researchers spent years answering questions like, “How do different types of environmental noise affect the development of the auditory system?”. So when a friend of mine sent me a message the other day, asking about using a white-noise generator to stop her crying, colicky baby, some red flags immediately went off in my head. Because I’ve been asked this question several times over the past few months, I decided to post my take here.

There’s been a lot of anecdotal evidence that white-noise calms a crying baby. In fact, some parents swear by the method. But this is a clear case where the science disproves the hype. In 2003, our lab at UCSF published a study in Science Magazine with a striking finding. The auditory system of newborn rat pups, which normally progresses like clockwork, was under-developed after the pups were exposed to white noise compared to animals raised in normal conditions. But why would white noise cause a problem with the development of the brain?

First, let’s look at what happens to the auditory system during normal development. When rats are born, the area of the brain responsible for making sense of sounds, the auditory cortex, undergoes constant changes. Scientists refer to this phenomenon as brain plasticity. Newborns are unique because brain plasticity occurs just by passive exposure to sounds during a very well-defined time in development called the “critical period”, which lasts through several postnatal days in rats. A correlate in humans might be the fact that children learn new languages just by being exposed to sounds, while adults have to spend hours studying, memorizing, and practicing. This developmental period is a crucial time for a newborn, where the brain “sets” itself to efficiently process its native language.

When white-noise was played for the newborn rats, the lab found that the “critical period” remained open indefinitely, which means there was a delay in normal brain development. For this reason, members of the lab were against using white-noise generators on newborn babies. Theories suggest that the white-noise might interfere with a newborn’s ability to grasp its native language, leading to progressive developmental problems.

Even if the results found in rats did not directly carry over to humans, I really feel that you just shouldn’t screw with Mother Nature when it comes to brain development. I’m not a parent, and I can only imagine the empathy, or even frustration, that ensue when a baby is crying hours on end. But using white-noise generators just doesn’t seem like the best answer. Our brains evolved to process biologically- and socially-relevant sounds, and exposing newborns to extremely unnatural sounds seems like an needless gamble.

Tweet This Post

We are excited to let our readers know that all of our posts here at The Decision Tree will now also appear on Medpedia’s News & Analysis site.  Medpedia has created an exciting collaborative health and medical information portal, that seamlessly integrates with patient communities, health-professional networks, and discussion forums.

As one of the blogs featured in their News & Analysis section, our posts, along with posts from some other really fantastic sites, will help Medpedia bring the most relevant health-related information from the blogosphere to its readers.

If you haven’t done so already, head over to Medpedia and check out their site.  Read it, bookmark it, and get involved with it!

Tweet This Post