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

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

A few months ago, a story ran in Wired Magazine that described a noticeable shift in the scientific method, and attributed the change to our ability to produce and store large amounts of data.
Historically, the scientific method was built around a testable theory.  But in the 21st century, theories were becoming obsolete; the data simply spoke for itself.

Data from our bodies is no exception — physiologic data can now be accessed as a real-time data stream thanks to personal health monitors. But does the vast amount of data we get from our bodies make us any healthier? Do we need to collect data 24-hours a day in order to learn something interesting about our health? Is it even feasible to wear these sensors all day, every day?

I am embarking on a new self-tracking experiment to answer these questions (and possibly a few others). For 30 days, I will be using devices such as the Zeo personal sleep coach, the Philips DirectLife activity monitor, the Mio Motiva wristband on-demand heart rate monitor, and the Nike+ sportband. The goal of this study is not to pit one device against another; rather, I want to focus on what the data tells me, and how I can best use it to stay healthy.

I’ll get a blog post up here at least once a week, all the while working on a longer story about the journey that will be released at the end of the month.

Stay tuned. It should be a fun ride…

Tweet This Post

I just wanted to offer a rebuttal to the following tweet that popped up on my stream today:

@GuyKawasaki The reward system actually reduces motivation http://om.ly/MHzl

First, let’s take a look at the cited study.  The experimental groups were defined as:

The children were then randomly assigned to one of the following conditions:

1. Expected reward. In this condition children were told they would get a certificate with a gold seal and ribbon if they took part.
2. Surprise reward. In this condition children would receive the same reward as above but, crucially, weren’t told about it until after the drawing activity was finished.
3. No reward. Children in this condition expected no reward, and didn’t receive one.

While reading this study, we have to ask ourselves: Is a “certificate with a gold seal” really a reward?  Is that what best motivates children?  Do the results of this study conclude that children don’t change their behaviors for rewards, or simply that the reward itself was lame?

Despite what the authors state, small rewards CAN be a powerful impetus for behavior change.  Reward is a staple of behavioral training, and in particular, rewards that release dopamine (e.g. food, sweet beverages, etc.) strongly influence brain plasticity during a training event.  To make a blanket statement on the contrary is dangerous.  Preventable disease is a huge drain on our health care system, and it’s been shown that simple behavior changes like diet and exercise can reduce the burden caused by obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  Just because a child responds in a certain way to a reward of a certificate with a gold star, I don’t think we should abandon the proverbial “carrot” when trying to get people healthy.

Tweet This Post

from: well.blogs.nytimes.com

The afternoon of Day 1 of the Health 2.0 Conference was highlighted by the session, “The Patient is In”.  First up, a video that documented the experiences of a group of people that recently started using patient health tools, such as online health journals that track diet or exercise, support sites for quitting smoking, or home blood test kits.

Read more…

Tweet This Post

Self-tracking is an effective way to change behaviors. That’s the result of a study conducted last year by the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research.

“The more food records people kept, the more weight they lost,” says Jack Hollis PhD, a researcher at KPCHR and lead author of the study published in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. “Those who kept daily food records lost twice as much weight as those who kept no records. It seems that the simple act of writing down what you eat encourages people to consume fewer calories.

“Every day I hear patients say they can’t lose weight. This study shows that most people can lose weight if they have the right tools and support,” says Keith Bachman, MD, a Kaiser Permanente internist and weight management specialist. “Keeping a food diary doesn’t have to be a formal thing. Just the act of scribbling down what you eat on a Post-It note, sending yourself e-mails tallying each meal, or sending yourself a text message will suffice. It’s the process of reflecting on what we eat that helps us become aware of our habits, and hopefully change our behavior.”

The study concluded what proponents of self-tracking have known all along, namely, that monitoring your own actions creates a heightened self-awareness. Sure, fancy new iPhone apps where you track your weight or blood-sugar over time are cool, but self-tracking doesn’t have to go hand-in-hand with technology.

Case in point, on my last visit to my mother’s place, I found a home blood pressure monitor and a piece of paper with scribbled numbers on it sitting on a table in the living room. She told me that she has been tracking her blood pressure every day for the past months, and writing the numbers in her notebook log. I had been tracking my running data for years using elaborate web programs, and complicated sensors. But suddenly I realized that self-tracking doesn’t have to be limited to the tech savvy or early adopters; a pen and a piece of paper will do the trick.

Tweet This Post

It’s ironic that so many advocates for healthy eating are also outspoken gourmands. Alice Waters, the proprietor of Chez Panisse, calls for a “delicious revolution” of low-fat, low-sugar lunch programs. It’s a central dogma of the organic movement that you can be a foodie and a health nut at the same time—that what’s real and natural tastes better, anyway. Never mind how much fat and sugar and salt you’ll get from a Wabash Cannonball and a slice of pain au levain. Forget that cuisiniers have for centuries been catering to our hedonic hunger—our pleasure-seeking, caveman selves—with a repertoire of batters and sauces. Junk foods are hyperpalatable. Whole Foods is delicious. Doughnuts are a drug; brioche is a treat.

Tara Parker-Pope misses the fact that personal choices (i.e. what she calls ‘willpower’) directly affect metabolism.  Numerous studies have shown that exercise and calorie restriction (aka ‘diet’) alter the metabolism of our muscle and fat cells, as well as improve cells’ resistance to insulin.

High-sugar, high-fat foods are hard to resist no matter who you are.  Most of the in-shape people I know have numerous overweight and/or obese relatives.  No, these people weren’t simply handed the better genes, rather they are in-shape because they constantly bust their ass.  They exercise like crazy.  At dessert, they pass up the chocolate cake, and take the fruit cup.  When they’re hungry during the day, they choose a sensible snack as opposed to raiding the company vending machine.  These people are not super-heroes.  They have spouses and kids.  And at the end of a long day they’re tired, just like the rest of us.  So what keeps them going?  Deep down, they know if they stop, they’ll just become another statistic.  So they pass up that extra half hour of sleep to hit the road for a run at the crack of dawn.

Willpower leads to behavior changes which lead to metabolic alterations; they’re not mutually exclusive.  Sure, most dieters will never see the drastic results accomplished by participants of ‘The Biggest Loser’, but Parker-Pope just gave them a reason to not even make the attempt.

As for Engber’s article on Slate, he completely overlooks one not-so-little issue: serving size.  American fast-food and junk food is packaged in ridiculously-sized (and calorie-laden) servings.  I’ll bet the farm that the last time you dined at a gourmet restaurant, the waiter didn’t ask if you would like to ‘Super-Size’ your duck confit entree.

Despite my frustration, I agree with Engber on two points: 1.) a fat-tax on sugary beverages and junk food is not the answer to America’s health woes, and 2.) such a tax would end up hurting the poor more than anyone else.  The differences in price between fresh fruits and vegetables and fast-food/junk-food is really a separate, much larger problem that I’m not going to get into right now.

In both articles, what irks me the most is that we are currently faced with an obesity epidemic.  People really don’t need to read articles that marginalize the behavior changes that science has shown will make us healthier.

Tweet This Post

Making a choice that leads to better health is not always easy.  Otherwise, we would have many more ex-smokers and far fewer holiday pounds to shed.  We would have no need for nicotine gum and patches, or Weight Watcher’s meetings.  So if it’s that difficult, why bother?  For years, physicians have told the American public that reducing your calorie intake, eating a diet low in salt/sugar/saturated fat, and exercising 3-5 days per week will reduce your risk for heart disease and diabetes.  Now, new information has shown that the benefits of a healthy lifestyle are even more far reaching than initially thought — diet and exercise can affect our minds.

About 5-8% of people over the age of 65, and nearly 50% of people in their 80’s, show signs of dementia.  As the baby-boomer generation increases the population of the 55-64 age group in the U.S. from 29 to 40 million by 2014 , and their life expectancy continues to rise, the number of people affected by dementia is poised to increase as well.  Recent studies have shown that regular exercise may prove to be a potent mediator of dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease.  In one study, those who exercised 3 or more days per week had a 32% risk reduction in developing dementia compared to those who exercised less.  Exercise has also been linked in similar studies to moderate cognitive improvements in adults who are at risk for Alzheimer’s Disease, as well as a lower occurrence of vascular dementia.

Recent pre-clinical results have shown that diet is also tied to brain health.  A 2002 study revealed that rats fed a diet high in saturated fat and refined sugar for 2 years exhibited changes in both gene expression in the brain, as well as performance on a memory task (finding its way through a water maze).  This fast-food type diet decreased the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which is a versatile molecule that mediates brain cell formation, function, and survival.  Both BDNF gene expression (mRNA) and BDNF protein production in the hippocampus, an area crucial for short-term memory, were significantly reduced in the animals fed the high-fat and refined sugar diet, compared to those on a low-fat, complex carbohydrate diet.  Although the experiment lasted for 2 years, and the greatest effects were seen at the end of the experiment, changes in gene expression were seen in as little as 6 months after the rats began downing cheeseburgers.  Even more striking, the rats had a significant deficit in the water maze memory task after only 3 months on the high fat/sugar diet, which shows that the “McDiet” led to a change in behavior in the mice.

Nevertheless, the research presented here had limitations.  The studies that looked at the effects of exercise on dementia were conducted in relatively small, non-diverse human populations and were not completely controlled against other “good health” factors that tend to occur when people exercise.  For example, exercisers are much more likely to do other healthy things, such as eating right, quitting smoking, getting quality sleep, or maintaining target weight.  The fast-food diet study was well controlled to show that decreased BDNF was not related to hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity, and changes in activity level — but the results must be taken at face value since it was conducted in rodents, not humans.

So what does all of this mean?  The idea of eating right and getting more exercise is nothing new.  We’ve known for years that changing our health behaviors can stave off heart disease, and potentially let us live longer.  The studies mentioned here really highlight the positive-feedback nature of our actions — behavior changes (diet and exercise) cause physiological and molecular changes in the body, which in turn alter another behavior (memory).  This relationship tells us that our behavior choices no longer only determine life or death, but they also can impact our quality of life.  It’s true that the results don’t make a direct link between diet/exercise and brain health, but rather, a loose correlation between the two that requires further study.  But in my mind, it doesn’t really matter what keeps the brain healthy — my point isn’t that diet and exercise are the end-all cure for disease, but rather, that they are an extremely important part of an overall healthy lifestyle that will allow us to make the most of our golden years.

Tweet This Post