Low Cholesterol's Cancer Link Illustrates Innate Intelligence

Oh boy, here we go...so you know that I'm not shy about discussing my health. I've got nothing to hide, and I approach my health from a very proactive position. I also have a belief system that is integral to how I care for my health--I know that one day I am going to die, could be tomorrow, but for me to experience my life to the fullest today, I am quite certain that it requires me to care for my body as one of my most valuable assets. So I don't obsess about "never getting sick," I just treat my body like I love it, and I trust that it knows--through its innate intelligence--how to run my body, provided I treat it in the right ways. Simple.

So long-time readers of this blog will recall that I have high cholesterol. Have I ever been worried about it? No, never. Not even a little. In fact, I just had my annual physical in February. Once again, stellar health, thank you, thank you...athlete's numbers...'cept I have high cholesterol.

If you've been following my story, you'll recall that my doc (love him, bless his heart...and I mean that sincerely; he is the greatest) has, of course, recommended I go on statins. Now I've got my inner theories about it, regarding liability and stuff like that, but whatever...he knows I'm not going to take them. It's simple: my HDL levels ("good" cholesterol) are above and beyond excellent. My total cholesterol to HDL ratio is at the "optimum" level. Ha ha ha...I'm in the absolute lowest risk category for heart disease: I'm not taking statins!

And my doctor knows this. I saw the perplexed look on his face when I pointed out those values to him (I guess that's not the typical presentation of his high cholesterol patients). Shrugging it off, he still recommended the statins (and has every year for the last four). Sigh...

Okay, here's the point of this piece: A recent study has shown that low levels of LDL ("bad") cholesterol, in the absence of cholesterol lowering medications, has a strong link to cancer. What?! That's right, and although we've known of this link for a long time (30+ years), this study was the first ever look at the low LDL-cancer link over an extended period of time (~19 years), and only in patients with no history of taking cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The results showed a couple things. One, the link cannot be due to taking statins since all subjects were statin-free throughout the study, and two, low cholesterol cannot be a byproduct of the cancer itself, since low LDL levels were observed well before any preclinical signs of cancer were present. In other words, statins don't cause cancer, and cancer doesn't cause low cholesterol. That we know.

What we don't know is what the connection is. Hmmm.... Well let me give it a try: I believe that the body has an internal wisdom, an Innate Intelligence, that directs its operation. I believe this system is flawless. The body knows what to do at all times, and provided with the right fuel (whole, natural foods), necessary movement, proper bodywork and tension relief, adequate rest, adequate hydration, full, deep abdominal breath and minimal toxins, it will continue to operate flawlessly until it expires (which it will also do flawlessly).

However, too many people do not observe the natural laws of health--they eat poorly, fail to exercise regularly, ignore bodywork until they are in so much pain they can't stand it, get little rest, drink too many sodas and not enough water, breathe shallowly from their chest, and take multiple drugs and other toxins, and so, yeah...their Innate Intelligence get severely challenged and fatigued; or it can only do the minimum with the resources it is given and becomes overloaded.

Further, we have a medical science that believes its own limited observations are the whole to the puzzle, and it make erroneous conclusions based on this small, piece-wise information, and yet it still believes it knows how to run the body better than Mother Nature does. And then we find out later that there is, in fact, more to the puzzle. You don't say...?

But taking all the above points into consideration: Somehow, when LDL cholesterol is disrupted from one of its many functions--that is, when it's in too low of concentration--leads to cell overgrowth, or cancer. Thus, not that statins, by lowering cholesterol, will cause cancer, but instead, perhaps this medical campaign to reduce cholesterol at all costs is an erroneous one. Perhaps the body produces what it needs (cholesterol can be both endogenous [created within] and exogenous [recieved from without]), and putting everybody on statins, particularly those with stellar numbers in all other health measurements, is just plain foolish.

No medical doctor or pharmaceutical researcher will ever know human physiology better than the human body does. Why the arrogant medical scientific (?) machine believes that it understands what cholesterol levels should be better than the body does is completely perplexing to me. If we were simply talking about a few hundred thousand people on statins because they have super-dangerously high levels that puts them at severe risk of heart disease, then...okay, I would understand. But to have tens of millions of Americans on these useless and dangerous cholesterol lowering drugs is purely idiotic.

So once again I have to believe it all comes down to three things--money (pharmaceuticals), liability (doctors protecting their asses) and job protection (medical professionals making sure they do not become obsolete). That's the reality behind the cholesterol-statin push in the western world. I'm sure that's why my doctor recommends statins to me despite my excellent health, I'm sure it's why statins are called "the best selling drugs of all time," and I'm sure it will continue until the next blockbuster drug addressing normal physiology comes along to take it's place. Shouldn't be too far off--stay tuned.

New Warning on Statins

Well, well, well...didn't I just say so? Looks like statins--those mega-popular cholesterol lowering drugs pushed by every general practitioner in existence--are getting new safety warnings about risks of memory loss and elevated blood sugar. You don't say? Why yes, looks like the ol' magic-bullet is being knocked down a notch or two, and with good reason.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that it's making labeling changes to the statin drugs--like Lipitor, Crestor, and Zocor--that will warn of memory loss and confusion reported among certain patients taking statins. Although the feds reassure us that the brain effects are not permanent--apparently going away with discontinuation of the drug--still they find it best to label the drugs to warn us of the potential for waking up in Niagara Falls with no recollection of how we got there. Doh!

Further, the updated labels will also mention elevated levels of blood sugar, associated with diabetes, that have been reported in some patients taking statins. Wait...early onset Alzheimer's-like symptoms and diabetes?! Wow, get some right away...thanks doc. Yes, although the increased risk is small, an increasing number of studies is showing it's there nonetheless.

Cardiologists, however, are sticking to their guns, stating that the benefits of statins outweigh the risks. "Patients should not see this as a new danger with the drugs, but as a known abnormality that appears in blood testing and should be discussed with their doctor," said Dr. Kevin Marzo, chief of cardiology at Winthrop-University Hospital in New York. He goes on to say that he doesn't see the new warnings making much of a dent in how (read: how much) the drugs are prescribed.

Okay well this much we can assume, doctor; but let me paint a more complete picture for the generally trusting public. What cardiologists mean when they say "the benefits of statins outweigh the risks" pertains to a certain demographic, in reality a minuscule fraction of the tens of millions that are currently taking the drugs. Remember from a 2008 post on statins, the number needed to treat (NNT) for even one person to receive benefit from statins is 100. So in other words, for every person receiving benefit, 99 do not; or in bigger numbers: 9.9 million of every 10 million people on statins gets NO BENEFIT!

So what they really mean is the best ways to lower heart disease risk are (in descending order):

• Lifestyle modification including exercise, healthy diet, omega 3 fatty acid consumption, healthy vitamin D levels, healthy gut microbiota
• Statins + lifestyle modifications
• Statins
• Doing nothing

What cardiologists assume (and for some people correctly) is that many patients will do nothing. But that's not you, right? No need to assume the risks associated with statins. Do the right things and you won't have to, no matter how much your medical drug dealer pushes.

Caloric Restriction Without Malnutrition

Caloric restriction without malnutrition--heard of it?  Caloric restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON) or the Longevity Diet--these are all terms for the practice of reducing calories over the long-haul, and some studies have shown it to be beneficial in terms of aging and longevity. The practice has been shown to improve age-related health and to slow the aging process in a wide range of animals and some fungi. Pretty cool, huh?

While still inconclusive as to whether long-term caloric restriction can do the same for humans, results so far have been promising. Take a recent study, for example, that has shown caloric restriction improved heart function in obese people with type 2 diabetes.  The study analyzed the heart function and pericardial fat (too much can harm the heart) of fifteen obese people with type 2 diabetes before and four months after they started consuming a 500-calorie-per-day diet.

Age matched monkey (right) on caloric restriction

Four months after the participants began the low-calorie diet, average BMI fell from 35.3 to 27.5 (statistical obesity begins at a BMI of 30), and pericardial fat decreased from 39 milliliters (ml) to 31 ml.  And diastolic heart function also improved, which is a key measure in preventing congestive heart failure (CHF).

Although the BMI rose slightly when the study participants resumed their regular diets (after 14 month follow up), but interestingly, the pericardial fat stayed low.  Said  lead author Dr. Sebastiaan Hammer of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands:

"Our results show that 16 weeks of caloric restriction improved heart function in these patients. More importantly, despite regain of weight, these beneficial cardiovascular effects were persistent over the long term."

Interesting results these latest findings. Although I advocate no particular diet for people trying to lose weight other than eating whole, natural foods at moderate portions, I am a big proponent of caloric restriction as a lifestyle habit. Let me explain. I think that in the western world, as a rule, we all eat more than we really need to. Restaurant portions are generally huge, and all you can eat buffets are way too popular (at least in the U.S.). In fact, during a recent trip to Las Vegas, it was not lost on me that the longest line I saw for any event over a three day period was to the all-you-can-eat-buffet.

So in that regard, I am certain that we would all benefit, regardless of our size, from caloric restriction. Eating causes free radicals, and these lead to aging. Eating in moderation, obviously, decreases the amount of free radicals our bodies need to neutralize, which in turn decreases our risk of developing degenerative diseases.  The top three killers in the U.S.--heart disease, cancer, stroke--are degenerative diseases.

So although I am trying not to jump to any conclusions here, but when I see a life principle that's true over a wide range of living organisms, I start to think universality. Essentially I believe that eating just enough to live, with an emphasis on good nutrition, is probably the best path toward longevity and natural anti-aging.

Vitamin D Supplementation VERY Effective

More evidence showing the dangers of vitamin D insufficiency, as a large new study shows that people with low blood concentrations of the vital nutrient are at an increased risk for dying of any cause. Any cause? Yes, and even more startling was that by boosting low levels with vitamin D supplementation cut peoples' risk of dying by half.

According to the latest study, which looked at 10,899 patients at the University of Kansas Hospital, found that 70% were deficient in vitamin D and they were at significantly higher risk for a variety of heart diseases, including. D-deficiency also nearly doubled a person's likelihood of dying, whereas correcting the deficiency with supplements lowered their risk of death by 60%.

Rickets

These numbers highlight previous research that has shown many North Americans to have insufficient blood levels of vitamin D. Rickets due to vitamin D deficiency has been well understood for many years, but how much D levels play in overall health and well-being is just becoming to be understood more fully. Levels under 30 ng/ml are below what's necessary for good health.

According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 25-57% of adults are vitamin D insufficient, and other studies have suggested the number is as high as 70%.  Cardiologists from the University of Kansas study found that people with deficient levels of vitamin D were more than twice as likely to have diabetes, 40% more likely to have high blood pressure and about 30% more likely to suffer from cardiomyopathy (diseased heart muscle) than people without D deficiency.

"We expected to see that there was a relationship between heart disease and vitamin D deficiency; we were surprised at how strong it was," said Dr. James L. Vacek, a professor of cardiology at the University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center.

"It was so much more profound than we expected."

Vacek believes that so many people are deficient because we should get 90% of our vitamin D from the sun and only 10% from food. We need sunlight to make vitamin D in our bodies, so 20 minutes per day minimum exposure is necessary to maintain proper blood levels. With the fear of skin cancer looming, many have taken to using sunscreens to reduce sun exposure. 

Experts say that in the Northern United States and Canada the sun isn't strong enough during winter months to make sufficient vitamin D, even if the weather was warm enough to expose the skin for a long time. To combat this, adults should get their vitamin D levels checked by their doctors and take vitamin D supplements. 

This study comes at an opportune time as many in the medical field have dismissed previous vitamin D research as inconclusive, particularly the role supplements can play in a return to health from those deficient. I have wondered why so many doctors and medical policy stiffs have been so adamant at denying the research results on vitamin D, and the only thing I can think of is they just despise being wrong. I don't think its a pharmaceutical conspiracy like many tend to, but hanging on to old beliefs is the only way I can make sense of  the blindness in light of some pretty solid data. I mean I can understand skepticism, but previous studies have been fairly well done, and they are vast in number. 

I just think the old guard will never accept that they were wrong about supplementation from the start, no matter how well-intentioned they might have been; and I think many are wrong to advocate minimal sun exposure for the masses. Some increases in skin cancer can be from chronic pharmaceutical use, particularly those that are immunosuppressive. 

It was easy to blame the sun, but that was also wrong. The sun is the most life-giving source in the solar system. Avoiding it is just unwise. This latest vitamin D study is simply more evidence supporting the principle.

Spirituality and Health

Tempest Milky Way from Randy Halverson on Vimeo.

Today I would like to discuss an oft-overlooked aspect of health: Our connection to something bigger than ourselves.  Yes, I am a spiritualist--I believe in God.  Maybe not in the way of some organized religions, but I am convinced that the universe is a part of a grand order, of which we are bound in our physiology, and thus our health.

I'm not going to necessarily discuss the universal order as it pertains to physiology and health here.  Instead I am going to touch on a few points on spirituality and health, as well as encourage you to watch the beautiful video above to witness the magnificence of the universe from our earthly perspective, and hope you realize it is all much bigger than even this.

• Studies show that people practicing any type of mainstream faith actually live longer (more here)
• "Lack of religious involvement has an effect on mortality that is equivalent to 40 years of smoking one pack of cigarettes per day" ~ Dr. Harold Koenig of Duke University Medical Center
• People that practice spirituality have lower incidences of drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide and family violence
• Meditation, prayer, and participation in devotional services reduce feelings of depression and anxiety significantly
• Meditation lowers the risk of heart disease (among other conditions)

Health is directly related to our connections to a greater source.  Whether real or psychological is irrelevant to our discussions here--all I wish to point out is the improvement to physical health when spirituality is believed/practiced/observed.

If we can put aside for one minute our politics, our illusions, our human drives, and our emotional oscillations to just witness the beauty of the all, if only for just this one needle-point view of the grandness offered by the accompanying video, then I am certain we can all catch a glimpse of what we truly are.  THIS is the source of health, and it's a confirmation that we can all have optimal health if we are in touch with the source.  That's my belief anyway.

There's Always Sumptin'

No free ride--dang!  There never seems to be something for nothing.  Always a cost, always a price.  Anyway, now it looks like a popular blood pressure medication may raise cancer risk.  You mean I can't eat what I want, neglect exercise, or indulge in type-A behavior at any time I want, and then just take a magic little pill that'll make everything all right?  Whuh?

According to a recent analysis of five previous studies following about 60,000 patients, researchers found a link between taking angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer.  ARBs are taken by millions of people worldwide for conditions like high blood pressure, heart problems and diabetic kidney disease.  Researchers found that people taking these meds had a one percent higher risk of developing a whole range of cancers, including prostate, breast and a noticeable spike in lung cancer.  About 85 percent of the people in the studies were on telmisartan, sold as Micardis, made by Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.

Although the individual risk is modest, the wide numbers of people taking these drugs means that the overall cancer numbers worldwide should increase due to ARB use.  It is unknown at this time if the cancer risk is reduced following discontinuation of the drugs.

Of course, Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., makers of the drug Micardis, dispute the results, claiming their hypertension drug is one of the most-studied in the world.  The company claimed in a statement that it had "internal safety data" contradicting the recent study. According to studies run by the pharmaceutical company, there was no link between increased cancer risk and Micardis.  Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Lead author of the study, Dr. Ilke Sipahi, warned patients not to stop taking their drugs, and recommended they consult their doctor if they were concerned.  However, he does say that he now thinks twice before prescribing ARBs himself.  Nevertheless, for some people that can't handle the side-effects of some of the other hypertension drugs, the risk of dying of stroke or heart disease far outweigh those of developing cancer.

Well, let me interject my two-cents.  Hypertension comes in two flavors, primary and secondary, the former being due mostly to lifestyle behaviors, the latter secondary to other causes, many hormonal.  85 percent of people with high blood pressure have the primary type.  I hope you see where I'm going.  If you handle your own lifestyle modification, take things into your own hands, why...you could lower your blood pressure and avoid the increased risk of developing cancer by using and ARB, like Micardis.  Go figure.

Here are a few simple tips to lowering blood pressure:

• Get adjusted--studies have shown chiropractic care can reduce blood pressure by 17mmHg systolic and 10mmHg diastolic*
• Lose weight--obesity increases blood pressure; the heart has to work harder to pump through the fat
• Reduce sugar intake--yeah, I know it's hard, I live it every day; so what, do it anyway; sugar is a killer
• Reduce salt intake--this decreases blood pressure in about 33% of people
• Quit smoking and reduce or quit drinking alcohol--I know, I know, but just so you know, both increase blood pressure immediately
• Learn to handle your stress--stress is a necessary part of life; however, putting things into balanced perspective is essential (don't know how? contact me)

Blood pressure medications are supposed to be prescribed after lifestyle changes have been modified.  But you know as well as I do that, like pretty much all medications in our arsenal, they are prescribed first and immediately, with lifestyle behaviors touched only obligatorily with the five second, "Oh, and you should probably lose weight and quit smoking," line your doctor says as he hands you your scrip and walks out the door.

Listen, don't rely solely on your doctors.  They are overworked, and they know that most people won't comply with suggestions on lifestyle changes (although this is not entirely true, it is a belief of the average medical doctor).  Be good to yourself, take your health into your own hands.  The results are yours and yours alone.  Trust me, there's never something for nothing.  Nobody can do your exercises for you, and there is no such thing as a magic bullet.  Don't worry, it'll be worth all the hard work.

*Thank you Dr. Tim Swift, best chiropractor in San Clemente, for the reminder of my obvious oversight.

Boredom Can be Deadly

Bored to death? Don't take it lightly. New research shows that boredom can actually have a negative effect on your health. In fact, the research suggests that the more bored you are, the more likely you are to die early.

A epidemiological study carried out at University College London looked at more than 7,500 London civil servants from 1985-1988 and asked if they had felt bored at work during the previous month. The researchers tracked down all participants that had died by April 2009 and found that those that had reported feeling bored were 2.5 times more likely to have died from heart problems than those that had not reported feeling bored.

Although the correlation was reduced when researchers corrected statistically for other risk factors like physical activity levels, the connection between boredom and dying was still significant.

"Someone who is bored may not be motivated to eat well, exercise, and have a heart-healthy lifestyle. That may make them more likely to have a cardiovascular event," said Dr. Christopher Cannon, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and spokesman for the American College of Cardiology.

Hmm, could be doctor, could be. But I think that life thrives as we have a purpose driving us. Once that purpose diminishes, life starts to dwindle. It's not uncommon for people to die shortly after retiring--there are studies documenting it. Why? Because if you find purpose in work, a sense of usefulness, then you have something to get up for every morning, a driving force if you will. When that drive goes, well...you go. Now no doubt, some people find purpose in other things like family, home, recreation, whatever. But as a way to understand why boredom can lead to heart disease and death, well it makes sense to me.

So do what you love and have a purpose behind it. If you can't find a purpose in your day to day life, you might just be ready to move on to the next experience.

Sitting Duck

Hey you! Yeah...you. Don't be a sitting duck. Get off your a$$ and move around. Sitting for too long can get you killed, literally. Several studies suggest that prolonged sitting can cause obesity, heart disease and even death. And let's not forget hemorrhoids.

According to an editorial published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, physical activity is not enough--sitting too long causes the genes that regulate glucose and fat in the body start to shut down. Whether the sitting is done in a classroom, a car, or in front of the T.V. or computer is inconsequential. What matters is time.

In a Canadian study published last year, 17,000 people were followed for twelve years: Those that sat the most had a higher death risk, independent of whether they exercised or not. Holy hematochezia! That means...aw man, I'm in trouble.

I'm not the only American needing to worry: A 2003-2004 U.S. survey found that Americans spend more than half their time sitting, from working at their desks to sitting in cars. Although preliminary, these studies point out the dangers of taking too much of a load off.

Well, I must say I'm truly listening to this one. Although I am a highly active person, I also sit a lot. And the results of these preliminary studies make sense to me. The human body is made to move--movement is a part of our very survival. Not in just the obvious way as a means of catching food or escaping predators, but as a way to detect changes in the environment. Our moving parts have receptors--sensory devices that sense the world around us. When these are not used (through movement) regularly, the function of the body is disrupted. Chiropractors know this; we do are part to keep these moving parts moving through adjusting subluxations (stuck joints). But actual movement also need to be carried out. Sitting on your rump is not movement.

So if you want to win the lottery, you've gotta buy a ticket. And if you want to get the most out of your movable body, well you figure it out. But may I suggest you not be a sitting duck?

I Retract

Last month I wrote a post on the "Cheat Death" marketing campaign for POM--the pomegranate juice. I said I thought the advertisement was going a little far in their claims. I have since learned something about pomegranates in general, and the juice specifically, that is leading me to retract that post.

Here's what I found out: Drinking three ounces of pomegranate juice every day reduced thickening of blood vessels (particularly the tunica intima layer) in people with severe carotid artery stenosis. The effects were cumulative, so that the longer study subjects drank pomegranate juice, the greater the effects. See the details here.

Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the blood vessels that carry blood to the brain. As the lumen of the arteries gets smaller, less blood can get through to the brain over time, and blood pressure increases as a result. High blood pressure can lead to heart disease or stroke--the two leading killers in the U.S.

If drinking pomegranate juice decreases blood vessel narrowing, which in turn lowers the risk of heart disease and stroke, then it does, in fact, cheat death. Thus, POM's advertisement claiming such is...well, correct. I was wrong, they were right.

So here's what I'm going to do in retribution. I've committed to drinking 3 oz. of POM pomegranate juice every day--for one year! One 16 oz. bottle costs $5.69, so my total cost for the year will be $389.41--a small price to pay for good health...and for passing false information. I'll let you know how the experiment goes.

Expressed Marital Discord is Bliss

Sleeping on the couch tonight? Not speaking to Mr. Right? Don't worry: that fight you and your spouse got into last night is actually good for your health. That is, if you don't hold it in, but instead let your feelings be known. So says a new study tracked 192 couples over a 17 year period.

Researchers at the University of Michigan looked at how suppressed anger and feelings of resentment in a marriage affect overall mortality rates. They found that couples that suppress their anger--that is, neither spouse stood up for themselves during a spat--had twice the mortality rate than couples with at least one partner who let loose. Previous studies have shown that suppressing anger increases stress-related illnesses like heart disease and high blood pressure. Ernest Harburg, lead author of the current study said, "The key matter is, when the conflict happens, how do you resolve it? If you bury your anger, and you brood on it and you resent the other person or the attacker, and you don't try to resolve the problem, then you're in trouble."

Amen Brother! That's why my wife and I deliberately beat the crap out of each other (verbally, Romans, verbally) every month. Good for the health I tell ya. I've always said: Hold on to that anger and you're just asking for a heart attack, or cancer, or something like that. Pent-up anger and resentment forces one to brood, causing chemical cascades like the over-production of cortisol and other chemicals, which can stress the organs and blood vessels. Over time this can lead to heart or vascular disease, and ultimately, premature death.

There's this notion in our current society that anger is "bad". But in truth anger is experienced by every person on the planet at some time or another. When one tries to put forth the illusion that one never gets mad--you know, the classic anger suppressor--then that person is inviting disaster. This doesn't mean that you have to lose your cool at the drop of a hat--diplomacy and civility still have their place in our world--however, if you gotta get it out, then express yourself; you'll certainly feel better, and you might just live longer as a result.

A Case Against Statins

One of the first things doctors learn in rudimentary physiology class is that, when it comes to preventing heart disease, high HDL or "good" cholesterol is more important than low LDL or "bad" cholesterol. In fact, HDL levels are four times greater than LDL levels in their ability to predict the development of coronary atherosclerosis. Basic, basic, basic physiology.

But an interesting thing happens between doctor school and practicing--it's called influence from the outside world. In the case of doctors, that influence often comes from pharmaceutical industry. C'mon Campos, not another evil pharmaceutical industry story (hey, I haven't written one yet, please). No, no--it's more like another example of how we've come to worship outside factors when it comes to our health. Check this one out.

Recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that no matter how much bad cholesterol is lowered in the blood, it's the amount of good cholesterol that still reigns supreme. Yes, the concentration of your HDLs (high density lipoproteins) plays a vital part in preventing cardiovascular diseases, like heart attacks and strokes.

Yeah, so? Well if you haven't heard yet, those hyper-pedastalized miracle drugs known as statins are some of the most prescribed drugs of our day. Statins work by lowering LDL (low density lipoproteins) levels in the blood, and this, it has been promised, will lower our risk of heart disease. Great! Prescribe them like crazy. People don't work out. People don't eat right. Who cares? Give 'em statins. You've got boderline high cholesterol. Statins. You're almost diabetic? Statins. You've seen the cholesterol commercial and you're concerned? Statins.

Statins. Statins. Statins.

Well I've got news for you. You want to lower your risk of cardiovasular disease? You've got to watch what you eat and work out, period. Oh yeah...it'll help if you quit smoking too, but how about just starting with exercise? You see, I've got a real problem with the idea of looking for magic bullets. They are illusions, people--ILLUSIONS! They give false security and false hopes. Nothing in life is free. You've got to work for everything. Exercise. Diet. That's the real answer. Not statins.

OK, I'll be fair. For people who have dangerously high levels of LDLs--if I was their MD--I'd give them statins for a very brief period, and I'd absolutely prescribe heavy doses of lifestyle management (read: nutrition and exercise). But I wouldn't perscribe statins for people with boderline normal cholesterol levels as some Dr. Idiots are recommending (also read this--effin' scary).

According to Dr. Philip Barter of the Heart Research Institute in Sydney, one of the lead authors of the study, "Even when LDL is taken down to very low levels, the kind of levels people say should be the aggressive targets, having a low HDL is still associated with a substantial increase in risk. (emphasis mine)" So, basically, you've got to work to bring your HDL levels up to par. And here's the beauty: It's the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL that really matters (see this brilliant explanation here), where total cholesterol = HDL+LDL. Therefore, HDL+LDL/HDL. So, if you bring up your HDL levels, you don't need statins. Duh.

OK, here's how you can raise your HDL levels--exercise regularly, eat wholesome foods, take essential fatty acids, and moderate your smoking and drinking habits. And you can naturally decrease your LDL levels by decreasing saturated fat intake, maintaining good body composition, increasing dietary fiber, and increasing aerobic exercise. Booyah!

But wait...fugdat. Ain't there a drug I can take, Homey?

Sure Pfizer is working on one. It's called torcetrapib. Oh wait. It killed people in a large drug trial. Oh well--I guess you've gotta work out. Says Barter again: The alternative is to "become lean and become very active. That's probably as effective as anything we have at the moment. But most people who try don't succeed," Barter said. "The biggest frustration is that we don't have the magic bullet like we do for the LDL."

Ah yes, the 'ol magic bullet. Well, keep looking--it's your time, your money, and your health. If you want to believe, then be my guest. But I'll just be over here dancing with the Tooth Fairy.

Sleep or Die!

OK, it's been a while--vacation--but I'm back, so here goes. Research shows that people who do not get adequate sleep are twice as likely to die of heart disease. A 17-year British study looked at 10,000 government workers. Those who cut their sleep from seven hours a night to five or less had two times as much chance of dying of any cause, but especially from heart disease. Although the reasons for this are as of yet unknown, researchers believe it has to do with increased blood pressure, leading to heart attack and stroke, in those consistently robbing the sandman.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times, sleep is absolutely essential to maintaining good health. The importance of this study is that in today's high paced, produce or crumble culture, more and more people are depriving themselves of sleep--and now we know it can kill you.

Hey, I'm the first one to admit that forcing oneself to rest is tough. I know--I run a business, I have a family, I blog!--sometimes, sleep has got to take the back burner. But consistently missing sleep will catch up with you sooner or later. It increases your risk of catching colds or flu. It increases your chances of injuring yourself or having an accident. And it disrupts your mental function and mental capacity significantly. So do yourself a favor: shut off the T.V., say goodnight to your friends, and go to bed--it'll save you a few years of life. Now you know.

More Reasons to Give Up Liquid Sugar

If it ain't enough that sugary drinks (read: soda, diet soda, juice cocktails, and energy drinks) contribute to obesity, a new study shows that they may also increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart and vascular disease, as well as metabolic syndrome - all of which may lead to diabetes and heart disease.
A new study shows that sugary drinks can lead to higher uric acid levels, which, in turn, can lead to disease. It is no surprise that soda is the number one drink Americans choose, even ahead of water, but here go some more interesting statistics. People who drink more than one soda a day have:

• 31% greater risk of becoming obese.
• 30 percent increased risk of adding belly fat.
• 25 percent higher risk of developing high blood triglycerides or high blood sugar.
• 32 percent higher risk of having low HDL (good cholesterol) levels.

And now, as we are learning, higher uric acid levels. Uric acid is the body's natural breakdown product of protein. When blood levels of uric acid are high, it can lead to disorders such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, kidney stones, gout and more.

These conditions don't happen over night, so if you are a soda drinker, you can halt their progression by cutting down or quitting soft drinks altogether. The reality is that soft drinks provide nothing by way of nutrition - and they certainly don't get you drunk - so my question is: Why?

"Well they taste good."

They taste good?

"Yeah. They taste good."

Sheesh. At the risk of standing on a pulpit, here. Aren't good tasting things supposed to be occasional treats. We're drinking this stuff more than water. Did you know that without water there would be no life at all? Anywhere?

How can we drink more soda than water? I'm sorry but it's beyond me. Please enjoy a soda now and again, but, well, we all know at least one person who drinks three, four, even six cans of soda per day. Is anybody still perplexed as to why obesity is epidemic in this country? Still scratching your heads over America's world health rankings? I promise you'll be hearing more about soda's ill effects on health in the years to come. But fear not Coca-Cola shareholders - soft drink companies will not be going out of business anytime soon. Heavens no. They've already firmly established themselves in the next big market - bottled tap water. Stay tuned for more.

It's Never Too Late

It's never too late to start thinking about your health. So says a group of researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina. Adopting healthy lifestyle habits, even in middle age, can decrease one's risk of developing heart disease and premature death.

A study has shown that by practicing healthy habits - eating five or more fruits and vegetables every day, exercising for at least 2 1/2 hours a week, keeping weight down and not smoking - the risk of developing heart disease decreased by 35% and premature death by 40%. Researchers began tracking 16,ooo Americans between the ages of 45 and 64 in the late 1980s, and they found that people who did not practice healthy habits in the beginning of the study, but picked them up four years later, caught up to the people who were practicing healthy habits from the start.

No surprise here but according to the article "men, blacks, people with less education and lower incomes, and people with high blood pressure or diabetes were less likely to follow the health guidelines from the beginning or adopt them later in life." I find the same thing in my practice. I just don't understand why men wait so long to take care of themselves. Oh well, you can only lead them to water.

Gotta Eat Grains

There's a misconception among some people that a high protein, low carb diet is best - especially for those trying to remain slim. I've got nothing against low carb diets if they're done for a short period of time to reach a goal, and then transitioned to a more balanced diet. But for some people this type of diet seems to be the Holy Grail.

I delight in bursting this bubble because I am convinced that over the long-haul this diet is just unhealthy. A new study shows that whole grains are important to preventing the thickening of arteries - a precursor to heart disease and stroke - so a balanced diet consisting of carbohydrates, proteins and fats is still the best.

I think that those people touting the high protein, low carb diet have evaluated it relative to a diet high in substandard carbs - french fries, bagels, corn dogs, pringles, Pop-Tarts, Cracker-Jacks...need I go on? Relative to diets high in processed carbohydrates, yeah, high protein, low carb is way better. But let's get serious here.

I've always said that eating a diet rich in whole, natural foods is best. And it's important to fill that diet with whole grains, fruits, vegetables, moderate portions of meat, cheese, fish and eggs, and of course, whole, natural fats and oils (avocados, butter, fish) in moderation. Trying to compare a fad diet to one balanced in junk is not going to lead you down the right road necessarily. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Eat whole, natural foods as you were meant to, and you shouldn't have any problems.