Author Archives: Bob Hansen MD

Unknown's avatar

About Bob Hansen MD

I am a practicing physician, board certified in Anesthesiology and Internal Medicine with Certificate of Special Qualifications in Critical Care. My interests include the effects of lifestyle on health and health care policy.

The Ornish Low Fat Vegetarian Diet, does it work?

Leave a reply

Dr. Dean Ornish has done wonderful research in the area of cardiovascular disease and lifestyle intervention. His study on comprehensive lifestyle intervention (1) is often quoted to support a low fat vegetarian diet as treatment for cardiovascular disease. But his “Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease” included several components that would be expected to improve health and decrease cardiovascular risk independent of a vegetarian diet as will be discussed below.

Let’s review what this study did.

48 patients with diagnosed moderate to severe coronary artery disease were randomized to one of two treatment groups, an “intensive lifestyle change” (ILC) group or a “usual-care” (UC) control group. 28 patients were allocated randomly to the ILC group and 20 were allocated to the UC group. Out of 48 patients starting the study only 35 completed the study,   20 out of 28 in the ILC group completed the study and 15 out of 20 in the UC group completed the study.

The intensive lifestyle change group followed this program:

  • 10% fat whole foods vegetarian diet
  • daily aerobic exercise
  • stress management training (training in and daily performance of meditation and/or yoga)
  • smoke cessation (they quit smoking)
  • group psychosocial support (3 hour group therapy sessions)

At the start of the study only one patient in the ILC group was smoking and she quit. We do not know how many smokers were in the UC group or how many quit. (I consider that a deficiency of this study. Because smoking is such a significant determinant of cardiovascular outcome, details of smoking at start and end of the study for both groups should have been reported)

At the end of five years the intensive lifestyle change group demonstrated an average 3.1% absolute reduction in the coronary artery blockage as measured by coronary arteriograms (or to put it another way, the diameter of the blocked coronary arteries increased by 3.1%). The usual care group (receiving cholesterol lowering statin drugs) showed an average 2.3% absolute increase in the coronary artery blockage (2.3% reduction in diameter). These are not huge changes or differences but they were measurable and statistically significant.

Twenty five total  “cardiac events” occurred in the 28 patients randomized to the intensive lifestyle change group over the five years and 45 cardiac events occurred in the 20 patients randomized to the “usual care” group (receiving cholesterol lowering statin drugs). But this was due to differences in the number of hospitalizations and angioplasties. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of deaths, heart attacks or coronary artery bypass surgeries.

By the end of the study 2 patients in the ILC group had died compared to 1 death in the usual care group but as mentioned above, this difference was not statistically significant.  We do not know how many deaths occurred in the 8 patients who dropped out of the treatment group or in the 5 patients who dropped out of the usual care group, nor do we know any of the other outcomes for the drop-out patients.

So there were no lives saved by the intensive lifestyle change program and no reduction in the number of heart attacks. In fact the ILC group had 2 deaths compared to 1 in the usual care group.

What does this all mean and why has the Ornish Diet attracted so much attention.?

First, I would suggest that the demonstrated benefits (reductions in the number of angioplasties and hospitalizations) are likely explained by the following parts of the lifestyle changes.

  1. stress reduction training and implementation (meditation and yoga)
  2. elimination of manufactured trans-fats from the diet
  3. elimination of unhealthy pro-inflammatory excess omega six fats (vegetable oils) from the diet
  4. elimination/reduction of processed carbohydrates and sugar.

Although the intensive lifestyle intervention included regular exercise the data show no significant difference in times per week or hours per week of exercise at the end of the study between the two groups.

The big difference was in stress management. The ILC group averaged practicing meditation and/or yoga 5 times per week (48 minutes per day) versus less that once per week (8 minutes per day) in the usual care group.

Stress reduction is a major issue in any disease and in particular in cardiovascular disease.

Several studies have demonstrated that the daily practice of meditation  improves immune function, increases telomerase activity, reduces inflammatory markers, and reduces circulating stress hormones (cortisol and epinephrine) independent of dietary changes.
Meditation has also been observed to improve “endothelial function”, the ability of the cells that line arteries to respond to changes in demand. (2,3,4,5,6,7)

Here is a press release from the American Heart Association 13 November 2012. (8)

“African Americans with heart disease who practiced Transcendental Meditation regularly were 48 percent less likely to have a heart attack, stroke or die from all causes compared with African Americans who attended a health education class over more than five years, according to new research published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

Those practicing meditation also lowered their blood pressure and reported less stress and anger. And the more regularly patients meditated, the greater their survival, said researchers who conducted the study at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.”

I believe the major benefit of the interventional program was from the stress reduction and the elimination of three major dietary sources of trouble (trans-fats, excess omega 6 fats from processed-refined vegetable oils, and refined carbohydrates-sugar)

I have already discussed in other posts the problems associated with excess omega 6 fats and refined carbohydrates-sugar relative to cardiovascular risk. (9,10,11)

There is little controversy that elimination/reduction in trans-fats produces benefit. (12,13,14)

All three of these changes were essential to the whole foods approach of the intervention group.

I have also discussed the lack of data to support the contention that saturated fat from animal sources of protein contributes to cardiovascular disease. (15, 16))

I remain a strong proponent of a whole foods diet that includes a variety and abundance of organic vegetables and fruits, nuts, pastured grass-fed meat, fresh wild seafood, free-range organic poultry and eggs from that kind of poultry.  This diet represents the foods we have evolved to eat, free from added sugar, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides. This dietary approach also produces a healthy balance of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acid as well as a significant improvement in the ratio of potassium to sodium.

Stress reduction should be an essential part of our lives and data on this aspect of health will be discussed in future posts. References for this discussion appear below.

Peace,

BOB Hansen MD

REFERENCES:

1. JAMA Network | JAMA | Intensive Lifestyle Changes for Reversal of Coronary Heart Disease

2. Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators.

3. Can meditation slow rate of cellular aging? Cognitive stress, mindfulness, and telomeres.

4. A pilot study of yogic meditation for family dementia caregivers with depressive symptoms: effects on mental health, cognition, and telomerase activity.

5. Meditation Improves Endothelial Function in Metabolic Syndrome, American Psychosomatic Society (APS) 69th Annual Scientific Meeting: Abstract 1639. Presented March 10, 2011.

6. Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation.

7. Adrenocortical activity during meditation.

8. Meditation may reduce death, heart attack and stroke in heart patients | American Heart Association

9. Polyunsaturated fat, Saturated fat and the AHA

10, Lose weight, control blood sugar, reduce inflammation

11. Sugar, a serious addiction

12. The negative effects of hydrogenated trans fats and what to do about them.

13. Trans fats in America: a review of their use… [J Am Diet Assoc. 2010] – PubMed – NCBI

14. FDA to Ban Trans Fats in Foods – US News and World Report

15. saturated fat | Practical Evolutionary Health

16. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

Intestinal Permeability, Food and Disease

2 Replies

In medical school I learned some fundamental concepts about nutrition and digestion that turn out to be wrong. For example, we were taught that proteins in our diet are completely broken down into single amino acids in the gut, then absorbed through the wall of the intestine as individual amino acids. Turns out that not all proteins are completely digested in this manner and that fragments of proteins that are several amino acids long can be absorbed through the gut and enter our blood. Examples of such proteins include wheat gluten and bovine serum albumin (found in cows milk and whey protein) to name a few. The problem with absorbing such nutrients into our bloodstream is that these protein fragments are “foreign” and can be recognized by our immune systems as foreign, triggering an immune (inflammatory) response.

Some peptides (short chains of amino acids) in bovine serum albumin have structural similarity to peptides in human tissues. This foreign protein has been implicated in autoimmune diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Type 1 Diabetes.

Other substances such as bacterial endotoxin similarly can be absorbed into the blood and cause trouble. Endotoxin, also called LPS or  Lipopolysaccharide, is a major component of the outer membranes of certain kinds of bacteria (gram negative bacteria such as E-coli) that live in the  Lumen of our gut. High levels of endotoxin circulating in the blood occur during septicemia and can result in death from septic shock. Lower levels of circulating endotoxin have been demonstrated to contribute to alcoholic and non-alcoholic liver disease, both of which can cause liver failure and death.

Intestinal wall permeability is governed by many factors. There are regulatory proteins that open and close the gaps (tight junctions) between the cells that line the walls of our intestines, thereby allowing more and larger foreign substances to enter our blood. This mode of entry is referred to as “paracellular” since it does not involve the usual absorption mechanism through the walls of the cells that line the intestines.

Substances regularly consumed by Americans known to increase intestinal permeability include gluten (the sticky protein found in wheat, barely, rye, oats), alcohol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs  like ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil), naprosyn (Alleve), and aspirin.  Refined “vegetable oils” that are high in a specific Polyunsaturated fatty acid called linoleic acid (examples of these vegetable oils include corn oil, soy oil, cottonseed oil) have also been demonstrated to increase intestinal permeability.

Vegetable oils have also been found to enhance the liver inflammation and destruction caused by  alcohol which is at least in part mediated by absorption of endotoxin and ultimately also caused by oxidative stress.

The same applies to non-alcoholic liver fatty liver disease. (Progression of alcoholic and non-al… [Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2011] – PubMed – NCBI)

Interestingly, consumption of saturated fat (as found in beef tallow, coconut oil, butter and cocoa butter-the oil of dark chocolate) protects the liver from inflammation and destruction caused by alcohol, while polyunsaturated fat consumption (vegetable oils)  do the opposite. (References above and below)

There is growing evidence for a link between auto-immune disease and Alterations in intestinal permeability. Increased intestinal permeability (IP) has been observed in a substantial percentage of individuals with Type I diabetes. It is commonly observed in populations at high risk of developing Crohn’s disease and has been observed in patients who subsequently develop Crohn’s disease. Patients with ankylosing spondylitis have increased IP and although these patients are typically treated with NSAIDs which increase IP, the effects of NSAIDS have been isolated from a primary defect in IP which is shared by relatives without the disease.

“increased intestinal permeability is observed in association with several autoimmune diseases. It is observed prior to disease and appears to be involved in disease pathogenesis.”

A paleolithic diet avoids all sources of gluten (paleo is grain-free) and it also avoids refined “vegetable oils”. These food items present a double hit relative to inflammation. First, they increase IP which increases circulating levels of various “foreign” proteins and other foreign macromolecules which can stimulate the immune system. The second hit from these food items represents their direct inflammatory effects once absorbed into the body. I have previously discussed the  inflammatory response to excess omega six fats here.

An excellent review of the importance of the ratio of omega six fats found in “vegetable oil”  to omega three fats found in fish oil can also be found here ,  here   and  here.

The potential inflammatory response and anti-nutrient effects of cereal grains and in particular the gliadin portion of wheat gluten has been discussed and reviewed in multiple papers including:

Do dietary lectins cause disease?

Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: The New Frontier of Gluten Related Disorders

BMC Medicine | Full text | Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: consensus on new nomenclature and classification

BMC Medicine | Abstract | Divergence of gut permeability and mucosal immune gene expression in two gluten-associated conditions: celiac disease and gluten sensitivity

Bioactive antinutritional peptides derived from cere… [Nahrung. 1999] – PubMed – NCBI

Antinutritive effects of wheat-germ agglutinin and… [Br J Nutr. 1993] – PubMed – NCBI

This discussion just scratches the surface of the effects of intestinal permeability and health. Future discussion will address how the micro-flora (bacteria and viruses that live in our GI system) affect intestinal permeability, our brains, our immune system and our health.

Avoiding foods that we have not evolved to eat will result in decreased inflammation and will often reduce the symptoms of auto-immune and other inflammatory diseases. Many present day diseases are considered by evolutionary biologists to represent a mismatch between our culture, food, and our evolutionary biochemistry. These diseases were likely rare or non-existent  before the advent of agriculture and the subsequent industrialization of society with highly processed foods.

Eat only pastured meat, free range poultry and eggs, wild seafood, fresh vegetables, fruit and nuts and you will avoid the problems discussed above as well as a host of other problems to be discussed in future posts.

Peace,

Bob Hansen MD

Over-diagnosis and Over-treament, Less is sometimes more

Leave a reply

There have been many books published recently by physicians concerned about over-diagnosis and over-treatment. One very emotional area that caused great controversy when new prevention guidelines were published (regarding mammograms) relates to early detection and treatment of cancer. It would seem intuitively obvious that early detection and early treatment of cancer would save lives but it turns out this is not always so straight forward. Some cancers are very slow growing and early detection and treatment can cause more harm than good. This has been argued relative to screening for breast cancer, cancer of the uterus and prostate cancer, among others. For these particular cancers the screening tests are mammograms, pap smears and PSA blood test. To understand how and why less could be better you should read  Overdiagnosed.

If a cancer is diagnosed by a screening test 3 years before symptoms would have resulted in a diagnosis, but the early treatment does not change the course of the illness compared to treatment latter, it gives the appearance that the patient lived three years longer as a result of early treatment simply because the patient carries the diagnosis for three years longer. This actually turns out to be the case in many situations. Despite this knowledge our emotional response as physicians and as patients refuses to adapt to new data and we continue to follow old habits such as annual pap smears even though the data suggests that pap smears every three years would be equally  effective in saving lives and would actually prevent unnecessary, expensive and anxiety producing follow up procedures and testing. The exception to this recommendation would be for “high risk” individuals that still benefit from more frequent screening.

It turns out that in the US we likely over-diagnose and over-treat many conditions. The benefits of treatment are sometimes not justified by the side-effects and complications of the treatment. As a result of this concern the  Choosing Wisely campaign was created by a consortium of more than 30 Medical Specialty Societies with a goal of avoiding unnecessary testing and treatment. This is similar to the   Too much medicine campaign | BMJ

Medical testing can cause harm directly (complications of the test itself) but also indirectly. False positive results can lead to further invasive testing which can have complications and create anxiety for the patient.

Beyond screening tests for patients without symptoms there are many drugs now being marketed to treat “conditions” that may not need treatment. (read my posts on statins as an example) Big money is behind over-treatment and it is hard to stem the tide. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | Scottish doctor and author of ‘The Great Cholesterol Con’

The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) has been much more active in addressing these concerns as stated below:

“Has modern medicine undermined the capacity of individuals and societies to cope with death, pain, and sickness? Has too much medicine become a threat to health? Yes, argued Ray Moynihan in a BMJ theme issue in April 2002. He accused the pharma industry of extending the boundaries of treatable disease to expand markets for new products. Barbara Mintzes http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7342 blamed direct to consumer advertising of drugs in the US for portraying a dual message of “a pill for every ill,” and “an ill for every pill.” Elsewhere in the issue, doctors were accused of colluding in and encouraging medicalisation. Leonard Leibovici and Michel Lièvre http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7342/866 wrote : “The bad things of life: old age, death, pain, and handicap are thrust on doctors to keep families and society from facing them.”

Useful links:

Treatment of GERD with prolonged use of a Proton-pump inhibitor results in increased risk of pneumonia and increased risk for vitamin B12 deficiency http://jama which can result in permanent nerve damage, anemia and other ailments. This class of drug has many other potential complications. They cause decreased intestinal absorption of minerals and other nutrients and likely alter the mix of important health-promoting bacteria in your gut. They can lead to  Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in 35% of patients who use them. They also likely contribute to increased risk of osteoporosis,  fractures and a four-fold increase in certain heart  rhythm disturbances. These drugs are now available as non-prescription medications as well as prescription medications and they are often indiscriminately used for prolonged periods of time.

Sleeping pills are another example of over-prescribed medications. The FDA has approved the use of many of these drugs for just a few weeks at a time but I see patients frequently on these medications for years. They can  lead to addiction within a few weeks, can cause dizziness, drowsiness, memory problems, confusion , hallucinations, and other side effects, and should not be used with alcohol. Sleep walking, sleep eating, sleep driving, and other abnormal-dangerous behaviors have been reported with many sleep medications. In addition to these concerns:

“An analysis of data of clinical trials submitted to the FDA concerning the drugs zolpidem, zalepon, and eszopiclone (Ambien, Sonata, and Lunesta) found that these sedative hypnotic drugs more than doubled the risks of developing depression compared to those taking placebo pill. All studies have been funded by the drug companies without independent research.”

Examples such as this abound in the US, the only developed country that permits direct to consumer advertising of drugs on TV.

Why do we pay almost twice per capita for health care in the US compared to other developed countries while ranking between 20 and 30 on various measures of public health? Over-diagnosis and over-treatment in my opinion, are big factors.

I would encourage you to explore some of the links above to learn more about over-diagnosis and over-treatment so that you can make more informed health-care decisions.

Peace

Bob Hansen MD

Unnecessary Cardiac Stents and Angioplasty Procedures

1 Reply

Acute Coronary Syndrome is a very dangerous situation. If a patient with this problem reaches a well-equipped and well-staffed hospital on time, a balloon angioplasty,  placement of a coronary stent or emergency bypass surgery can prevent a death, limit the size of heart muscle damage, and reduce complications of a heart attack. But what if a person is found to have some coronary artery disease (blockages in the arteries that supply blood and oxygen to the heart muscle and heart valves) but is considered “stable”.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that such stable patients do not benefit from having an angioplasty or having one or more stents placed in heart arteries that have partial blockages from plaque.  Despite the fact that over one dozen studies have demonstrated that stents placed in coronary arteries for patients with stable coronary artery disease do not prevent deaths, heart attacks or other problems associated with atherosclerosis, an estimated 50% of the 700,000 coronary stents placed each year in the US are placed in patients who have stable disease. Deaths Linked to Cardiac Stents Rise as Overuse Seen – Bloomberg

By 2012 the excessive utilization of angioplasty and stents had become such a large problem that Bill Boden MD, a cardiologist on the faculty of SUNY wrote an editorial in Archives of Internal Medicine titled Mounting Evidence for Lack of PCI Benefit in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease:What More Will It Take to Turn the Tide of Treatment?:  Comment on “Initial Coronary Stent Implantation With Medical Therapy vs Medical Therapy Alone for Stable Coronary Artery Disease”

In this editorial Dr. Boden explains that while angioplasty and/or placement of stents (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) is beneficial for acute coronary syndrome, it has never been demonstrated to benefit patients with stable coronary artery disease compared with standard medical management.

Since that editorial was published a more recent review of the medical literature draws the same conclusion.

Cardiologists are paid an average $1,000 (range about $600 to $2500) for this procedure and hospitals and surgery centers receive about $25,000 for this procedure. If only half of the stents placed in patients with stable coronary disease are unnecessary the cost for the procedure alone amounts to $26,000 times 150,000 procedures per year in the US for stent placement. That is $390 million dollars a year in the US. If all of the stents placed in stable patients are unnecessary the direct cost totals $780 million per year.

But there is more cost than that. Patients who receive a stent must take potent blood thinning agents such as Plavix

Use of drugs like Plavix can result in costly and life threatening complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding (2% annually), cerebral hemorrhage resulting in stroke (0.1 to 0.4 % annually) severe drop in infection fighting white blood cells (1/2000) and other complications.

The placement of a coronary stent or performance of an angioplasty in a stable patient is also associated with complications that can result in death. What Are the Risks of Having a Stent? – NHLBI, NIH

So if you are not in the middle of a heart attack, what options are available to treat or prevent the complications of coronary artery disease? Optimal nutrition, exercise,  stress reduction and medications. This combination approach offers as much benefit with much less risk than having a coronary artery stent placed or an angioplasty performed.

Peace

Bob Hansen MD

Addendum to lose weight, control blood sugar, decrease inflammation

Leave a reply

To those of you who have subscribed to my blog by e-mail, I must apologize that I hit the “publish button” by mistake before I completed the finished article. So if you would like to read the full article, please go to the website for the updated and completed version.

Thanks

Bob Hansen MD

Lose weight, control blood sugar, reduce inflammation

1 Reply

The Duke University Lifestyle Medicine Clinic prescribes a nutritional program based upon a very simple concept, limit carbohydrate intake and multiple problems improve. This approach is so powerful in controlling blood sugar that diabetic patients must reduce their medication  before adopting the nutritional program in order to avoid very low blood sugars.

Compared to a low-fat diet weight loss approach, it is better or equal on every measurement studied. Here is what happens on the carbohydrate restricted program when compared to a low fat diet (American Heart Association diet). The carbohydrate restricted diet results in

  • Greater reduction in weight and body fat
  • Greater reduction in fasting blood sugar
  • Reduction in the amount of saturated fat circulating in the blood despite a higher intake than a low fat diet
  • Greater reduction in insulin with improved insulin sensitivity
  • Reduction in small LDL (low fat diets increase small LDL which is considered to be associated with more heart attacks and strokes)
  • Increase in HDL (low fat diets decrease HDL, decreased HDL is associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke)
  • Greater reduction in Triglycerides
  • Reduction in the ApoB/ApoA-1 ratio (low fat diets do the opposite, and the opposite is considered to increase risk of heart attack and stroke).
  • Reduction in multiple markers of inflammation
  • Spontaneous reduction in caloric consumption without counting or restricting calories (people automatically eat less as a result of restricting carbohydrates, low-fat diets require counting and restricting calories in order to lose weight)
  • Increased consumption of non-starchy vegetables

All of these beneficial effects are accepted by the medical community as reducing cardiovascular risk .

The improved metabolic outcome can occur even without weight loss simply by substituting fat for carbohydrate.

“The key principle is that carbohydrate, directly or indirectly through the effect of insulin, controls the disposition of excess dietary nutrients. Dietary carbohydrate modulates lipolysis, lipoprotein assembly and processing and affects the relation between dietary intake of saturated fat intake and circulating levels.” see here

Yet despite these proven effects, the proponents of low-fat diets refer to the carbohydrate restriction approach as a “fad diet”. In his excellent discussion of this term, Richard Feinman points out that historically, a carbohydrate restriction approach is actually the longest standing and proven approach to the treatment of obesity compared to a low-fat diet which is a relative newcomer. He describes how a low-fat diet more closely meets the dictionary’s definition of a “fad”.

Multiple Studies have compared carbohydrate restriction to low fat diet approaches and the results are consistent. In addition to the advantages cited above, carbohydrate restricted approaches when compared to low-fat diets reveal that symptoms of  “negative affect and hunger improved to a greater degree” compared with those following a low fat diet”. (see here)

When one analyzes the carbohydrate restricted diet (CRD) approach employed by many centers, including the Duke Interventional Medicine Clinic, one finds great similarity to a paleolithic diet.

They both eliminate or dramatically reduce

  • sugar-sweetened foods and beverages,
  • grains, flour foods and cereal foods
  • legumes (paleo completely, CRD to a large extent)
  • processed-refined vegetable oils
  • dairy (paleo completely, CRD to a large extent)

Fruits under a CRD are limited to small amounts of berries initially and this is liberalized over time as weight loss is achieved and metabolic parameters are improved. This is consistent with a paleolithic approach that recognizes that fruits and vegetables grown today have been bred to provide much higher sugar and starch content compared to the pre-agricultural  fruits and vegetables that early hominids consumed for hundreds of thousands of years.

A carbohydrate restricted nutritional approach to treat obesity, diabetes, or metabolic syndrome appears to be a valid and arguably superior remedy to a growing problem in the developed world. Yet despite this strong and convincing scientific data, dietary fat-phobia has impaired the utilization of this proven therapeutic modality.

Peace,

Bob Hansen M.D.

Sugar II

1 Reply

In my first post about sugar I discussed increased cardiovascular risk associated with consumption of added sugar, sweetened foods and beverages. This post will discuss other risks including childhood obesity and adult obesity, diabetes and Metabolic syndrome.

The marketing efforts directed at young children by soda producers and fast food restaurants is astounding. You can view a video produced by a concerned mother here.

Some highlights of the video include:

  • 1:14 How her daughter’s obsession with one particular person made her realize what was happening.
  • 2:20 Can you guess how much money the food industry spends marketing to kids?
  • 3:15 There’s even a term for the way they make children more annoying.
  • 3:55 Find out just how many thousands of ads kids see if they watch a regular amount of television.
  • 4:30 Here’s why just turning off the TV isn’t a solution.
  • 4:50 Learn which school supplies are now sponsored by junk food.
  • 5:54 Find out how companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi are straight-up conning school communities to buy their products.
  • 6:47 Here’s what she finds most upsetting.
  • 8:10 And here’s how they get even more information about kids.
  • 9:30 She talks about the life and death consequences that hang in the balance with this issue.
  • 10:24 We’re seeing the most depressing innovations in health care now thanks to the food industry.
  • 12:00 You’ll never believe where McDonald’s wanted to advertise.
  • 13:01 Find out who’s fighting these food behemoths and saving generations to come.

You can read more about this topic here. Nutritional Content of Food and Beverage Products in Television Advertisements Seen on Children’s Programming.

So what’s all the fuss? Where is the data to support a connection between sweetened beverages, sweetened foods and obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome?

Let’s start with a study by Gitanjali Singh and associates from Harvard School of Public Health reported here, the Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2013 Scientific Sessions. I read about this on Medscape published on-line. You must establish a user name and password to access these reviews, written for physicians and health professionals.

They reported that drinking large amounts of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) was associated with an increased body-mass index (BMI). Increased BMI is associated with deaths from diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, so the authors calculated deaths associated with consumption SSBs from diabetes, CVD and cancer.

The researchers found that in 2010

“132,000 deaths from diabetes, 44,000 deaths from CVD, and 6000 deaths from cancer in the world could be attributed to drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks, fruit juice, or sports beverages.”

“As part of the Global Burden of Disease study, the researchers obtained data from 114 national dietary surveys, representing more than 60% of the world’s population.

Based on data from large prospective cohort studies, they determined how changes in consumption of sugary drinks affected BMI, and next, how elevated BMI affected CVD, diabetes, and 7 obesity-related cancers (breast, uterine, esophageal, gallbladder, colorectal, kidney, and pancreatic cancer). Using data from the World Health Organization, they calculated the number of deaths from BMI-related CVD, diabetes, and cancer for men and for women aged 20 to 44, 45 to 64, and 65 years and older.”

Mexico had the highest number of deaths and Japan the lowest number of deaths attributed to the risk factor of sweetened beverage consumption. The USA had an estimated 25,000 deaths per year associated with drinking sugar sweetened beverages.

Medscape quoted Rachel K. Johnson, Ph.D. an AHA spokesperson.

“The evidence base that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with excess weight gain is well established; what these investigators have done is to take it a step further by saying the excess weight gain that is attributable to sugary drinks actually increases the risk of death from diabetes, CVD, and cancer,” 

The obesity literature is in agreement that consuming beverages with calories does not result in a decrease in an equivalent amount of calories from solid food consumption. In fact studies of humans demonstrate that sugar sweetened beverages increase the total amount of calories consumed by an amount equal to the calories in the beverage. This is added calories that do not produce satiety. This is why my Manifesto recommends drinking only water, coffee, tea, and no sweetened beverages.

Here is a discussion about sugar added beverages vs sweetened solid foods.

Consumption of Added Sugars from Liquid but Not Solid Sources Predicts Impaired Glucose Homeostasis and Insulin Resistance among Youth at Risk of Obesity.

“a higher consumption (10 g/d) of added sugars from liquid sources was associated with 0.04 mmol/L higher fasting glucose, 2.3 pmol/L higher fasting insulin, 0.1 unit higher homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and 0.4 unit lower Matsuda-insulin sensitivity index (Matsuda-ISI) in all participants (P < 0.01).”

Translation, just 10 grams (1/3 ounce) of added sugar from beverages increased fasting blood sugar, increased fasting insulin, worsened Insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is the precursor to diabetes. This is a chronic inflammatory state.

How much sugar is in a can of coke? Look here. How Much Sugar in Sodas and Beverages? 39 grams in a 12 oz bottle of coke, 79 grams in a 7-Eleven 32 oz Big gulp, 128 grams in a 7-Eleven 44 oz Super Gulp. 77 grams in a 20 oz bottle of Mountain Dew, But it only takes 10 grams a day to cause harm.

” liquid added sugars were a risk factor for the development of impaired glucose homeostasis and insulin resistance over 2 y among youth at risk of obesity.”

But let’s look at another study.

A meta-analysis published in 2010 reported that consumption of just one or two sugar-sweetened beverages per day is associated with a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and a 20% increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome. Abstract

They concluded:

“In addition to weight gain, higher consumption of SSBs (sugar sweetened beverages) is associated with development of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. These data provide empirical evidence that intake of SSBs should be limited to reduce obesity-related risk of chronic metabolic diseases”

Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2010: 33:2477–2483.

At the time of this study publication,  cities and states were introducing legislation for “soda taxes” on sugar-sweetened beverages. There were also attempts to make sodas and sugar drinks ineligible for food stamp purchases. See the discussion here.

That same year the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study Carbohydrate quantity and quality and risk of type 2 diabetes in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Netherlands (EPIC-NL) study

We investigated the associations of dietary glycemic load (GL), glycemic index (GI), carbohydrate, and fiber intake with the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

They followed 37,846 participants for a mean follow up period of 10 years.

They concluded:

“Diets high in GL, GI, and starch and low in fiber were associated with an increased diabetes risk. Both carbohydrate quantity and quality seem to be important factors in diabetes prevention. “

There is plenty of low quality carbohydrate in the sodas featured above. And there is no fiber to slow the absorption of the sugar. You might as well start an IV and deliver 128 grams of super-gulp sugar directly into the blood.

In 2010 a Health Policy Report concerning the consumption of sweetened beverages was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages – NEJMhpr0905723

They open up by stating:

The consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages 
has been linked to risks for obesity, diabetes, 
and heart disease.
A meta-analysis showed positive associations between intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight-associations that were stronger in longitudinal studies than in cross-sectional studies and in studies that were not funded by the beverage industry than in those that were.
They go on to discuss how a meta-analysis funded by the beverage industry was interpreted as showing no evidence of an association between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight,
“but it erroneously gave large weight to several small negative studies: when a more realistic weighting was used, the meta-analysis summary supported a positive association”
The authors site several studies linking sugar sweetened beverages to obesity in children and adults. Please click on the link above and go to page two for charts demonstrating the historical trend in sugared beverage consumption.
Since that publication multiple studies, discussions and policy statements have appeared in the medical literature. If you perform a PubMed search with “tax AND sugar” you will get 8 pages of citations. Here are some of them.

Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis.

This one concluded that:

Six articles from the USA showed that a higher price could also lead to a decrease in BMI, and decrease the prevalence of overweight and obesity.    

More studies from the search “sugar AND tax”.

Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study.

A substantial tax on sugar sweetened drinks could help reduce obesity.

Building a strategy for obesity prevention one piece at a time: the case of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation.

The potential impact on obesity of a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Ireland, an effect assessment modelling study.

The sugar-sweetened beverage wars: public health and the role of the beverage industry.

A typology of beverage taxation: multiple approaches for obesity prevention and obesity prevention-related revenue generation.

Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages: the fight against obesity.

Sugar tax and obesity.

Intended and unintended consequences of a proposed national tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to combat the U.S. obesity problem.

Despite all of this discussion there has not been a “sugar tax” on sweetened beverages and here are several reasons.

Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: results from a 2011 national public opinion survey.

“Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages including non-diet sodas, sport drinks, and energy drinks has been linked with obesity. Recent state and local efforts to tax these beverages have been unsuccessful. Enactment will be unlikely without public support, yet little research is available to assess how to effectively make the case for such taxes.

The objectives were to assess public opinion about arguments used commonly in tax debates regarding sugar-sweetened beverages and to assess differences in public opinion by respondents’ political party affiliation.

Findings indicated greater public agreement with anti- than pro-tax arguments. The most popular anti-tax argument was that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is arbitrary because it does not affect consumption of other unhealthy foods (60%). A majority also agreed that such taxes were a quick way for politicians to fill budget holes (58%); an unacceptable intrusion of government into people’s lives (53.8%); opposed by most Americans (53%); and harmful to the poor (51%). No pro-tax arguments were endorsed by a majority of the public. Respondents reported highest agreement with the argument that sugar-sweetened beverages were the single largest contributor to obesity (49%) and would raise revenue for obesity prevention (41%).”

So the relationship between sugar sweetened beverages and diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome seems well established but as a public policy issue there has been no traction on taxation remedies. And as the video above demonstrates, Coke and Pepsi have more than a foot in the door in our school systems and our homes (TV adds).

You can make a difference. vote here Tell the Soda Industry to Use Their Influence to Combat Childhood Obesity

A future post will discuss artificial sweeteners (diet beverages) which unfortunately also have a dismal track record.

Until next time,

Peace

Bob Hansen MD

An Egg a day keeps the doctor away

Leave a reply

When I recommend to my patients that they should eat eggs and vegetables for breakfast rather than breakfast cereals (which have high sugar content and nasty gut inflaming gluten proteins) they often ask “well what about my cholesterol ?”. I tell them that eggs are a health food and that they do not need to worry about their cholesterol.

I first read about the man who ate 25 eggs per day for 15 years here.

Health Correlator: The man who ate 25 eggs per day: What does this case really tell us?

He was 88 years old when some cholesterol fearing physicians studied his plasma lipids (HDL, LDL, triglycerides etc.) and other aspects of his health (blood pressure, weight, etc.) and discovered that he was very healthy at the ripe age of 88.

Normal Plasma Cholesterol in an 88-Year-Old Man Who Eats 25 Eggs a Day — NEJM

This article was published in 1991 and the authors concluded that this man was exceptional in lacking adverse health consequences from eating 25 fat and cholesterol laden eggs every day for 15 years. Since that time, many studies on the health effects of eggs have demonstrated that they are in fact a health food and do not increase cardiovascular risk. In fact they provide a nutrient dense assortment of important vitamins, minerals, fat, and protein. Perhaps most importantly they are very high in choline, an important nutrient which is not hard to come by. Eggs and liver provide an abundance of choline.

Choline is widely used in the human body for many important functions. These include:

  • building block for an important neuro-transmitter called acetyl-choline (you cannot live without it)
  • essential component of the phospholipids that form the outer membrane of all living cells
  • chemical precursor to betaine which is essential to health, particularly for eyesight
  • methyl metabolism (methylation is an essential physiologic chemical process in our body)
  • protects against fatty liver disease

You can read more about the importance of choline here:

Choline – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regular egg consumption has been demonstrated to improve insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular risk profiles in healthy individuals and in individuals with metabolic syndrome as demonstrated here:

Whole egg consumption improves lipoprotein profil… [Metabolism. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI

Daily egg consumption with modest carbohydrate restriction in that study resulted in:

  • improved insulin sensitivity (good)
  • reduction in oxidized LDL (very good, oxidized LDL is the major instigator for atherosclerosis)
  • reduced triglycerides (high triglycerides are a marker for metabolic syndrome, precursor to diabetes, heart attack and stroke)
  • reduction in other blood lipid markers for cardiovascular risk (apoE, apoC-III, large VLDL, total IDL, small LDL and medium LDL)
  • increase in the size of HDL and LDL particles (reduction in cardiovascular risk)

They concluded that:

“Atherogenic dyslipidemia improved for all individuals”

In adults with metabolic syndrome (hypertension, insulin resistance, obesity, high triglycerides) three whole eggs per day with moderate carbohydrate restriction resulted in:

  • reduced waist size
  • reduced % body fat
  • reduction in inflammation as measured by plasma tumor necrosis factor alpha and serum amyloid

The authors concluded that:

“on a moderate carbohydrate background diet, accompanied by weight loss, the inclusion of whole eggs improves inflammation to a greater extent than yolk-free egg substitute in those with MetS.”

Effects of carbohydrate restriction a… [J Clin Lipidol. 2013 Sep-Oct] – PubMed – NCBI

In yet another study:

Daily intake of 3 whole eggs, as part of a CRD, increased both plasma and lipoprotein lutein and zeaxanthin. Egg yolk may represent an important food source to improve plasma carotenoid status in a population at high risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

See for yourself:

Egg intake improves carotenoid status by increasi… [Food Funct. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI

In another study:

Consumption of 2 and 4 egg yolks/d for 5 wk increases macular pigment concentrations (lutein and zeazanthin) in older adults with low macular pigment taking cholesterol-lowering statins.

“Lutein and zeaxanthin may reduce the risk of dry, age-related macular degeneration because of their photo-oxidative role as macular pigment.”

Consumption of 2 and 4 egg yolks/d for 5 wk i… [Am J Clin Nutr. 2009] – PubMed – NCBI

Studies of the benefits of high-cholesterol egg consumption have  been so convincing that even the American Heart Association has removed advice to avoid eggs.

“…there have been a number of epidemiological studies that did not support a relationship between cholesterol intake and cardiovascular disease. Further, a number of recent clinical trials that looked at the effects of long-term egg consumption (as a vehicle for dietary cholesterol) reported no negative impact on various indices of cardiovascular health and disease”

Exploring the factors that affect blood cholesterol… [Adv Nutr. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI

From an evolutionary medicine point of view, eggs and ample dietary cholesterol have been around a long time in the human diet.

“Paleoanthropologists suggest that dietary cholesterol has been in the human diet for millions of years (7–10). Sources included eggs, bone marrow, and organ meats. Stone Age intake of cholesterol is uncertain, but it may well have exceeded current dietary recommendations.

 There are many important biological roles for cholesterol that span the spectrum from cell membrane structure to steroid hormone synthesis, bile acid synthesis, and others. The vital role of cholesterol in human metabolism and the well-established place of dietary cholesterol in the native human diet provide a robust theoretical challenge to the view that dietary cholesterol poses a threat to human health.

 More important still are prospective, population-based studies that, when similarly scrupulous about variation in other dietary components, find no association between cholesterol intake in general, or egg intake in particular, and the risk of CVD (13).”

Exploring the factors that affect blood cholesterol… [Adv Nutr. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI

Here are more links to discover that eggs are a health food.

Egg consumption and endothelial function: a randomized controlled crossover trial.

Endothelial function testing as a biomarker of vascular disease.

Daily egg consumption in hyperlipidemic adults–effects on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk.

Endothelial function testing as a biomarker of vascular disease.

Daily egg consumption in hyperlipidemic adults–effects on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk.

High intake of cholesterol results in less atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particles in men and women independent of response classification.

Plasma LDL and HDL characteristics and carotenoid content are positively influenced by egg consumption in an elderly population.

Eggs distinctly modulate plasma carotenoid and lipoprotein subclasses in adult men following a carbohydrate-restricted diet.

Significance of small dense low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations in relation to the severity of coronary heart diseases.

Rethinking dietary cholesterol. [Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI

Endothelial function is the term used to describe how well the arteries can expand and contract to meet the needs of blood flow. It is considered an important tool for assessing cardiovascular risk and it is impaired in metabolic syndrome, diabetes and in patients with coronary artery disease. Compromise of endothelial function is part of the process of atherosclerosis and heart attacks.

“There is thus a case to be made that endothelial function is potentially a summative measure of overall cardiac risk status and at least a valuable addition to standard risk measures (45). The ever-expanding footprint of research in this area in the cardiology literature attests to its importance.”

Despite (or because of) their high fat and cholesterol content, eggs have not been found to have any negative effects on endothelial function.

Rethinking dietary cholesterol. [Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI

So far since launching this blog a few weeks ago we have discovered that saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods are not the villains portrayed by the media, doctors and professional organizations that give us nutritional advice.

We have reviewed evidence that added sugar, sweetened beverages, refined carbohydrates (especially flour foods), trans-fats, and excessive polyunsaturated omega six fats from processed “vegetable oil” are the culprits with regards to obesity, diabetes, heart attack and stroke. These culprit components of the modern Western diet were definitely absent from the diets of our paleolithic ancestors. We have not evolved to tolerate them. These modern manufactured and processed “foods” represent an unhealthy deviation from our evolutionary past.

There is so much more to discuss. In the spirit of more work ahead during this 50th anniversary week of John F Kennedy’s assassination. I will close with a quote from JFK’s favorite poet and friend, Robert Frost.

“I have promises to keep, / And miles to go before I sleep, / And miles to go before I sleep.”

Peace,

Bob Hansen MD

Statin Guidelines, one step forward, two steps backwards

10 Replies

The new statin guidelines published jointly by the AHA (American Heart Association) and ACC (American College of Cardiology) present some good news but also allot of bad news.

The good news (one step forward) is that the guidelines acknowledge the following:

1. None of the cholesterol lowering drugs (except for statins) have ever demonstrated the ability to save lives by lowering cholesterol.

2. The ability of statin drugs to save lives (after a heart attack) is independent of whether and by how much the cholesterol is lowered.

This acknowledgement is very important because it sheds light on the fact that statins work primarily by effects independent of how much cholesterol is circulating in the blood. This is a fact that is not well understood by many physicians or patients. This fact will create some confusion because the American public has been misinformed for many years by physicians, the media and professional organizations all using terms like “good cholesterol” and “bad cholesterol”. These terms are meaningless, confusing, and counter-productive.

The new guidelines are two steps backwards for a few reasons:

1. They expand the number of patients under the guidelines in the US by tens of millions of people who will not benefit from their use and implementation of the guidelines will likely harm many.

2. The guidelines continue to assume and quote unrealistically low and inaccurate complication rates.

3. The risk assessment tool that accompanies the guidelines over-estimates risk for heart attack and stroke by 75-150%. This calculation of the over-estimate is based upon application of the guidelines to a huge database of real patients. This analysis has been published in a Peer Reviewed Journal and this analysis has already been discussed by the lay-press to the embarrassment of the AHA and ACC. This particular concern was communicated to the guideline committee one year ago by a prominent research cardiologist and statistician on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, but ignored by the guideline committee.

4. The guidelines have lowered the recommended 10 year  risk threshold for use of statins from the previous 10-20% level to a 7.5% level (thereby tremendously increasing the number of people who would be placed on statins). And since the risk calculator, as discussed in #3 above, greatly inflates the risk it essentially would apply the statin guidelines in reality to individuals with only a 3.75 to 4% risk of a cardiovascular event in the next 10 years. This shifts the risk/benefit ratio to a much higher level than the already high risk/benefit ratio of the previous guidelines.

Gratefully the excessive use of statins as well as the folly of the previous and new guidelines have  been brought to the public arena and the debate has finally drawn attention. Perhaps some reasonable discussion will ensue and perhaps the medical community at large will finally think about the bias represented in policy statements and guidelines as well as the bias presented in the many review articles that have been published on this topic.

Here are links to some reading of recent articles in the lay press.

Cholesterol Guidelines Under Attack – NYTimes.com

New Cholesterol Advice Startles Even Some Doctors – NYTimes.com

Risk Calculator for Cholesterol Appears Flawed – NYTimes.com

“After the guidelines were published, two Harvard Medical School professors identified flaws in the risk calculator that apparently had been discovered a year ago but were never fixed, as Gina Kolata reported in The Times on Monday.

In a commentary to be published Tuesday in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, the professors estimate that as many as half of the 33 million do not actually have risk thresholds exceeding the 7.5 percent level. Other experts who have tested the calculator found absurd results; even patients with healthy characteristics would be deemed candidates for statins.”

Be careful out there.

Peace,

Bob Hansen MD

Don’t Give More Patients Statins

3 Replies
On November 14, the following editorial was published in the New York Times.

Don’t Give More Patients Statins

By JOHN D. ABRAMSON and RITA F. REDBERG

New guidelines published on Tuesday of last week widely expand the category of who should take statins.

Two physicians authored the article providing an excellent analysis and warning against implementation of the new guidelines which are unfortunately and again, not based on sound evidence or reasonable analysis.

” based on the same data the new guidelines rely on, 140 people in this risk group would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single heart attack or stroke, without any overall reduction in death or serious illness.”

“At the same time, 18 percent or more of this group would experience side effects, including muscle pain or weakness, decreased cognitive function, increased risk of diabetes  (especially for women),  cataracts or sexual dysfunction.”

“We believe that the new guidelines are not adequately supported by objective data, and that statins should not be recommended for this vastly expanded class of healthy Americans. Instead of converting millions of people into statin customers, we should be focusing on the real factors that undeniably reduce the risk of heart disease: healthy diets, exercise and avoiding smoking. Patients should be skeptical about the guidelines, and have a meaningful dialogue with their doctors about statins, including what the evidence does and does not show, before deciding what is best for them.”

History repeats itself, soon the AHA and ACA will want statins in the water. The 18% estimate of serious side effects in my opinion is understated. Every week in the pain clinic I diagnose statin myopathy and/or cognitive impairment on at least one patient. Here are some stories about patients that appeared in the comments section of the oped on-line.

Noreen stated:

I am a victim of statin “therapy.” At the age of 72, with just a moderately high LDL, Simvastatin was prescribed. I took it for approximately 2 weeks, and severe pain developed in my whole body, but, primarily in my lower legs. I read the side effects on line and stopped taking it.
The pain went away, but my legs were weak. After much investigation by neurologists at University of California, SFMC, I was diagnosed with statin-induced neuropathy. The calf muscle in both legs has totally gone — nothing left but sinew. My life has been severely damaged by an inability to walk properly. I cannot raise on my toes. It has been three years since I took this medication, and there is no further hope of recovery. Prior to taking Simvastatin I was an athlete all my life. At the time of this pharmaceutical invasion I was still, hiking, exercising regularly and downhill skiing. Shame of this hired committee of “experts.”

Here is how a physician/patient described his experience.

I agree with Abramson and Redburg that treating a numbers instead of the patient is wrong. I am in a high risk group and I would hope to prevent another heart attack (I had one in 2009), yet I cannot take statins as I repeatedly developed muscle pain and then progressive weakness and loss of balance with all the statins I tried. My cardiologists (including Mayo physicians) and internists continued to push trying different statins and other cholesterol lowering medications even though I complained of side effects. Although some of my loss of power is due to aging and not statins, I used to be able to hike 10 to 20 miles with up to 5 to 6,000 feet elevation gain in a day before my statin era and now I can barely manage 4-5 miles at a slow pace. I’ve seen this in others taking statins. Even though the percentage who develop weakness may be low compared to the majority, it is a real debilitating effect for some. Doctors are brain washed (and the lay public too by TV and other ad bombardment), by the pharmaceutical industry to treat numbers rather than individuals. The result is the standard of care is now to treat the lab test instead of the person. Statins are dangerous medications and should not be prescribed lightly. SD Markowitz, MD

George from CA describes his experience as follows.

I had been on statins for over 15 years. Slowly, I began experiencing cognitive dysfunction, balance issues, muscle weakness, etc. even though I exercised both my body and brain. I quit several months ago and have been feeling better all around every day with improvement in every area. I’d rather die feeling good in 10 or 20 years than be miserable for however long this terrible medicine might extend my life.

JR Hoffman MD from Los Angeles provided further insight.

Congratulations to Drs Abramson and Redberg for their outstanding editorial, and to the NYT for having the courage to print it. As the authors note, this new guideline’s major beneficiary will be the pharmaceutical industry, while the American people will likely be its primary victim.

The British Medical Journal has recently printed a series of papers (disclosure — I co-authored one of those papers) addressing the biases and distortions that enter far too many published clinical guidelines, because a large majority of panel members and panel chairs have a financial conflict of interest, and because panels are stacked to support viewpoints reflecting those conflicts, independent of the evidence. This is particularly true of guidelines from prominent medical specialty societies … societies which themselves receive major financial support from industry. 

How many people targeted by the new guidelines would take one of these medicines if they were told that far more than 9 out of 10 (in fact probably more than 99%) would get no possible benefit whatever? And essentially none would get an overall reduction in major morbidity or mortality? And that this would come at a substantial cost in the side effects that a good many would suffer (not even considering the cost in dollars)?

If your physician tells you that you “need” a statin, please ask her for the details of how likely you as an individual are to benefit, and at what chance of harm.

Statin drugs interfere with the human production of many important substances. One of these is Coenzyme Q 10 also called uibiquinone. Co Q 10 functions as an important anti-oxidant and as an essential component of the apparatus inside every cell that produces ATP, the fundamental unit of energy that provides energy for every cellular function. Without ATP the cells in every organ shut down and cannot do any work.

Statin side effects can include not only muscle pain and weakness but also nerve damage, dementia, amnesia.  Shortness of breath can be the only symptoms when the muscles of respiration are affected.  Diabetes can be caused by any of the statin drugs and this can be permanent.  Rarely, statins can cause death . This happens when a massive amount of muscle damage causes a flood of debris that overwhelms the body’s ability to clear the debris. Damage to muscles and nerves can be permanent without any recovery after  the statin is stopped. A former astronaut and flight surgeon suffered transient global amnesia which fortunately cleared after stopping the statin drug. He has since published a few books about the dangers and inappropriate use of statins. Kidney failure requiring dialysis or kidney transplant is also a rare but potential result of statin medication.

Cardiologists and primary care physicians often ignore complaints about muscle pain, fatigue, weakness and forgetfulness in older patients and attribute it to old age. But even when these complaints are recognized as a side effect, rarely does a physician report it  to the FDA. As a result, post marketing surveillance data underestimates tremendously the frequency of side effects.

Be careful out there. Read my first post about statin medications. it provides risk-benefit data. Remember, we do not know with certainty the frequency of side effects and permanent damage, but you can be sure it happens more often than the drug company states. It happens more often than most physicians realize.

Peace

Bob Hansen MD