How to eliminate 50 percent of all coronary events

The European Society of Cardiology estimates a 50 percent reduction of coronary events if you can stabilize soft, vulnerable plaques (1). We are often led to believe that plaques you can see on an angiogram are “killer” plaques. It’s true that if they are large enough to obstruct blood flow, they will decrease oxygen transfer to the heart muscle cells making them more tired with less effort.

This is the definition of stable angina. It simply means it takes less effort to over-exert the heart muscles before they fatigue. However, you need approximately a 90 percent total obstruction of the blood vessel to develop stable angina. These plaques account for most of the plaques you might find in an angiogram. This is why if you take an angiogram, you are often immediately wheeled into the operating room to have a stent put into the artery with the belief you are only seconds away from an immediate heart attack and death.

However, the same angiogram can’t see a few plaques (because they are so small), known as the soft, vulnerable ones. When soft, vulnerable plaques rupture (like a pimple), then you have the death and disability (i.e., damaged heart tissue) that truly characterize heart disease. Technically, this is called an acute coronary event, and it has very little to do with the stable plaques that can cause angina. It is this small number of “rogue” soft, vulnerable plaques that are the true killers in heart disease (2,3).

The ultimate cause of plaque rupture is cellular inflammation inside the plaque. Cellular inflammation degrades the fibrous external coating of the plaque. Usually inside these soft, vulnerable plaques are also a lot of macrophages engorged with lipids. This is called the “necrotic core”. When the plaque bursts, these lipid pools are released into the bloodstream causing platelet aggregation and the rapid blockage of the artery resulting in a complete restriction of blood flow (as opposed to a limited restriction of blood flow with a typical stable plaque that will never rupture). It is estimated that about 75 percent of all coronary events are caused by ruptures of the soft, vulnerable plaques (2).

As I mentioned above, the really scary part of this story is that there is no type of imaging technology that can detect dangerous soft, vulnerable plaques. In essence, you don’t know if you have them or not. This is why the prediction of impeding cardiovascular events remains a guessing game. Even more interesting is that these soft, vulnerable plaques seem to form rather quickly (in about 10 years) as opposed to growing slowly over a lifetime (4). Moreover, the rate of growth of these soft, vulnerable plaques is strongly correlated with increasing insulin levels in the blood (4).

So what does this mean for people who don’t want to die from a sudden rupture of soft, vulnerable plaques that can’t be detected? The first thing is to reduce the inflammation within the plaque. Surprisingly, there is only one clinical study that has ever been published that addressed this question, and it used fish oil (5). This study indicated that if you give patients relatively high doses of fish oil, you could see a definite remodeling of the soft, vulnerable plaques in about 40 days compared to subjects taking a placebo composed of safflower oil. The plaques in the subjects taking the fish oil became less inflamed, had higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, fewer macrophages and more well-formed fibrous caps compared to those taking the placebo. So taking a therapeutic level of fish oil for a lifetime seems to be a good way to reduce the rupture of these plaques.

Another way to potentially reduce their formation in the first place is lower insulin levels. The reason insulin levels are elevated is because organs, such as the adipose tissue, the liver and the muscles, are also inflamed (6). The best way to reduce that systemic inflammation is to follow the anti-inflammatory diet and take therapeutic levels of fish oil for a lifetime. Your success is best measured by the AA/EPA ratio in the blood. Call me crazy, but I think that’s what I have been recommending for the past 16 years (7).

References

  1. Yia-Herttulala S, Bentzon JF, Daemen M, Falk E, Garcia-Garcia HM, Merrmann J, Hoefer IM, Juekma JW, Krams R, Kwak BR, Marx N, Maruszeqica M, Newby A, Pasterkamp G, Serruys PWJC, Waltenberger J, Weber C, and Tokgozoglu L. “Stabilization of atherosclerotic plaques.” Thomobosis and Haemostasis 106: 1-19 (2011)
  2. Schaar JA, Muller JE, Falk E, Virmani R, Fuster V, Serruys PW, Colombo A, Stefanadis C, Ward Casscells S, Moreno PR, Maseri A, and van der Steen AF. “Terminology for high-risk and vulnerable coronary artery plaques. Report of a meeting on the vulnerable plaque.” Eur Heart J 25: 1077-1082 (2004)
  3. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams R, Carnethon M, De Simone G, Ferguson TB, Flegal K, Ford E, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Hailpern S, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lackland D, Lisabeth L, Marelli A, McDermott M, Meigs J, Mozaffarian D, Nichol G, O’Donnell C, Roger V, Rosamond W, Sacco R, Sorlie P, Stafford R, Steinberger J, Thom T, Wasserthiel-Smoller S, Wong N, Wylie-Rosett J, and Hong Y. “Heart disease and stroke statistics–2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.” Circulation 119:480-486 (2009)
  4. Hagg S, Salehpour M, Noori P, Lundstrom J, Possnert G, Takolander R, Konrad P, Rosfors S, Ruusalepp A, Skogsberg J, Tegner J, and Bjorkegren J. “Carotid plaque age is a feature of plaque stability inversely related to levels of plasma insulin.” PLoS One 6: e1824 (2011)
  5. Thies F, Garry JM, Yaqoob P, Rerkasem K, Williams J, Shearman CP, Gallagher PJ, Calder PC, and Grimble RF. “Association of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with stability of atherosclerotic plaques: a randomized controlled trial.” Lancet 2003 361: 477-485 (2003)
  6. Sears, B. “Toxic Fat.” Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)
  7. Sears B. “The Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (1995)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

Obesity continues to climb

Last week the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reported that more than 12 states now have adult obesity rates greater than 30 percent, and that one in three children are either overweight or obese. However, 16 years ago, no state in the United States had an adult obesity rate greater than 20 percent. So in less than a generation, adult obesity has skyrocketed. Yet at the same time, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the percentage of overweight people has remained fairly constant since 1960, while the percentage of obese individuals has increased significantly since 1980. What this suggests is that there is a genetic component that can be activated in those individuals predisposed to gain weight. Once activated, accumulation of excess fat accelerates.

I feel the driving force between this activation of genetic factors is the increasing inflammatory nature of the American diet. We know that it is elevated insulin levels that make us fat and keep us fat. But what really causes insulin to become elevated in the first place? The simple explanation is that it comes from eating excess carbohydrates. However, that is too simplistic an explanation since one-third of adult Americans who are thin are also eating excess carbohydrates.

A more comprehensive answer is it’s insulin resistance that causes elevated insulin levels. Insulin resistance is a consequence of disturbances in the body’s insulin-signaling pathways in the cell caused by cellular inflammation. My most recent book, “Toxic Fat,” goes into great detail on this subject (1). But simply stated, the more cellular inflammation you have in your cells, the greater the likelihood of insulin resistance. And if you are genetically prone to gain weight, increasing insulin resistance will really pack on the extra fat. More insidious is that insulin resistance also creates a “fat trap” through which incoming dietary calories are trapped in your fat cells and can’t be released to provide the necessary energy the body needs. This means you are constantly hungry.

If you are surrounded by cheap processed foods (rich in omega-6 fatty acids and refined carbohydrates), then you are going to quench that hunger with those foods that increase cellular inflammation to even greater levels. The end result is an increasing rise of obesity.

But the fastest growing segment of the overweight and obese population is not adults, but children under the age of 5, with 20 percent now either overweight or obese before entering kindergarten (2). You can’t blame school lunches for this because they are not in school yet. What you can blame is epigenetics (3). This is how the metabolic future of the child can be greatly determined in the womb by the inflammatory nature of the mother’s diet. When these children are born, their altered genetics make them sitting targets for a world full of inflammatory food. Unless you change the foundation of the food supply to become more anti-inflammatory (less omega-6 fatty acids and a lower glycemic load), then the future for these children is incredibly bleak.

References

  1. Sears B. “Toxic Fat.” Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)
  2. Kim J, Peterson KE, Scanlon KS, Fitzmaurice GM, Must A, Oken E, Rifas-Shiman SL, Rich-Edwards JW, and Gillman MW. “Trends in overweight from 1980 through 2001 among preschool-aged children enrolled in a health maintenance organization. Obesity 14: 1107-1112 (2006)
  3. Lustig RH editor. “Obesity Before Birth.” Springer. New York (2011)


Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

Zone diet validation studies

Weight Loss

Any diet that restricts calories will result in equivalent weight loss. However, the same doesn’t hold true as to what the source of that weight loss is. Weight loss from either dehydration (such as ketogenic diets) or cannibalization of muscle and organ mass (such as low-protein diets) has no health benefits. Only when the weight loss source is from stored fat do you gain any health benefits. Here the Zone diet has been shown to be superior to all other diets in burning fat faster (1-4). It has been demonstrated that if a person has a high initial insulin response to a glucose challenge, then the Zone diet is also superior in weight loss (5,6). A recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that a diet composition similar to the Zone diet is superior to other compositions in preventing the regain of lost weight (7). This is probably caused by the increased satiety induced by the Zone diet compared to other diets (1,8,9).

Reduction of cellular inflammation

There is total agreement in the research literature that the Zone diet is superior in reducing cellular inflammation (10-12). Since cellular inflammation is the driving force for chronic disease, then this should be the ultimate goal of any diet. Call me crazy for thinking otherwise.

Heart disease

It is ironic that the Ornish diet is still considered one of the best diets for heart disease, since the published data indicates that twice as many people had fatal heart attacks on the Ornish diet compared to a control diet (13). This is definitely the case of don’t confuse me with the facts. On the other hand, diets with the same balance of protein, carbohydrate and fat as the Zone diet has have been shown to be superior in reducing cardiovascular risk factors, such as cholesterol and fasting insulin (14,15).

Diabetes

The first publication validating the benefits of the Zone diet in treating diabetes appeared in 1998 (16). Since that time there have been several other studies indicating the superiority of the Zone diet composition for reducing blood glucose levels (17-20). In 2005, the Joslin Diabetes Research Center at Harvard Medical School announced its new dietary guidelines for treating obesity and diabetes. These dietary guidelines were essentially identical to the Zone diet. Studies done at the Joslin Diabetes Research Center following those dietary guidelines confirm the efficacy of the Zone diet to reduce diabetic risk factors (21). If the Zone diet isn’t recommended for individuals with diabetes, then someone should tell Harvard.

Ease of use

The Zone diet simply requires balancing one-third of your plate with low-fat protein with the other two-thirds coming from fruits and vegetables (i.e. colorful carbohydrates). Then you add a dash (that’s a small amount) of heart-healthy monounsaturated fats. The Zone diet is based on a bell-shaped curve balancing low-fat protein and low-glycemic-index carbohydrates, not a particular magic number. If you balance the plate as described above using your hand and your eye, it will approximate 40 percent of the calories as carbohydrates, 30 percent of calories as protein, and 30 percent of the calories as fat. Furthermore, it was found in a recent Stanford University study that the Zone diet provided greater amounts of micronutrients on a calorie-restricted program than any other diet (22).

Eventually all dietary theories have to be analyzed in the crucible of experimentation to determine their validity. So far in the past 13 years since I wrote my first book, my concepts of anti-inflammatory nutrition still seem to be at the cutting edge.

References

  1. Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, and Astrup A. “Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity.” Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 23: 528-536 (1999)
  2. Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, and Christou DD. “A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women.” J Nutr 133: 411-417 (2003)
  3. Fontani G, Corradeschi F, Felici A, Alfatti F, Bugarini R, Fiaschi AI, Cerretani D, Montorfano G, Rizzo AM, and Berra B. “Blood profiles, body fat and mood state in healthy subjects on different diets supplemented with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.” Eur J Clin Invest 35: 499-507 (2005)
  4. Layman DK, Evans EM, Erickson D, Seyler J, Weber J, Bagshaw D, Griel A, Psota T, and Kris-Etherton P. “A moderate-protein diet produces sustained weight loss and long-term changes in body composition and blood lipids in obese adults.” J Nutr 139: 514-521 (2009)
  5. Ebbeling CB, Leidig MM, Feldman HA, Lovesky MM, and Ludwig DS. “Effects of a low-glycemic-load vs low-fat diet in obese young adults: a randomized trial.” JAMA 297: 2092-2102 (2007)
  6. Pittas AG, Das SK, Hajduk CL, Golden J, Saltzman E, Stark PC, Greenberg AS, and Roberts SB. “A low-glycemic-load diet facilitates greater weight loss in overweight adults with high insulin secretion but not in overweight adults with low insulin secretion in the CALERIE Trial.” Diabetes Care 28: 2939-2941 (2005)
  7. Larsen TM, Dalskov SM, van Baak M, Jebb SA, Papadaki A, Pfeiffer AF, Martinez JA, Handjieva-Darlenska T, Kunesova M, Pihlsgard M, Stender S, Holst C, Saris WH, and Astrup A. “Diets with high or low protein content and glycemic index for weight-loss maintenance.” N Engl J Med 363: 2102-2113 (2010)
  8. Ludwig DS, Majzoub JA, Al-Zahrani A, Dallal GE, Blanco I, Roberts SB, Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, and Eckert EA. “Dietary high-glycemic-index foods, overeating, and obesity.” Pediatrics 103: E26 (1999)
  9. Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, and Ludwig DS. “Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.” Am J Clin Nutr 71: 901-907 (2000)
  10. Pereira MA, Swain J, Goldfine AB, Rifai N, and Ludwig DS. “Effects of a low-glycemic-load diet on resting energy expenditure and heart disease risk factors during weight loss.” JAMA 292: 2482-2490 (2004)
  11. Pittas AG, Roberts SB, Das SK, Gilhooly CH, Saltzman E, Golden J, Stark PC, and Greenberg AS. “The effects of the dietary glycemic load on type 2 diabetes risk factors during weight loss.” Obesity 14: 2200-2209 (2006)
  12. Johnston CS, Tjonn SL, Swan PD, White A, Hutchins H, and Sears B. “Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.” Am J Clin Nutr 83: 1055-1061 (2006)
  13. Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Brown SE, Gould KL, Merritt TA, Sparler S, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, Kirkeeide RL, Hogeboom C, and Brand RJ, “Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease.” JAMA 280: 2001-2007 (1998)
  14. Wolfe BM and Piche LA. “Replacement of carbohydrate by protein in a conventional-fat diet reduces cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations in healthy normolipidemic subjects.” Clin Invest Med 22: 140-1488 (1999)
  15. Dumesnil JG, Turgeon J, Tremblay A, Poirier P, Gilbert M, Gagnon L, St-Pierre S, Garneau C, Lemieux I, Pascot A, Bergeron J, and Despres JP. “Effect of a low-glycaemic index, low-fat, high-protein diet on the atherogenic metabolic risk profile of abdominally obese men.” Br J Nutr 86:557-568 (2001)
  16. Markovic TP, Campbell LV, Balasubramanian S, Jenkins AB, Fleury AC, Simons LA, and Chisholm DJ. “Beneficial effect on average lipid levels from energy restriction and fat loss in obese individuals with or without type 2 diabetes.” Diabetes Care 21: 695-700 (1998)
  17. Layman DK, Shiue H, Sather C, Erickson DJ, and Baum J. “Increased dietary protein modifies glucose and insulin homeostasis in adult women during weight loss.” J Nutr 133: 405-410 (2003)
  18. Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, Jordan K, and Hoover H. “An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in persons with type 2 diabetes.” Am J Clin Nutr 78: 734-741 (2003)
  19. Nuttall FQ, Gannon MC, Saeed A, Jordan K, and Hoover H. “The metabolic response of subjects with type 2 diabetes to a high-protein, weight-maintenance diet.” J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003 88: 3577-3583 (2003)
  20. Gannon MC and Nuttall FQ. “Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition.” Nutr Metab (Lond) 3: 16 (2006)
  21. Hamdy O and Carver C. “The Why WAIT program: improving clinical outcomes through weight management in type 2 diabetes.” Curr Diab Rep 8: 413-420 (2008)
  22. Gardner CD, Kim S, Bersamin A, Dopler-Nelson M, Otten J, Oelrich B, and Cherin R. “Micronutrient quality of weight-loss diets that focus on macronutrients: results from the A TO Z study.” Am J Clin Nutr 92: 304-312 (2010)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

What are we really entitled to?

For the past year the future of the American economy has centered on the word “entitlement,” especially in terms of health care. But no one is quite certain about what the word means. Social Security is not really an entitlement because it is a forced savings program that promises you the money you put into an old-age fund will be given back to you when you need it, some time in your 60s. The fact that the government has been using that account as a piggy bank to fund itself without raising taxes and leaving behind government I.O.U.s in place of the funds is another matter. But you are definitely entitled to at least get back the money you put into it.

Medicare is a completely different matter. In this case, you put very little money into a fund (which is also heavily borrowed from by the government), and you expect to get a lot more back. In my view, you are entitled to get back the money you paid into Medicare, and anything more should be considered a gift from a rich uncle (Sam), who is no longer very rich.

In an attempt to resolve this problem, Congressman Paul Ryan came up with a plan that went nowhere but had at least some intellectual merit: You pay into the medical fund for old age, and you get back what you paid in (and a little more) at age 67. The most notable feature of this plan was getting an annual voucher for about $6,000 based on 2012 dollars to be applied for private health insurance premiums after age 67.

At the current Medicare tax rate, the only way to pay in more than $6,000 into proposed trust fund on an annual basis is if you make more than $200,000 per year. Since there aren’t too many Americans making that type of salary, it’s your rich uncle who must make up the difference. Even if you were making $200,000 per year for 40 years and only planned to live another 15 years after retirement, it is still a pretty good deal, as it is forced savings for health-care insurance in the future. Any overpayment on your part will only help those who are not lucky enough to make $200,000 a year for 40 years. Unfortunately, this proposal was politically dead on arrival

The real problem with any health-care entitlement program was pointed out in a well-reasoned article in the May 19th issue of The New Republic — you can’t cure chronic disease, you can only manage it (1). In addition, new research analyses of the current state of Americans in old age indicates that we aren’t doing a very good job of managing chronic diseases (2). Although Americans are living longer, the length of life with chronic disease and loss of functional mobility (i.e. independent living) have rapidly increased since 1998. We are living longer because the elderly are essentially on life support generated by increasingly more expensive drugs that only marginally extend the lives of the very sick. We are not going to cure heart disease, cancer, stroke, and definitely not Alzheimer’s. The best we can do is to help manage their outcomes. Unfortunately, these are also diseases of the elderly, and the cost of increasing each year of life after 65 has risen from about $50,000 in the 1970s to nearly $150,000 in the 1990s. This could possibly be justified if the rich uncle were still rich.

The solution according to the authors of the New Republic article is redirecting the money that we can spend to maximize expenditures on public health care (prevention and elongation of independent living) as opposed to “curing” elderly with chronic disease that usually results in the decreased quality of life (1). The primary beneficiaries of this shift in medical thinking should be children followed by working adults, with the lowest health-care priority going to those over age 80. It sounds harsh, but that is exactly how socialized medicine works in Europe.

So what do you do to protect yourself in the future, especially if you are nearing 65? My suggestion is to start aggressively reducing cellular inflammation by following an anti-inflammatory diet and lifestyle. That’s the only thing you are really entitled to and that will also be the only thing your “rich” uncle can realistically pay for in the future.

References

  1. Callahan D and Nuland S. “The quagmire: how American medicine is destroying itself.” The New Republic. May 19, 2011
  2. Crimmins EM and Beltran-Sanchez H. “Mortality and morbidity trends: is there compression of morbidity?” J Gerontol B Physchol Soc Sci 66: 75-86 (2011)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

The dangers of over-analyzing too much data in prostate study

In the last week there has been a constant buzz about an online pre-publication of a new research article that suggests that high concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids promote aggressive prostate cancer (1). Well, that really isn’t the case, in spite of the press reports. That’s why you have to carefully read the article before jumping to conclusions.

Prostate cancer, like all cancers, is driven by cellular inflammation. The level of cellular inflammation is defined by the AA/EPA ratio of isolated serum phospholipids. When you analyze the data correctly in that article, you find that there was no difference in the AA/EPA ratio between the low-aggressive, high- aggressive, or control group. In fact, all the groups had the same elevated AA/EPA ratio of 18.8. Since I like to have individuals try to maintain an AA/EPA ratio of less than 3, all of these groups could be considered to be inflamed.

Not surprisingly, when you look at either EPA or AA levels separately in each group, they are identical. It’s only when you look at the DHA levels, do you see a small difference statistically, but it’s meaningless clinically. There was a 2.5 percent increase in the DHA levels in the high-aggressive group compared to the control group. In the paper, authors state their error in measuring DHA is ± 2.4 percent. Call me crazy, but I don’t see the big difference between the reported results and their error measurements. To further cloud the results, the authors also find that the levels of trans-fatty acids are lower in the aggressive prostate cancer patients than the controls. So I guess if you wanted to take their data at face value, DHA makes prostate cancer more aggressive and trans-fatty acids found in junk foods make prostate cancer less aggressive.

I believe this is simply a case of over-interpretation of massive amounts of collected data. If you get enough data points, you can always make some type of correlation, but that’s all it is. At some point you also have to allow common sense to enter the final analysis.

Nonetheless, let’s say their data might be correct. How could excess DHA increase the aggressiveness of any cancer? Well, it might decrease the levels of dihomo gamma linolenic acid (DGLA) as I have explained in many of my books (2-5). DGLA is the building block for a powerful group of anti-inflammatory eicosanoids, and its formation is inhibited by DHA. Depressing DGLA levels would reduce the body’s ability to hold back the inflammation that drives the tumor. Unfortunately, with all the data they accumulated, they forgot to publish the changes in the DGLA levels in the various groups. Oops.

So even if there were not any changes in the AA/EPA ratio between groups, a depression of DGLA levels in the aggressive prostate cancer group would easily explain the clinical observation. Unfortunately, that interpretation requires an extensive background in understanding eicosanoid biochemistry, which is not easily found in academic clinical-research centers.

This is not the first time that the potential benefits of DHA are in question. In the largest cardiovascular intervention study ever done, it was demonstrated that adding high levels of EPA to the diet of Japanese patients with high cholesterol levels (who already with a very low AA/EPA ratio of 1.6), dramatically decreased their likelihood of future cardiovascular events (6). This reduction was only correlated with increases in EPA levels as well as with a decrease in the AA/EPA ratio from an already low 1.6 to an even lower 0.8 (7). The levels of DHA in these patients had no significance for predicting future cardiovascular events.

Likewise other studies using DHA alone to treatment post-partum depression, improve neurological functioning of children or treating Alzheimer’s have also been found to be negative (8,9).

It’s not that DHA is bad, it just doesn’t do much to reduce cellular inflammation. DHA does a lot of other useful things, but reducing cellular inflammation in not one of them.

References

  1. Brasky TM, Till C, White E, Neuhouser ML, Song X, Goodman P, Thompson IM, King EB, Albanes D, and Kristal AR. “Serum phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk.” Amer J Epidem 173: doi 10:1093/aje/kwr9027 (2011)
  2. Sears, B. “The Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (1995)
  3. Sears, B. “The OmegaRx Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (2002)
  4. Sears, B. “The Anti-inflammation Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (2005)
  5. Sears, B. “Toxic Fat.” Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)
  6. Matsuzaki M, Yokoyama M, Saito Y, Origasa H, Ishikawa Y, Oikawa S, Sasaki J, Hishida H, Itakura H, Kita T, Kitabatake A, Nakaya N, Sakata T, Shimada K, Shirato K, and Matsuzawa Y. “Incremental effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with coronary artery disease.” Circ J 73:1283-1290 (2009)
  7. Itakura H, Yokoyama M, Matsuzaki M, Saito Y, Origasa H, Ishikawa Y, Oikawa S, Sasaki J, Hishida H, Kita T, Kitabatake A, Nakaya N, Sakata T, Shimada K, Shirato K, and Matsuzawa Y. “Relationships between Plasma Fatty Acid Composition and Coronary Artery Disease.” J Atheroscler Thromb 18:99-107 (2011)
  8. Makrides M, Gibson RA, McPhee AJ, Yelland L, Quinlivan J, and Ryan P. “Effect of DHA supplementation during pregnancy on maternal depression and neurodevelopment of young children: a randomized controlled trial.” JAMA 304; 1675-1683 (2010)
  9. Quinn JF, Raman R, Thomas RG, Yurko-Mauro K, Nelson EB, Van Dyck C, Galvin JE, Emond J, Jack CR, Weiner M, Shinto L, and Aisen PS. “Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized trial.” JAMA 304: 1903-1911 (2010)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

Where does fat go?

Many years ago I saw a great cartoon of farmer harvesting bales of fat on a tractor with the caption reading, “That’s where they grow fat”. Now let’s fast forward to our current obesity epidemic. The fastest and most popular (although costly) way to lose fat is to simply suck it out of the body. Plastic surgeons have been doing this for the past 40 years. Yet for some reason their patients keep coming back every 12 months needing a new liposuction touch-up, like taking your car in for an oil lube and tire change at your local garage. Maybe these patients simply have no willpower to keep the fat off.

Now a new study in an online pre-publication article (1) indicates liposuction recipients may not be so “weak-willed” after all. After one year compared to a control group (who were promised discount prices for their liposuction if they would agree to wait for the outcome of the study), the females who had liposuction had no change in their body weight or their percentage of body fat 12 months after the operation. All the fat that had been removed by liposuction had returned. More ominously, the new fat appeared in the wrong places. Initially, it was taken from the hips, and 12 months later it reappeared on the abdomen. In essence, the liposuction had transformed the patients from a pear shape (with few long-term cardiovascular consequences) to an apple shape (with greater long-term cardiovascular consequences). While there was no short-term deterioration in their metabolic markers suggestive of future diabetes or heart disease, the change in the body shape is still an ominous predictor for their future health.

Why the body would grow new fat cells in different parts of the body is still a mystery. But it does indicate the body’s ability to defend itself against rapid fat loss. Fat loss must be a slow, continuous process to avoid activating these “fat-defending” systems. It is impossible to lose more than one pound of fat per week. You can lose a lot more weight, but that difference in weight loss primarily comes from either water loss or loss of muscle mass. This is why you see large of amounts of weight loss during the first week or two of any quick weight-loss diet (primarily water loss) followed by a much slower weight loss (now consisting of fat loss but at a much slower rate).

This is also why it is much easier to lose a lot of weight on shows like “The Biggest Loser” but very difficult to lose the last 10-15 pounds of excess weight (which is usually stored body fat). Apparently, it is only through the slow, steady loss of body fat that there isn’t any activation of the hormonal signals that activate the formation of new fat cells in other parts of the body to restore fat levels. Liposuction is rapid fat loss, and hence those hormonal signals are activated, which leads to the increased production of new fat cells in different parts of the body. People don’t like to hear this, but unfortunately it is the truth.

What drives fat gain is cellular inflammation that creates insulin resistance, as I explain in my book “Toxic Fat” (2). To lose excess body fat, you must first reduce cellular inflammation. That can only be done by an anti-inflammatory diet. There is no secret about it. What you must do is eat adequate protein at every meal, primarily eat colorful vegetables as carbohydrate choices, and avoid the intake of excess omega-6 (i.e., vegetable oils) fats and saturated fats by primarily using monounsaturated and omega-3 fats. You have to do this for a lifetime. Of course, if you do, then you will become thinner, healthier, and smarter.

The alternative is to turn yourself from a pear into an apple with liposuction.

References

  1. Hernandex TL, Kittelson JM, Law CK, Ketch LL, Stob NR, Linstrom RC, Scherziner A, Stamm ER, and Eckel RH. “Fat redistribution following section lepectomy: defense of body fat and patterns of restoration.” Obesity doi:1038/oby.2011.64
  2. Sears B. “Toxic Fat.” Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

The fallacy of using DHA alone for brain trauma

I am constantly amazed by the lack of understanding by neurologists of basic essential fatty acid biochemistry in the treatment of brain trauma and concussions. They often blindly believe that the only omega-3 fatty acid that has any impact in the treatment of concussions is DHA alone. Their blind faith is based on the observation that you find a lot of DHA in the brain and little EPA. This obviously means that EPA must not be important for brain function. This is similar to stating the world is flat because it appears that way to the naked eye.

I have mentioned many times in my books that EPA and DHA have different functions, and that’s why you need both of these essential omega-3 fatty acids (1-4). This is especially true for the brain. EPA produces most of the anti-inflammatory properties of omega-3 fatty acids since it’s structurally similar to arachidonic acid (AA) as they both contain 20 carbon atoms with approximately the same spatial configuration. As a result, EPA can inhibit the enzymes that would otherwise produce pro-inflammatory eicosanoids from AA. It is AA that generates the inflammation caused by brain trauma. DHA, on the other hand, is primarily a structural component of neural tissue. They do different jobs, and that’s why you need both in combination.

So why isn’t there as much EPA in the brain compared to DHA? The reason is simple. EPA enters the brain just as quickly as DHA, but it is rapidly oxidized, whereas DHA is sent off to long-term storage in neural tissue (5-7). The lifetime of DHA in the human brain is measured in years, whereas the lifetime of the EPA is measured in days. So obviously when you kill an animal and look at the brain, you are not going to find very much EPA.

What complicates the issue is that if you only treat a concussion with DHA, some of the DHA will be converted to EPA. This gives the appearance that DHA is working to reduce inflammation. Since brain trauma and concussions generate inflammation in the brain, doesn’t it make more sense to provide as much EPA as possible to reduce the inflammation as opposed to supplementing only with DHA and hoping some fraction of it will be converted to EPA?

To answer that question, it is useful to look at two recent studies that used the same protocol to study inflammation induced by a concussion injury (8,9). The same total amount of omega-3 fatty acids was used to treat the animals after the concussion injury. One experiment used a 2:1 ratio of EPA to DHA, and the other experiment used only DHA. If the DHA was so important, then the animals treated with the DHA alone should have demonstrated three times the reduction of neuro-inflammation compared to the group that received omega-3 fatty acids containing only one-third as much DHA.

In fact, just the opposite was the case. The 2:1 EPA/DHA group demonstrated greater benefits compared to the DHA-alone group in reducing neuro-inflammation induced by a concussion. Why? EPA is a far more powerful anti-inflammatory agent than DHA. This is why in both studies the AA/EPA ratio was used as the marker of inflammation induced by the concussion injury. Since the AA/EPA ratio was decreased in both studies, this meant that some of the pure DHA was converted to EPA providing at least some anti-inflammatory actions. Thus giving 100 percent DHA is not exactly the most efficient way to decrease neuro-inflammation induced by a concussion injury. This is further emphasized by a recent study that indicated that 1 gram of DHA per day for an 18-month period had no impact in the cognitive improvement of Alzheimer’s patients (10), even though Alzheimer’s is known to be a neuro-inflammatory disease (11).

Does this mean that DHA is not important for brain repair? Of course not. This is because you need both EPA and DHA for optimal repair of brain damage after a concussion. You need the EPA to reduce the neuro-inflammation, and you need the DHA to help rebuild new neurons. But to give DHA alone without additional EPA to maximally reduce neuro-inflammation caused by concussions simply makes no sense.

References

  1. Sears B. “The Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (1995)
  2. Sears B. “The OmegaRx Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (2002)
  3. Sears B. “The Anti-inflammation Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (2005)
  4. Sears B. “Toxic Fat.” Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)
  5. Chen CT, Liu Z, and Bazinet RP. “Rapid de-esterification and loss of eicosapentaenoic acid from rat brain phospholipids: an intracerebroventricular study.” J Neurochem 116: 363-373 (2011)
  6. Chen CT, Liu Z, Ouellet M, Calon F, and Bazinet RP. “Rapid beta-oxidation of eicosapentaenoic acid in mouse brain: an in situ study. “Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 80: 157-163 (2009)
  7. Umhau JC, Zhou W, Carson RE, Rapoport SI, Polozova A, Demar J, Hussein N, Bhattacharjee AK, Ma K, Esposito G, Majchrzak S, Herscovitch P, Eckelman WC, Kurdziel KA, and Salem N. “Imaging incorporation of circulating docosahexaenoic acid into the human brain using positron emission tomography.” J Lipid Res 50: 1259-1268 (2009)
  8. Mills JD, Bailes JE, Sedney CL, Hutchins H, and Sears B. “Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and reduction of traumatic axonal injury in a rodent head injury model.” J Neurosurg 114: 77-84 (2011)
  9. Bailes JE and Mills JD. “Docosahexaenoic acid reduces traumatic axonal injury in a rodent head injury model.” J Neurotrauma 27: 1617-1624 (2010)
  10. Quinn JF, Raman R, Thomas RG, Yurko-Mauro K, Nelson EB, Van Dyck C, Galvin JE, Emond J, Jack CR, Weiner M, Shinto L, and Aisen PS. “Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized trial.” JAMA 304: 1903-1911 (2010)
  11. Akiyama H, Barger S, Barnum S, Bradt B, Bauer J, Cole GM, Cooper NR, Eikelenboom P, Emmerling M, Fiebich BL, Finch CE, Frautschy S, Griffin WS, Hampel H, Hull M, Landreth G, Lue L, Mrak R, Mackenzie IR,McGeer PL, O’Banion MK, Pachter J, Pasinetti G, Plata-Salaman C, Rogers J, Rydel R, Shen Y, Streit W, Strohmeyer R, Tooyoma I, Van Muiswinkel FL,Veerhuis R, Walker D, Webster S, Wegrzyniak B, Wenk G, and Wyss-Coray T. “Inflammation and Alzheimer’s disease.” Neurobiol Aging 21: 383-421 (2000)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

Omega-3 fatty acids and blood pressure

Blood Pressure CuffIt was recognized many years ago that fish oil has a dose-dependent effect on lowering blood pressure (1). So how does it do it? There are a lot of different ways.

The first is the ability of the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil to alter the levels of a group of hormones known as eicosanoids (2,3). These are the hormones that cause blood vessels to contract, thereby increasing the pressure needed to pump blood through the arteries. The omega-3 fatty acids, especially eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), inhibit both the synthesis and release of the omega-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid (AA) that is the molecular building block necessary to produce those eicosanoids that cause constriction of blood vessels.

The second way that fish oil helps reduce blood pressure is to accelerate weight loss. When you lose excess weight, blood pressure invariably decreases. A recent trial has indicated that when you add fish oil to a calorie-restricted diet, there is greater weight loss (4). This study was followed by an additional trial that indicated when adding fish oil to a weight-reduction diet, there was a further effect on lowering blood pressure (5). So how does fish oil help you lose excess weight? The answer lies in the ability of the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil to reduce cellular inflammation in the fat cells (6). It's that cellular inflammation that makes you fat and keeps you fat. Reducing that cellular inflammation in the fat cells is the key to weight loss.

Finally another cause of increased blood pressure is increased stress. It was shown in 2003 that high levels of fish oil reduce the rise of blood pressure induced by mental stress (7).

Of course, the best way to reduce blood pressure is to follow an anti-inflammatory diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids. That means a diet rich in fruits and vegetables with adequate levels of low-fat protein and low levels of omega-6 and saturated fats. It's also commonly known as the Zone diet.

References:

  1. Morris MC, Sacks F, and Rosner B. “Does fish oil lower blood pressure? A meta-analysis of controlled trials.” Circulation 88: 523-533 (1993)
  2. Sears B. “The Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (1995)
  3. Sears B. “The OmegaRx Zone.” Regan Books. New York, NY (2002)
  4. Thorsdottir I, Tomasson H, Gunnarsdottir I, Gisladottir E, Kiely M, Parra MD, Bandarra NM, Schaafsma G, and Martinez JA. “Randomized trial of weight-loss diets for young adults varying in fish and fish oil content.” Int J Obes 31: 1560-1566 (2007)
  5. Ramel A, Martinez JA, Kiely M, Bandarra NM, and Thorsdottir I. “Moderate consumption of fatty fish reduces diastolic blood pressure in overweight and obese European young adults during energy restriction.” Nutrition 26: 168-174 (2010)
  6. Sears B. “Toxic Fat.” Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)
  7. Delarue J, Matzinger O, Binnert C, Schneiter P, Chiolero R, and Tappy L. “Fish oil prevents the adrenal activation elicited by mental stress in healthy men.” Diabetes Metab 29: 289-295 (2003)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

New solution or simply admitting failure?

SurgeryLast week the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) announced that gastric bypass surgery is a cost-effective treatment for type 2 diabetes. This marks the first time in modern medicine that cutting out normal tissue is now considered good medicine. It also indicates the pathetic state of medical science for the treatment of diabetes.

Make no mistake: Type 2 diabetes is now a pandemic, affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. This is projected to increase to some 450 million people worldwide by 2030. Since diabetes is one of the most costly chronic disease conditions, it is the most likely to break the financial backbone of health-care systems in every advanced country.

The typical gastric bypass surgery costs from $15,000 to $24,000. Just for argument's sake, let's assume it is $20,000 for each surgery. Since some 26 million people in the United States have type 2 diabetes, then a mere $520 billion dollars spent on gastric bypass surgery would solve our growing epidemic. Obviously we don't have that type of money floating in the health-care system.

Furthermore, the 10-year failure rate is relatively high for this type of surgery (1). For example, 20 percent of patients who were initially obese (BMI >50 percent) could not maintain their long-term BMI below 35 percent (the definition of morbidly obese). This failure rate rises to 58 percent for those whose initial BMI was greater than 50.

The key feature as to why gastric bypass surgery works is the almost immediate suppression of hunger, mediated by improved release of hormones from the gut (i.e. PYY) that go directly to the brain to tell the patient to stop eating. Over time it would appear that this initial enhancement of PYY release is being compromised. As a result, those patients regain the lost weight.

So maybe gastric bypass is not the best long-term solution (and definitely not a cost-effective one in those patients that regain much of their lost weight) for solving the current epidemic of diabetes. So what's the alternative? One solution would be an anti-inflammatory diet that supplies adequate protein to stimulate PYY release as well as control the levels of cellular inflammation in the pancreas, the underlying reason why insufficient insulin levels are secreted in the first place (2).

Call me crazy, but this dietary approach appears far more cost-effective.

References

  1. Christou NV, Look D, and MacLean LD. “Weight gain after short- and long-limb gastric bypass in patients followed for longer than 10 years.” Ann Surg 244: 734-740 (2006)
  2. Donath MY,Boni-Schnetzler M, Ellingsgaard H, and Ehses JA. “Islet inflammation impairs the pancreatic beta-cell in type 2 diabetes.” Physiology 24: 325-331 (2009)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.

Mythologies in treatment of childhood obesity

childhood obesityWe all know that obese children tend to be inactive. This leads to the “obvious” conclusion that the solution to childhood obesity is simply more exercise. But what if that conclusion is totally wrong?

There is no mistaking that obesity and lack of physical activity are linked. But which comes first? The answer appears to be obesity (1). A study published online in the Archives of Disease in Childhood followed young children over a four-year period carefully measuring their physical activity with accelerometers to measure physical activity for seven consecutive days as well as their percentage of body fat using DEXA scans. What they found was that physical inactivity was not related to the increased accumulation of body fat, rather they found that increased body fat was the cause of decreasing physical activity. This is also the situation with adults (2-5).

So why do so many researchers believe that inactivity leads to fatness? Because it just has to be the answer. This belief persists in spite of numerous studies that demonstrate that increased physical activity has little impact on reducing childhood obesity (6). This is a classic case of don't confuse me with the facts, since in my heart I know I am right.

This is not to say that exercise has no benefits in obese children. In fact, the same authors had published an earlier study indicating that while intense exercise had little impact on fat loss, there is a significant benefit in reducing insulin resistance (7).

The implications of this study in children are immense. In essence, increasing public expenditures to increase physical activity will not address the childhood obesity epidemic no matter how much money you throw at the problem. Instead you have to focus on reducing calorie intake. However, this decrease in calorie consumption is not going to be accomplished by increased willpower, but by increasing satiety (lack of hunger) in obese children.

As I pointed out in my most recent book, “Toxic Fat,” if you want to increase satiety, you must reduce cellular inflammation in the brain (8). That is best accomplished by a combination of an anti-inflammatory diet coupled with high-dose fish oil.

Of course, as an alternative, you could always consider gastric bypass surgery.

References

  1. Metcalf BS, Hosking J, Jeffery AN, Voss LD, Henley W, and Wilkin TJ. “Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness.” Arch Dis Chil doi:10.1136/adc.2009.175927
  2. Bak H, Petersen L, and Sorensen TI. “Physical activity in relation to development and maintenance of obesity in men with and without juvenile onset obesity.” Int J Obes Relate Metabl Disord 28: 99-104 (2004)
  3. Petersen L, Schnorhr, and Sorensen TI. “Longitudinal study of the long-term relation between physical activity and obesity in adults.” Int J Obes Relate Metabl Disord 28: 105-112 (2004)
  4. Mortensen LH, Siegler Ic, Barefoot JC, Gronbaek M, and Sorensen TI. “Prospective associations between sedentary lifestyle and BMI in midlife.” Obesity 14: 1462-1471 (2006)
  5. Ekelund U, Brage S, Besson H, Sharp S, and Wareham NJ. “Time spent being sedentary and weight gain in healthy adults.” Am J Clin Nutr 88: 612-617 (2008)
  6. Wareham NJ, van Sluijs EM, and Ekelund U. “Physical activity and obesity prevention: a review of the current evidence.” Proc Nutr Soc 64: 229-247 (2005)
  7. Metcalf BS, Voss LD, Hosking J, Jeffery AN, and Wilkin TJ. “Physical activity at the government-recommended level and obesity-related outcomes.” Arch Dis Child93: 772-777 (2008)
  8. Sears B. “Toxic Fat”. Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN (2008)

Nothing contained in this blog is intended to be instructional for medial diagnosis or treatment. If you have a medical concern or issue, please consult your personal physician immediately.