Thinking Differently About Health Care – Articles

October 24, 2008 at 6:15 am | In Alternative health, Government, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Politics, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | Leave a Comment

This excellent summary of our health care situation is from the website of Dr. Mercola. The emphases are mine.

The American health care system is on life-support. Priced at nearly $8,000 a year per American, and soon to be 20 percent of the GDP, it’s more expensive by 40-60 percent than health care systems in any other industrial country, and totals nearly half the health care budget of the entire world. Yet it leaves 48 million Americans uncovered by health insurance and produces remarkably poor results.

According to the fascinating article linked below, it might help to consider American health as a house. Health care is the — very expensive — roof, the final protection against illness. In some ways it’s a preventive system, but mostly it’s sickness care.

The Health Care “House” is Falling Apart

In most other countries, the roof is a simpler affair. These health care systems rely much more on prevention. Yet the people in those “houses” live longer, healthier lives. That’s because in those other countries, the foundation and the walls of the house are stronger, with fewer cracks to let in the cold.

Start with the foundation. That’s the head start toward health that children in most other rich countries receive. In part because of better pre-natal care, infant mortality in all other industrial countries is lower than in the United States, which ranks 42nd in the world.

In every country in the world except the United States, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea, mothers, and often, fathers, are guaranteed paid time off from work to take care of newborns. In many cases, such “family leave” extends for up to a year or more.

The first wall is lifestyle.

Our tax system subsidizes producers of sugars and fats and our marketing system relentlessly advertises unhealthy foods. At the same time, Americans tend to work longer hours than people in other rich countries.

Wall number two is stress relief.

It’s no secret in the field of public health that stress is a killer. Several factors make American life particularly stressful. Stress can result from insecurity. As the American social safety net has been gutted in recent years and job protections have been reduced, life in America is far more insecure than in other rich countries.

Stress is also the result of time pressures and overwork. Breaks from a stressful workplace are seen by Europeans as yet another way to improve health.

The third wall is social connection.

It’s a given in the field of public health that social connection strengthens immune systems and improves physical well-being.

Yet America is an increasingly lonely country. More and more people, and especially older Americans, live alone, far more than in other rich countries. A recent study found that the average American has only two close friends he or she can turn to. A quarter have none at all.

The fourth wall is a safe environment.

Americans rank at the bottom in child safety, with the highest rates of accidents among children. Partly, time pressure on American parents leave them less able to supervise their children. Other studies show extremely high rates of accidents in the workplace compared to other nations.

Finally, and this is no small matter, every other industrial country guarantees its workers paid time off from work when they are sick; only the U.S. does not. Those countries know that without paid time off, workers will come to work sick, and will get others sick and stay sick longer.

To achieve better health outcomes, Americans must begin to see health as a holistic matter. Right now the American health care “house” has a foundation that is part marble, part rotting wood and part dirt. It has four walls that are a mixture of teak, balsa wood and bamboo, all of them in sorry shape. And finally, it has a gilded roof with millions of holes.

will obesity save medicare and social security?

October 2, 2008 at 5:25 am | In Alternative health, Government, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Opinion, Politics, Random, Rants, Social Security, Thoughts, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

You shouldn’t complain to fat people about their weight. They are saving you money. A study in Plos Medicine found that obesity costs more in the short term but earlier death cuts total medical costs.

Background

Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention.
With a simulation model, lifetime health-care costs were estimated for a cohort of obese people aged 20 years at baseline. To assess the impact of obesity, comparisons were made with similar cohorts of smokers and “healthy-living” persons (defined as nonsmokers with a body mass index between 18.5 and 25). Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands. In sensitivity analyses the effects of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions were assessed. Until age 56 years, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

And think of all the social security money that will be saved by the earlier deaths! So the next time that obese person on the airplane invades your space, just think about all the social security they’re saving you.

U.S. Paying Through the Nose for Poor Quality Health Care

August 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm | In Alternative health, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | Leave a Comment

The following article, plus commentary by Dr. Mercola, is on the website Mercola.com:

American medical care is the most expensive in the world, and it is definitely not worth every penny. A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund highlights the stark contrast between what the United States spends on its health system and the quality of care it delivers.

The report shows that the United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. But it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing avoidable deaths through use of timely and effective medical care.

The latest American Human Development Index by the Social Science Research Board also reveals shocking results: the U.S. ranks 42nd in global life expectancy, and 34th in survival of infants.

Additionally, a 30- year gap now exists in the average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England.

Huge disparities have also opened up in income, health and education depending on where people live in the US, according to the report.

These findings are likely to provide supporting evidence for the notion that the nation’s health care system needs to be fixed.

Kidney Disease and Vitamin D

July 20, 2008 at 10:56 am | In Alternative health, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | Leave a Comment

Vitamin D treatment in kidney disease cuts deaths by one-fourth

An article published online in advance of the August, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology reported that giving an oral form of activated vitamin D known as calcitriol to chronic kidney disease patients was associated with a 25 percent reduction in mortality over a 1.9 year period. Calcitriol has been previously associated with improved survival when given intravenously to kidney dialysis patients to treat hyperparathyroidism; however, its effect in nondialysis kidney disease patients was unknown.

In a study funded by the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bryan Kestenbaum of the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center in Seattle and his colleagues at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Medical Center evaluated 1,418 nonhypercalcemic patients with stage 3 to 4 (moderate to severe) chronic kidney disease. Some of the patients were being treated with oral calcitriol to help reduce elevated parathyroid hormone levels, a condition that was present in all participants. Over the 1.9 year follow-up period, 408 deaths occurred.

When mortality rates for the two groups were compared, deaths were 26 percent lower among those who received vitamin D, following adjustment for differences in age, parathyroid hormone levels, and other factors. Subjects who received calcitriol also had a lower risk of developing end stage kidney disease or requiring dialysis. The combined risk of death or dialysis was 20 percent lower among patients treated with calcitriol, a finding that was not related to calcitriol’s effect on parathyroid hormone.

“Although activated vitamin D is known to influence many biological processes, previous clinical knowledge is limited to its effect on parathyroid hormone levels,” Dr. Kestenbaum explained. “Recently, there has been an increased focus on the effects of vitamin D beyond those on bone health. Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and inflammation.”

“Randomized clinical trials are needed to test the hypothesis that vitamin D therapy can improve cardiovascular health and survival in CKD,” he added. “Future studies should also examine the role of nonactivated vitamin D, which is less expensive and less toxic.”

Low dose resveratrol gets to the heart of longevity

June 8, 2008 at 6:04 am | In Alternative health, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | Leave a Comment

Ther following article on Resveratrol is from the Life Extension Foundation.

An article published on June 4, 2008 in the online journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE supports earlier findings of a beneficial effect for resveratrol on the genetic changes that occur with aging. Previous research utilizing resveratrol, which is found in grapes, pomegranates and other foods, demonstrated that the compound prevented early mortality when administered in large doses to mice given high fat diets. The current study’s results provide evidence of a cardioprotective benefit for resveratrol at a relatively low dose.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Florida fed middle-aged (14 month old) rats a control diet, a diet containing a small amount of resveratrol, or a calorie restricted diet until the animals were 30 months of age. The team found similarities between the genetic effects of calorie restriction and those of resveratrol in the heart, skeletal muscle and brain. While the expression of 1,029 heart genes changed with age in the control animals, calorie restriction was found to reduce 90 percent, and resveratrol reduced 92 percent, of these age-related alterations in expression.

“Thus, resveratrol at doses that can be readily achieved through dietary supplementation in humans is as effective as calorie restriction in opposing the majority of age-related transcriptional alterations in the aging heart,” the authors write. “Because the collection of such alterations in gene expression is a biomarker of aging, our results imply that similar to calorie restriction, middle-age onset resveratrol supplementation at low doses is likely a robust intervention in the retardation of cardiac aging.”

“Resveratrol is active in much lower doses than previously thought and mimics a significant fraction of the profile of caloric restriction at the gene expression level,” explained senior author and UW professor of genetics Tomas Prolla. “There must be a few master biochemical pathways activated in response to caloric restriction, which in turn activate many other pathways. And resveratrol seems to activate some of these master pathways as well.”

“This brings down the dose of resveratrol toward the consumption reality mode,” added senior author Richard Weindruch, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “At the same time, it plugs into the biology of caloric restriction.”

A clinical trial is scheduled to take place at the University of Florida to test resveratrol’s benefits in older individuals. The study will evaluate the compound’s effects on inflammation, physical performance, memory and oxidative damage.

Can wine really be that good for you?

Indigestion-an Alternative

April 22, 2008 at 3:52 pm | In Alternative health, Blogroll, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Opinion, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | 1 Comment

This is an article that I read at alternative-medicine-and-health.com which I have started to follow because I fit the test as deficient in HCL.

WE ALL KNOW what indigestion is–sort of. It’s like heartburn, only different. Actually, indigestion refers to any disturbance of the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract, which includes the esophagus, stomach, and gallbladder. Heartburn is one of the usual symptoms of indigestion. Gas, bloating, and belching are also common symptoms.
If you suffer from indigestion after eating or drinking too much or as a result of stress, you need to investigate the various possibilities.
Here are the most common causes of indigestion:
• Candidiasis
• Food Allergy
• Gallbladder Disease
• H. Pylori
• Heartburn
• Hiatal Hernia and Esophagitis,
• Lactose Intolerance
• Ulcers
Most people who suffer from chronic indigestion have been to doctors and have been tested for various conditions. If this describes you, and if you have read about the above ailments and still can’t find the cause of your indigestion, there are two other possible causes that are not widely known:
• Deficiency of hydrochloric acid
• Deficiency of pancreatic enzymes
If you suffer from deficiency of hydrochloric acid or lack of gastric acid secretion, you may experience:
• bloating, belching, burning, and flatulence right after eating
• diarrhea or constipation
• a feeling of overfullness after eating
• food allergies
• nausea caused by nutritional supplements
Over half of people over the age of sixty suffer from low gastric acidity. If you’ve consulted your doctor about indigestion, taken antacids, and tried the prescription drug Tagamet and there has been no improvement or in fact you have felt worse, your problem could stem from a lack of hydrochloric acid. A physician can use a diagnostic test to confirm this problem, but there is also a simple test you can perform at home. Take a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar or lemon juice when you are experiencing indigestion. If this eliminates your symptoms, then you may be deficient in stomach acid. If it makes your symptoms worse, you have an overproduction of stomach acid. If the vinegar helps, you can take it with meals or you can take hydrochloric acid (HCL) supplements (these often contain pepsin), which you can buy at health food stores. Please note that hiatal hernia, gastritis, and duodenal ulcer are caused by overproduction of stomach acid, and HCL supplements can make these conditions worse. Therefore, it’s important to rule out hyperacidity before treating yourself with HCL supplements.
Other people suffer from a lack of pancreatic enzymes. The pancreas produces enzymes that are essential to the digestion and absorption of food. The enzymes include lipases that digest fat, proteases that digest proteins, and amylases that digest starch. I’ve noticed that patients with low blood sugar are more prone to a problem with pancreatic enzymes. This may be because both insulin, which controls blood sugar, and the pancreatic enzymes are produced by the same organ, the pancreas. If the pancreas is out of whack, low blood sugar and lack of enzymes could result.
A lack of pancreatic enzymes will lead to trouble when you ingest fatty foods: You may experience bloating or belching an hour after a fatty meal, or your may have a feeling of fullness.
If you lack pancreatic enzymes, there are supplements that can help. Preparations of pancreatic enzymes isolated from animal sources are used with other enzymes including bromelain, which comes from pineapple, to aid digestion. These supplements are available at health food stores.
NATURAL TREATMENTS FOR INDIGESTION:
• Rule out all the disorders listed above, including cardiac trouble, as possible causes.
• If the discomfort is caused by lack of gastric acid secretion as determined by the self-test recommended above, take hydrochloric acid (HCL) supplements. Please note you should never take hydrochloric acid at the same time as aspirin, gutazolldln, Indocin, Motrin, or any other antiinflammatory medications, If you experience stomach irritation, discontinue.
Begin treatment by taking one hydrochloric acid capsule (10 grains) at your next large meal. At every large meal after that take one more capsule. For example, one capsule at your next meal, two at the meal after that, three at the meal after that, and so on. Continue until you reach five capsules or until you feel your digestion has improved, whichever comes first, When you’ve discovered the dose you need, continue to take it with meats. You can reduce the number .of capsules you take when the meals are small.
Your stomach may regain the ability to manufacture stomach acid. If this happens, you can reduce the number of capsules taken.
• If your indigestion stems from a lack of pancreatic enzymes, you should take pancreatic enzymes and bromelain, available at health food stores, Take two to four tablets of pancreatic enzymes with meals–”SX USP” is the type to look for. Take bromelain in doses of 250 to 500 mg. with meals.

I started by taking apple cider vinegar for stomach upset, something my mother does regularly. It made my stomach feel better, so I purchased Betaine-Hcl at my local health food store. I take one tablet with breakfast, one with lunch and either two or three with dinner, depending on whether I have meat for dinner. I feel better, and have less stomach upset.

Update-After two months on that schedule, I have now dropped down to one 10 grain tablet at dinner (or two, if I have meat with dinner). It has been working fine. I guess that my stomach is now making a little more HCL.

Impatience is a form of Unbelief

April 19, 2008 at 6:26 am | In Bible, Christianity, Faith, Life, Opinion, Random, Rants, Religion, Theology, Thoughts, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

That’s what the signboard in front of the church said. I never heard the sermon the signboard was advertising, but that short message affected me deeply. It came at a time in my life when I was involved in a Large (for me) real estate project in a falling real estate market. I was desperate to get out of that project. I wanted God to act NOW to get it done.

I have now learned to live with the fallout of that project, and to accept the fact that God knows best. And it is working. I firmly believe now that we will weather the storm and be better of by not selling the project at the low rate it would have taken to sell immediately.

As Garth Brooks put it in one of his best songs-

Some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

Step 5-Longevity Series-Putting it all together

March 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm | In Alternative health, Blogroll, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Opinion, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | Leave a Comment

So how do we put this all together? What do we reasonably do to live a long and healthy life?

Let’s review what we’ve covered so far. First, exercise.

The benefits of exercise are extremely well studied. At least a half hour a day, at least five days per week. If this seems like a lot, look at it this way. Exercise could easily add 3.5 to 5 years to your life (per the Framingham heart study). That’s between 30,660 and 43,800 hours. Three hours per week is about 150 hours per year. If you exercise for 50 years, that adds up to 7500 hours of exercise. In other words, you gain between four and six hours of extra life for each hour you exercise. Or put another way, that’s a 300% to 500% return on your time invested exercising! And, you’ll feel better, with fewer health problems, for your entire life.

Then diet. It is now basically indisputable that there is a direct relationship between the amount of animal protein we eat and the chances of getting heart disease and cancer. This has been shown over and over again, but the most comprehensive study is The China Study. The findings? “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease.”

Another study, commonly called the Loma Linda Study, followed Seventh Day Adventists because of the vegan diet recommendations of their faith. That study showed that the average Seventh Day Adventist who followed the dietary recommendations of the church lived 13 years longer than the average non-smoking American.

Of course, just cutting out meat and dairy isn’t all that’s necessary. We need fresh fruit and vegetables, not refined sugar; whole grains, not refined flour; in short, wholesome food, not junk food.

Here’s one more thought about diet. There’s a recent study in which aging rats were given blueberries which were the equivalent of an adult human eating one cup of blueberries per day. These rats were about 65 in human terms. They received the blueberries for two months. They were then compared to young rats and control group old rats on several tests of mental and physical function. One test was typical of the overall results. In it, the young rats were able to balance on a rod for 14 seconds. The control group aged rats, who didn’t get blueberries, were able to balance for only 6 seconds. Their counterparts who received the blueberries were able to balance on the rod for 10 seconds-not as long as the young rats, but a considerable improvement over the rats not getting blueberries.

In short, what you eat matters-a lot.

Calorie restriction is the third prong of life extension. It’s thesis is-how much you eat matters a lot, also. Many studies have shown that reducing calorie intake by a significant amount, like 40%, will substantially extend life span. The problem with calorie restriction is that its impossible for all but the most dedicated, strong willed individuals to eat 25 to 40 per cent fewer calories on an ongoing basis. One way to get some of the benefits of calorie restriction is to do intermittent fasting, on a weekly, monthly or quarterly basis. (Before you undertake more than a one day fast, please see my fasting post for important information.)

An NIA study indicates that intermittent fasting may be more beneficial than cutting calorie intake. The researchers fed one group of mice 40% of the calories given to a control group. A third group was fasted for 24 hours, then permitted to free-feed. The fasting mice “didn’t cut total calories because they ate twice as much on days they weren’t fasting. Both the fasting mice and those on a restricted diet had significantly lower blood sugar and insulin levels than the free-fed controls. A toxin that damages hippocampal cells was injected in all of the mice. Hippocampal damage is associated with Alzheimer’s. Interestingly, the scientists found less damage in the brains of the fasting mice than in those that ate either a restricted or a normal diet.

Supplements are another way to extend life, and to maintain good health, notwithstanding the flawed studies run by people with ties to the drug and medical industry trying to prove the contrary. One study of supplements gave average human-equivalent doses of 31 vitamins and minerals to mice, while a control group got no supplements, but the same diet. This study was performed on mice with over-espressed growth hormone, and on normal mice.

The results were dramatic. Supplementation extended the life span of the growth hormone mice by 28 percent, to 431 days. In normal mice, supplementation extended life span by 11 percent on average, from 688 days to 765 days. How does this 11 percent increase in longevity in normal mice compare to caloric restriction? Other investigators have reported that a 40 percent restriction in calories increased survival in the same strain of mice about 19 percent.

One cutting edge thought for longevity. Resveratrol, a compound found in red grapes and red wine seems to exhibit some qualities for extending life. Here’s a quote from my June 4, 2007 post on resveratrol:

In numerous studies, resveratrol has demonstrated effects that mimic those of caloric restriction, the best-documented anti-aging strategy to date. In all animals in which it has been tested, caloric restriction—the practice of restricting calorie intake while maintaining good nutritional status—improves multiple aspects of age-related decline. Caloric restriction does this, in part, by producing changes in gene expression that are associated with long life and a slowing of the aging process.

So supplementing with resveratrol, and eating red grapes would be a good idea. And when you drink that daily glass of red wine, your toast should be to a long life.

Step 4-Longevity Series-Calorie Restriction

March 4, 2008 at 7:35 pm | In Alternative health, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Opinion, Random, Rants, Retirement, Thoughts, Vitamins | 1 Comment

This short article I received by e-mail from Life Extension Foundation emphasizes the importance of calorie restriction, and discusses the potential of obtaining results similar to calorie restriction by supplementation.

The October issue of Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences reported the discovery of researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo that restricting calories, a technique long proven to extend the life span of laboratory animals, enabled rats to maintain their physical fitness into their later years.

UB School of Public Health and Health Professions assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences Tongjian You, PhD, and associates evaluated 18, 24 and 29 month old male rats, equivalent in age to humans 50 to 70 years old. The animals had been divided to eat as much as they wanted from birth or to receive diets that contained 40 percent fewer calories than the normal amount. The rats were tested for grip, swimming speed, muscle tone and stamina, and data was obtained on whole body mass, lean body mass, fat mass, proinflammatory cytokine levels, and C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation.

Rats that received the restricted diets had significantly higher physical performance scores than animals on normal diets, less body and visceral fat and a reduced fat to lean ratio. The animals also experience lower adipose secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) and decreased circulating C-reactive protein.

Reduced levels of interleukin-6 may be the mechanism through which the benefits associated with calorie restriction in this study occurred. Inflammation can cause chronic disease and reduce physical performance.

“This is the first study to report that caloric restriction reduced production in visceral fat of the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and enhanced performance on overall physical function assessments,” Dr You announced. “In addition, rats that ate a normal diet lost a significant amount of lean muscle mass and acquired more fat, while calorie-restricted rats maintained lean muscle mass as they aged.”

“Based on an average of 2,000 calories per day for adult women and 2,500 for men, cutting by 40 percent would mean surviving on 1,200 and 1,500 calories per day, respectively,” Dr You observed. “It’s very difficult for people to maintain that type of diet for short periods of time, and it would be nearly impossible over a lifetime, while staying healthy.”

Dr You suggested restricting calories by 8 percent as a more practical goal. “Preclinical testing of this 8-percent regimen could be informative and beneficial in translating to humans,” he noted.

It appears that caloric restriction works by slowing biological aging in many ways, including decreasing reactive oxygen species (ROS) damage to cells, limiting inflammation, enhancing insulin sensitivity, and repairing damaged cells. Certain nutrients have demonstrated similar effects, leading one group of researchers (Lemon JA et al 2005) to attempt to mimic calorie restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON) with a formula containing 31 ingredients that included a wide range of antioxidants and nutrients that have been extensively studied in humans (such as vitamin E, vitamin C, coenzyme Q10, glutathione precursors, and essential fatty acids).

This formula was given to normal mice and mice that over-expressed growth hormone. The mice that over-expressed growth hormone were larger and had a shorter life span than the normal ones, presumably because they aged faster.

The results were dramatic. Supplementation extended the life span of the growth hormone mice by 28 percent, to 431 days. In normal mice, supplementation extended life span by 11 percent on average, from 688 days to 765 days (Lemon JA et al 2005).

How does this 11 percent increase in longevity in normal mice compare to caloric restriction? Although a CRON group was not included in the study described above, other investigators have reported that 40 percent restriction in calories increased survival in the same strain of mice about 19 percent (Forster MJ et al 2003). Thus, supplementation yielded about half as much longevity as caloric restriction.

As the article notes, calorie restriction on this scale is probably impossible on a long term basis. However, shorter term calorie restriction is possible. One possibility would be a one day per week fast or juice fast. While this would not give you a 40% reduction in calories, it would help control weight, and should give some of the benefits of caloric restriction as well.

(For another take on mimicking caloric restriction, see my June 4, 2007 blog on Resveratrol and caloric restriction.)

Making It To 90-Increase your odds

March 2, 2008 at 7:15 am | In Alternative health, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Opinion, Random, Rants, Retirement, Thoughts, Vitamins | 2 Comments

This is an e-mail I received from Life Extension Foundation on February 12, 2008:

An article published in the February 11, 2008 issue of the American Medical Association journal Archives of Internal Medicine reveals that avoiding five modifiable factors can significantly increase the odds of living to the age of 90.

Laurel B. Yates, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston and associates evaluated data from 2,357 older participants in the Physician’s Health Study, a trial of aspirin and beta-carotene as cardiovascular disease and cancer preventives in 22,071 male physicians. Demographic information, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, diabetes and angina history, exercise frequency, smoking status, body mass index, and other data were obtained upon enrollment between 1981 and 1984. Follow-up questionnaires were completed annually to ascertain changes in health or lifestyle habits, or the occurrence of chronic diseases or risks through March, 2006.

Nine hundred-seventy men in the current investigation survived to age 90 and beyond. The research team identified five controllable factors associated with failure to reach 90: smoking, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and a sedentary lifestyle.

Not surprisingly, smoking more than doubled the risk of dying before the age of 90. Diabetes, obesity, and hypertension also significantly elevated mortality risk, while regular exercise lowered it by 30 percent compared to those who rarely or never exercised. Men who survived to 90 had a healthier lifestyle, less chronic disease, and were older when disease was diagnosed. They also experienced improved late-life function and well-being.

From the results of this study, the researchers estimated that a 70 year old nondiabetic nonsmoker with normal weight and blood pressure who exercised two to four times per week had a 54 percent probability of living to age 90. The presence of three of the identified risk factors conferred a 14 percent probability, while having all five resulted in only a 4 percent chance.

“Although the impact of certain midlife mortality risks in elderly years is controversial, our study suggests that many remain important, at least among men,” the authors write. “Thus, our results suggest that healthy lifestyle and risk management should be continued in elderly years to reduce mortality and disability.”

In an accompanying editorial, William J. Hall, MD notes that the fastest-growing group of older Americans is aged 85 years and older. “This unprecedented increase of the oldest old is occurring in an era of extraordinary rapid development of new knowledge of the human genome, holding tantalizing promise for novel solutions to human disease and even increased life extension,” he writes. “This study suggests that adherence to sound medical management and lifestyle modification pays enormous dividends in life extension and probably substantial reductions of aggregate medical care costs.”

There you have it-scientific proof that the first three steps in the Longevity series do work.

Barstool Tax Policy

February 24, 2008 at 3:08 pm | In Blogroll, Debt, Government, Law, Life, Opinion, Politics, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

I ran across this article on an internet posting a while back. I thought it was worth reprinting:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Apparently, there is some dispute about the authorship of the story.

Step three-Longevity series-Diet

February 10, 2008 at 8:35 am | In Alternative health, Blogroll, Health, Health and Fitness, Life, Medicine, Opinion, Random, Rants, Thoughts, Vitamins | 1 Comment

Diet is a controversial issue for me. Partly this is because my wife and I have somewhat differing views. My wife believes that a vegan diet, with almost all food being “raw” (not heated to more than 115 degrees F) is the proper healthy way to eat, with maybe an occasional small serving of fish, no dairy products, no red meat, and very few cooked vegetables or fruits. It is true that there is adequate protein in vegetables to sustain life so a vegan diet is probably okay (except that you should supplement with B-12, and, if you live in the northern half of the United States, D-3). But it doesn’t satisfy me. I can do it for a few days, but then I need a little meat protein.

My attitude is also partly the result of trying many, many diets. I have been intrigued by the Blood Type diet, and its refinement, the Genotype diet, but these are not yet proven, and the blood type diet didn’t lead to any weight loss for me. Over the years, I’ve been on the Pritikin Diet, the Adkins Diet, the Cabbage Soup diet, and many others. None of them helped me loose much weight, and none of them left me with any permanent weight loss. And I didn’t feel comfortable with any of them as a life long program for eating.

Over the years, I have developed several principles about proper diet, however. The basic principle is that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is killing us.

First, we eat too much meat and animal protein. The China Study has shown conclusively, in my opinion, that the less animal protein we eat, the more healthy we are. It proves that the more animal protein we eat, the more heart disease and cancer we have. It’s a direct correlation! This is further shown by the fact that Seventh Day Adventist’s who follow their church’s teachings to eat no meat live an average of 13 years longer than the average NON-SMOKING U.S. citizen.

Second, it is a scientific fact that heating food to more than 115-120 degrees Fahrenheit kills the natural enzymes in the food. It is also a fact that the older human body does not produce many new enzymes to use in digesting food.

Third, we eat way too much sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and other sweeteners. The average U.S. citizen eats over 150 pounds of sugar a year. This, by itself, probably accounts for the epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes in this country.

Fourth, there are way too many chemicals and unhealthy fats in our processed foods.

And, fifth, we eat foods we are allergic to, and which our body treats as toxins.

I’ve recently read the book by Dr. Mark Hyman called The UltraSimple Diet. I think it offers a good lifetime way of eating, after finding out what foods I might be sensitive to. Here’s Dr. Hyman’s short explanation of the program:

Is your digestive system making you fat?

It’s hard to believe – but very true!

Today, I’m going to explain how the bugs in your digestive tract and the way they upset your gut’s immune system just might be behind those extra pounds.

I have observed this phenomenon in thousands of patients. And I’ve developed very effective treatments for it, based on understanding the way in which all the body’s systems – the gut, the immune system, toxins, hormones and more-are connected.

These are what I call the 7 keys to UltraWellness.

You can read even more about it in my book, The UltraSimple Diet, which explains why toxicity and inflammation are key underlying causes of obesity and illness.

And there’s powerful evidence that addressing those key causes can help shed pounds.

Over and over, I’ve seen patients who lose significant amounts of weight, just by cutting food allergens from their diet. And I have also seen people lose 20 to 30 pounds, simply by balancing the bacterial ecosystem in their intestinal system.

One patient, a 38-year-old woman, had chronic inflammation, fluid retention, acne, fatigue, and joint pain, as well as irritable bowel syndrome with bloating and gas. She had tried every known diet, but was unable to lose weight.

What was her problem? She could not lose weight because she was inflamed. But when we had her eliminate the foods to which she was allergic and gave her some healthy bacteria to heal her gut, she lost 35 pounds in a few months – and all her other symptoms went away too.

The big debate in medicine is which comes first: inflammation or obesity. I have always believed that we become inflamed first, and gain weight second – which makes us even more inflamed, perpetuating the cycle.

Now incredible new research bears this out. Let me tell you a little more about these studies and their implications for treating obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and more. Both studies were done in Europe, where researchers are generally more open-minded.

The first study, published in December 2007, looked at two groups of children. The first group was overweight and the second was normal weight. The researchers then measured three key factors connected to inflammation.

First, they looked at high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker that shows the general level of inflammation in the body.

Then they looked for plaque or thickening in the carotid arteries (the main arteries that supply the brain) with an ultrasound.

Third, they looked at blood tests for IgG, or the delayed food allergies I talk about in The UltraSimple Diet.

What they found was startling…

The overweight kids had a 3-fold higher level of CRP and a 2.5-fold higher level of IgG antibodies to foods. This is astounding, since in most medical studies a difference of 20 to 30 percent is considered significant. And in this case, the differences were 300 and 250 percent, respectively.

The overweight children also had much thicker carotid arteries, which are a sign of early atherosclerosis and an indicator of heart disease. The study suggests that these food allergies are a CAUSE of the inflammation and obesity, not a consequence.

The authors of the study explain that damage to the gut can lead to a leaky gut, allowing food particles to be exposed to the gut’s immune system. This then triggers a system-wide immune response, leading to inflammation all over the body and producing obesity by increasing insulin resistance.

We already know that inflammation from any cause-bacteria, food, a high-sugar, high-fat diet- will produce insulin resistance, leading to higher insulin levels. And since insulin is a fat-storage hormone, you store more fat-mostly around the belly.

The authors of the study go on to say that we should consider elimination of IgG food allergens as a way of treating obesity and preventing heart disease. That means you don’t limit calories, just allergic foods that cause inflammation.

This study draws a remarkable link that has received little attention by conventional medicine.

So what exactly causes a leaky gut?

Well, the next study may help explain just that.

The researchers of that study, published in the July 2007 issue of Diabetes, performed a complex but powerful study to tease out which comes first – the chicken or the egg. What they did was quite ingenious. They took thin mice and then fed them a very high-fat diet.

High-fat diets change the bacterial flora in the gut. The toxin-producing bugs are promoted by the high-fat diet while the anti-inflammatory and protective bugs die off. (And there are over 500 species of bugs in your gut all fighting for territory.)

In fact, our highly processed, high-sugar, high-fat, low-fiber diet – plus many drugs like antibiotics, steroids, anti-inflammatories, acid-blockers, and hormones – completely alters the bacterial ecosystem in the gut, leading to breakdown, inflammation, and a leaky gut.

Back to the study.

The researchers found that the mice on the equivalent of an American diet produced more of a bacterial toxin called LPS, which then leaked into the body through a leaky gut.

In humans, these toxins then latch onto immune cells, stimulating them to produce a firestorm of inflammatory molecules such as TNFa, IL-6, and IL-1 (cytokines), which in turn block your metabolism and produce insulin resistance, fatty liver, and obesity.

Even more interesting, the researchers also found that even with a normal diet, injecting LPS into the guts of the mice led to the SAME problems – inflammation and obesity.

They didn’t eat a bad diet. Just injecting toxins into them made them fat. In fact, when you eat a bad diet, bad bugs flourish. Your whole gut ecosystem is upset and the outside world “leaks” in across a damaged gut lining.

The result? Not just obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, but so many allergic, autoimmune, and inflammatory diseases.

The researchers explain how giving antibiotics to rats and cleaning out the bad bugs can prevent diabetes. They explain that by adding soluble fiber to the diet, they can increase the population of the good bugs like Bifidobacteria and decrease the bad bugs – leading to weight loss.

But it doesn’t just happen in lab rats. I have found the same effects when my patients take the special soluble fiber I recommend in UltraMetabolism called konjac root or glucomannan. The good bacteria feed on the fiber and reduce inflammation.

And there is more to the gut story.

It seems that you are not the only one eating lunch. The bugs in your gut also feast – and they control your fat storage and the calories you absorb. So people with healthy bugs in the gut lose weight, and those with bad bugs gain weight.

Let’s review what you’ve learned. When you eat a typical American diet, you foster the growth of bad bugs in the gut. They then damage the gut lining and produce toxins that are absorbed into your system.

Because of the damage, partially digested food particles also leak into your bloodstream. Then your immune system reacts to the toxins and foods, producing a firestorm of inflammation.

That inflammation then leads to a fatty toxic liver and insulin resistance, which lead to higher levels of insulin in your body. And insulin is a fat-storage, disease- and aging- promoting hormone.

So an unhealthy gut makes us fat and sick because it makes us toxic and inflamed.

This is groundbreaking research that needs to shake up our thinking about how to help people lose weight and get healthy.

Now here are a few simple things to try if you are struggling to lose weight or feel better.

1. Try an elimination diet for 3 weeks. Cut out the most common food allergens, including gluten, dairy, eggs, corn, yeast, and peanuts. Some people are sensitive to soy, so you can also cut that out. (See The UltraSimple Diet for a step-by-step plan on how to do this.)

2. Eat a whole-foods, plant-based, high-fiber diet.

3. Take probiotics daily to boost the healthy bacteria in your gut. Look for those that contain 10 billion CFU of bifidobacteria species and lactobacillus species. Choose from reputable brands.

Within a very few short weeks – even if you do nothing else – you will see a dramatic difference that comes from cooling off inflammation by healing your gut.

Remember, if you want to get rid of that gut, you have to fix your gut.

My wife and I are going to try the UltraSimple Diet for a couple of weeks. We’ve read the book, and we believe we can find out what causes my sneezing and other minor problems by eliminating foods that many people are allergic to. We’ll see.

Here’s more incentive to eat right. A study reported in my weekly update from Life Extension Foundation:

Alicja Wolk and colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm analyzed data from 40,837 participants in the Cohort of Swedish Men, who were free of cancer upon enrollment between 1997 and 1998. Responses to dietary questionnaires completed upon enrollment were scored on the intake of 36 recommended food items, including 13 vegetables, 6 fruits, 7 cereal products, 5 types of fish and seafood, 3 low-fat dairy products, nuts, and olive oil, and 16 non-recommended food items, which included 3 red meat products, 5 processed meat products, 3 high fat dairy products, white bread, sweets, fried potatoes, mayonnaise, and ice cream. Between 1998 and 2005, 4,501 deaths were documented, including 1,394 deaths from cardiovascular disease and 759 deaths from cancer that occurred between 1998 and 2003.

Men with a high recommended food score, who consumed 28 or more recommended foods at least 1 to 3 times per month, had a 19 percent lower rate of dying from any cause over follow-up, and a 29 percent lower rate of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to men who scored low in recommended foods. When non-recommended food scores were analyzed, those with high scores, who reported consuming 5 or more items 3 times per week or more, had a 21 percent greater risk of all-cause mortality and a 27 percent greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality compared to men with low non-recommended food scores, who consume 1 to 2 of these foods.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.