News flash! The Institute of Medicine (IOM) just released their long awaited (13 years in the making) pronouncement regarding the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin D and calcium. Many of us were waiting to see the RDA increased from 400IU daily to 1,000IU daily or even 2,000IU daily. Maybe the IOM would even increase the upper limit of 10,000IU daily.
Instead, the IOM laid an egg. That's my opinion (plus that of the Vitamin D Council). Now, I make no claim as to being a vitamin D expert, although in my prior position as Senior Institute Physician and Executive Director of Physician Education at Cenegenics Medical Institute, I wrote 8 reviews regarding the benefit of vitamin D over the past 3 years. However, I remember fondly the paraphrase attributed to Newton (who probably pilfered it from Salisbury) about standing on the shoulders of giants. That's why, rather than re-invent the wheel, I direct you instead to the Vitamin D Council's response. It's a great summary & rebuttal.
Pages
- Home
- About Me (REVIEWED 5/23)
- About You . . .
- About This Blog
- About My Practice (UPDATED 5/23)
- Ask Me, I'm A Doctor! (UPDATED 11/12!)
- How's My Driving?
- Stuff My Attorney Made Me Say
- Stuff I've Written or Presented
- Hear Me Roar! (UPDATED 5/23)
- Low Cost Medical/Dental/Pharmacy Options
- You Like Me! You Like Me! (UPDATED 8/24)
- So You Want to Contact Me! (UPDATED 5/23)
- Watch Out! (UPDATE 9/16)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Exercise vs Brain (Size & Function)
Exercise. We spit it out like it's a 4 letter word. Most of us loathe it. Yes, there are the dedicated few who actually make use of their gym membership for which they have funds withdrawn painlessly every month. But for the vast majority of the population, our physical activity consists of walking to the feeding trough to stuff our faces and pointing the remote control to change the TV channel. Thank goodness for Wii, and now PlayStation Move & XBox 360 Kinect to get some of us off our bottoms. I'm ranting about this since a recent study demonstrated that walking more was associated with greater brain volume and lower risk of cognitive loss.
The authors followed 299 adults (average 78 years old) who were free of cognitive impairment at baseline. Brain MRI was performed at baseline & year 9 followed by reassessment of cognitive function at year 13. All the while, they evaluated the amount of walking performed on a regular basis. The range of walking varied from none to 300 blocks per week with an average distance of 56 blocks (or 8 blocks per day 7 days per week). However, the authors concluded that one needed to walk 72 blocks weekly or 10 blocks daily without fail in order to preserve and actually increase brain volume. This greater amount of gray matter was then associated w/significantly lower risk of cognitive impairment just 4 years later.
Take home point? Physical activity is protective of brain function as we age which is imperative as our Baby Boomers reach retirement and the age at which risk of dementing illnesses increases dramatically. But I can hear it now. How long is a block? Here in Las Vegas, the major street intersections are a mile apart (granted there are more frequent intersections in between). But the authors did declare the 72 blocks equivalent to 6-9 miles.
Now if this study isn't convincing enough to get you off your sofa, a study published in July came to a similar conclusion in women. Likewise studies from August 2009, September 2008, July 2008, May 2008, and October 2006 all point towards the same conclusion that an increase in physical activity is associated with an increase in cognitive function & lower risk of dementia. So that you won't later forget that you should have.
FDA Approves Underarm Application of Testosterone
The FDA just announced their approval of Axiron, a 2% topical solution of testosterone that is applied via metered dose pump at 30mg per actuation. The plan is to apply 1 squirt to each armpit daily (more if necessary), wash hands & get dressed. Yes, you still need to avoid skin-to-skin contact with your kids & partner. You should also avoid bathing & swimming for at least 2 hours after application although, hopefully, you already completed the former prior to squirting yourself. Whether you choose to apply deodorant or antiperspirant is up to you (and your close contacts!) as neither will affect absorption but they recommend applying either one before the testosterone. And no, you don't have to shave (your pits). But you might have to wait a while for it to actually hit the market.In any case, you now have a wide choice of FDA-approved oral & buccal tablets, subcutaneous pellets, transdermal patches, injections, manually applied topical gels/creams, and now, metered dosing to the axilla. Of these, the only ones I avoid are the oral tablets (due to increase risk of liver irritation) and subcutaneous pellets (difficult to obtain/maintain proper level & requires minor procedure for placement), but that's just me.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
HDL vs Chocolate
Just the other day, I reviewed a study looking at the benefit of high cocoa content chocolate on chronic fatigue syndrome. Yesterday, I reviewed another study looking at the benefit of low carbohydrate caloric restriction on HDL levels. In the skewed logic of my children, one might then ask whether high cocoa content chocolate might have an impact upon HDL.
In a small, short study published this month (and yes, I do review larger, longer studies, too), the authors randomized 12 participants with well-controlled Type 2 diabetes (average HgbA1c 6.4%) to placebo vs 15g three times daily of 85% cocoa content chocolate for 8 weeks, followed by a 4 week washout period, and then crossed over for a final 8 weeks. This randomized double blind placebo controlled cross over study allowed each of the subjects to also serve as their own controls. Parameters were checked at baseline, after the first 8 weeks randomization, after the 4 week washout & after the 8 week cross over.
The first bit of good news? Despite adding 45g daily of chocolate, the participants did not gain weight, lose glycemic control, or worsen their insulin response. More importantly, compared to their results from placebo, the consumption of high cocoa content chocolate increased HDL from 1.16mmol/L (45mg/dL) to 1.26mmol/L (49mg/dL) & lowered cholesterol:HDL ratio from 4.4 down to 4.1, both statistically significant findings. In fact, this 10% increase in HDL is equivalent to the results obtained from less tasty pharmacologic assistance.
What's this mean for our patients with T2DM? Conventional wisdom has always stated that diabetics should avoid candy but this study throws that thought out the window. High quality, eg 85% cocoa content, chocolate in moderation (15g three times daily) can be a healthy adjunct to their meals. Given what we know about all the other benefits of this type of chocolate, there's really no reason to avoid it unless you're allergic. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find a large, long-term study of low carbohydrate caloric restriction vs chronic fatigue syndrome. But don't hold your breath!
In a small, short study published this month (and yes, I do review larger, longer studies, too), the authors randomized 12 participants with well-controlled Type 2 diabetes (average HgbA1c 6.4%) to placebo vs 15g three times daily of 85% cocoa content chocolate for 8 weeks, followed by a 4 week washout period, and then crossed over for a final 8 weeks. This randomized double blind placebo controlled cross over study allowed each of the subjects to also serve as their own controls. Parameters were checked at baseline, after the first 8 weeks randomization, after the 4 week washout & after the 8 week cross over.
The first bit of good news? Despite adding 45g daily of chocolate, the participants did not gain weight, lose glycemic control, or worsen their insulin response. More importantly, compared to their results from placebo, the consumption of high cocoa content chocolate increased HDL from 1.16mmol/L (45mg/dL) to 1.26mmol/L (49mg/dL) & lowered cholesterol:HDL ratio from 4.4 down to 4.1, both statistically significant findings. In fact, this 10% increase in HDL is equivalent to the results obtained from less tasty pharmacologic assistance.
What's this mean for our patients with T2DM? Conventional wisdom has always stated that diabetics should avoid candy but this study throws that thought out the window. High quality, eg 85% cocoa content, chocolate in moderation (15g three times daily) can be a healthy adjunct to their meals. Given what we know about all the other benefits of this type of chocolate, there's really no reason to avoid it unless you're allergic. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find a large, long-term study of low carbohydrate caloric restriction vs chronic fatigue syndrome. But don't hold your breath!
Testosterone vs Heart Failure
Click here for April 19, 2012 update!
I mentioned in an earlier post that I was attending a CME conference last week. One of the lectures covered evidence-based, state of the art care of patients with heart failure. The presenter reminded us that ACE inhibitors, beta blockers & aldosterone antagonists, separately and in combination, have been demonstrated to improve heart failure mortality. He also reviewed evidence that the benefit from beta blockers is not a class effect since there are real differences between the individual drugs. Cardiac resynchronization therapy plus implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has also been demonstrated to improve outcomes.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I was attending a CME conference last week. One of the lectures covered evidence-based, state of the art care of patients with heart failure. The presenter reminded us that ACE inhibitors, beta blockers & aldosterone antagonists, separately and in combination, have been demonstrated to improve heart failure mortality. He also reviewed evidence that the benefit from beta blockers is not a class effect since there are real differences between the individual drugs. Cardiac resynchronization therapy plus implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has also been demonstrated to improve outcomes.
All told, he pointed out a 77% cumulative risk reduction if all four of these therapies were applied with 27% absolute risk reduction. This translates into treating only 4 persons in order to save 1. Given that heart failure exacerbation is one of the leading causes of (re)hospitalization and that hospital care accounts for the greatest percentage of medical costs, it's clear that we need to be more aggressive in optimally treating our patients with heart failure.
However, he also pointed out that current ACC guidelines do not recommend hormonal therapies other than to replace deficiencies. Based upon the preponderance of new information, I have to disagree. For instance, in a study published just last month, researchers randomized 36 elderly women with stable heart failure (NYHA III without hospitalization in immediate past 3 months with 33% ejection fraction) on maximal medical management to either testosterone transdermal patch (300ug twice weekly) or to placebo and followed them for 6 months.
Those who received testosterone walked further in 6 minutes (standard testing protocol), increased their maximum oxygen consumption (that's a good thing), and strengthened their legs. If you ask me, that's a touchdown or home run, especially when your average age is 68-69yo. Even better, no side effects were reported from this dose besides minor allergic dermatitis, common to all patch delivery systems.
Not surprisingly, these findings are consistent with those published last September in which 70 elderly men (average 70yo) with heart failure (NYHA II or III with 32% ejection fraction) responded to intramuscular testosterone for 12 weeks on top of maximal medical management. They, too, demonstrated improvement in exercise capacity, muscle strength, and even glucose metabolism. And just as important, the therapy was well tolerated.
In January 2006, 76 men (average 64yo) with heart failure (NYHA II-IV with 32% ejection fraction) were randomized to receive Androderm 5mg daily vs placebo for 12 months. The authors reported significant improvement in functional capacity as born out by decrease in NYHA classification. The only issue noted was intolerance to the patch.
Finally, a study in May 2003 demonstrated in 12 men with heart failure that testosterone 60mg via buccal mucosa increased cardiac output immediately.
Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone with heart failure go out and start taking testosterone. However, I think that the research thus far points to a need for a larger scale study of longer duration to confirm/disprove these consistent results using a very inexpensive drug. And in the meantime, for those of you waiting for the outcome of said study, perhaps you can discuss the above findings with your cardiologist or primary care provider.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
How to Raise Your HDL
As physicians, we recommend strenuous intense exercise but we know how far that's gotten us. Wine makes a small increase but as we all know, too much of a good thing isn't. Niacin works but most won't tolerate the flushing & tingling side effects from doses high enough to make an impact. Fibrates can raise HDL some but requires a prescription. Of the statins used to lower LDL, only rosuvastatin raises HDL to some extent but doesn't have many outcomes studies yet. If you're diabetic, pioglitazone raises HDL while rosiglitazone tends to lower HDL. Recently, at the American Heart Association's annual meeting, researchers announced their findings that Merck's experimental anacetrapib increased HDL substantially in a late phase clinical trial (by inhibiting cholesteryl ester transferase protein (CETP), if you must know). But it will probably be a while before this wonder drug hits the market, at which point we'll learn about its potential side effects (and financial cost).
So what do we do in the meantime? In a small, short 4 week study published this month, authors asked 18 men & 25 women (average age 38-39 years old), all overweight or obese, to restrict both their caloric intake (down to 1800kcal/d for men & (1400kcal/d for women) and the resultant fraction of carbohydrates (on average from 55% down to 33% and from 53% down to 30%, respectively), commonly referred to as a "low carb" diet (goal <100g/d). They were instructed to maintain their current level of physical activity. In fact, the men were able to drop their average caloric intake down to 1307kcal/d while the women achieved 1243kcal/d.
As a result, men lost 4.7kg on average while women lost 2.4kg, resulting in significant decreases in body mass index. Furthermore, in the short term, both men & women decreased their waist circumference, body fat percentage, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and insulin. Most importantly, men increased their HDL from 0.83mmol/L (32mg/dL) to 0.96mmol/L (37mg/dL). While this increase isn't enough to get these men out of harm's way (generally thought of >60mg/dL), it's certainly a step in the right direction without risk of drug side effects. Unfortunately, women demonstrated no significant increase in HDL.
It should be noted that this kind of eating wasn't easy to achieve. The researchers gave food products to minimize noncompliance since it was expensive to stay on this diet. In fact, only 7 of the 18 men were able to reach their goal of consuming <100g/d of carbohydrates.
What can we glean from this study? Well, it supports many other studies that have demonstrated an improvement in HDL by decreasing caloric intake and weight loss. However, it's not clear whether the increase in HDL was due to the caloric restriction, the decrease in carbohydrate consumption, or the weight loss. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this was a small, short study. But given the costs of most new drugs upon hitting the market and the relative lack of side effects (aside from the cost of food), it seems reasonable to recommend again that we eat less (carbs).
Labels:
Alvin Lin,
Alvin Lin blog,
Alvin Lin MD,
Alvin Lin MD blog,
alvinblin.blogspot.com,
Cholesterol,
Dr. Alvin Lin,
Dr. Alvin Lin blog,
Glycemic Index,
NEJM,
Nutrition,
Obesity,
www.alvinblin.com
Friday, November 26, 2010
Vitamin D vs Depression: Associative or Causative?
So, did you all enjoy Black Friday? My wife went out last night to run with the bulls, or in this case, her girlfriends, to go shop all the post-Thanksgiving sales. If you notice an improvement in the local economy, y'all can thank them for doing their part. As for me, I've been putting in some late nights/early mornings trying to fix up my website, take care of legal paperwork required to start my practice, and read, read, read. Thus, I've been spending more time indoors than out. Less sun exposure leads to lower vitamin D. And now, lower vitamin D may be associated with risk of depression!
I mention this because in a study published earlier this month, the authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of 7,970 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) with age range 15-39 years old. Using standardized depression scales, they concluded that those with 25OH vitamin D <50 nmol/L (20ng/mL) were more likely to be depressed than those with 25OH vitamin D >75nmol/L (30ng/mL).
Interesting, you say. But this isn't really a new finding. A prospective study from May 2008 came to similar conclusions after evaluating a cohort of 1,282 participants 65-95 years old and concluding that a reduction of 14% in vitamin D was associated with an increase risk of depression. And an earlier cross sectional study of 80 participants from December 2006 came to similar conclusion.
However, just as with the chicken and the egg, it's not always clear whether the relationship is associative in nature or causal. For instance, vitamin D could be low because patients are too depressed to go outside. But a smaller study published in July concluded that those euthymic women with lower baseline vitamin D were more likely to become depressed in 3-6 years. So we have 3 studies demonstrating an association and 1 study raising the question of cause & effect. To hedge my bets since I'm predominantly indoors these days, I supplement my solar-induced manufacture of vitamin D with appropriate vitamin D directed by regular laboratory analysis of my 25OH vitamin D.
Eat More Protein + Low Glycemic Meals to Maintain Weight Loss
Continuing yesterday's theme (I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving, by the way) of "which is better", there continues to be debate as to whether glycemic index (GI) & load (GL) really matters when it comes to nutrition, and whether high protein or low protein meals are better for you. In fact, think back to yesterday's big meal. Did you consume low or high GI foods? Presumably you had plenty of protein in the form of turkey (turducken, anyone?) and ham.
To address this question, the authors studied 548 participants who had lost 8% body weight (average 11kg) while completing an 800kcal/day diet (extremely low calories!) who were randomized to either control, low protein + low GI, low protein high GI, high protein + low GI, or high protein + high GI for 26 weeks. Fat content was kept at 25% caloric intake regardless of meal composition. 15 glycemic points were supposed to separate low from high GI while 12% protein calories were supposed to separate those on low vs high protein diets. The participants were allowed to consume as many calories as they choose as the authors also wanted to determine which diet better satiated the participants.
After completion of the study, the authors discovered that only those on high GI + low protein diet regained some weight (average 1.67kg). In fact, those assigned to high protein diets regained less weight compared to those randomized to low protein, and those assigned to low GI diets regained less weight compared to those randomized to high GI. They also reported that more participants assigned to low GI diets completed the study than those randomized to high GI, and likewise for high protein vs low. What's noteworthy is that these findings were obtained despite only achieving 5 glycemic points & 5% protein calorie separation between the groups.
The editorialists were actually quite warm to these findings, suggesting more reseach but noting the practicality of the low GI + high protein diet for weight maintenance. As for our patients, I'd suggest Sugar Busters, South Beach, Zone, and the Mediterranean Diet as prime examples. And for those who aren't interested in reading books, low GI + high protein boils down to what our parents told us. Eat our veggies & meat. Just remember to moderate/minimize our consumption of processed grains.
To address this question, the authors studied 548 participants who had lost 8% body weight (average 11kg) while completing an 800kcal/day diet (extremely low calories!) who were randomized to either control, low protein + low GI, low protein high GI, high protein + low GI, or high protein + high GI for 26 weeks. Fat content was kept at 25% caloric intake regardless of meal composition. 15 glycemic points were supposed to separate low from high GI while 12% protein calories were supposed to separate those on low vs high protein diets. The participants were allowed to consume as many calories as they choose as the authors also wanted to determine which diet better satiated the participants.
After completion of the study, the authors discovered that only those on high GI + low protein diet regained some weight (average 1.67kg). In fact, those assigned to high protein diets regained less weight compared to those randomized to low protein, and those assigned to low GI diets regained less weight compared to those randomized to high GI. They also reported that more participants assigned to low GI diets completed the study than those randomized to high GI, and likewise for high protein vs low. What's noteworthy is that these findings were obtained despite only achieving 5 glycemic points & 5% protein calorie separation between the groups.
The editorialists were actually quite warm to these findings, suggesting more reseach but noting the practicality of the low GI + high protein diet for weight maintenance. As for our patients, I'd suggest Sugar Busters, South Beach, Zone, and the Mediterranean Diet as prime examples. And for those who aren't interested in reading books, low GI + high protein boils down to what our parents told us. Eat our veggies & meat. Just remember to moderate/minimize our consumption of processed grains.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Exercise vs Diabetes: Aerobic, Resistance or Both?
There's always been a great debate regarding the best type of exercise, kind of like white meat versus dark. Of course, we can all agree that the best exercise is the one that you'll do regularly. But take it a step further. Isn't aerobic exercise better for burning fat? And won't resistance training make you bulky like those bodybuilders? I'm not going to be able to dispel those myths today but I would like to review a study published yesterday looking at how specific exercise types affect diabetics.
For 9 months, the authors followed 41 controls who did not exercise, 73 participants who performed resistance training only three times weekly, 72 who performed aerobic exercise only, and 76 who combined aerobic exercise with twice weekly resistance training. Aerobic exercise consisted of 150 minutes/week of moderate intensity at 50-80% maximum oxygen consumption. The three times weekly resistance training consisted of 2 sets of 4 upper body exercises, 3 sets of 3 leg exercises, and 2 sets each of abdominal crunches & back extensions. The combination group performed 1 set of each of the above twice weekly. Each set consisted of 10-12 repetitions with the weight increased once the participant was able to complete 12 repetitions on 2 consecutive sessions. The total time spent exercising in all three groups was roughly the same.
Let's not forget that these participants (average 56 years old, two-thirds female, average body mass index 34 with 37-38% body fat) were all diabetics with average Hemoglobin A1c 7.7%. The authors concluded that while the active participants benefited from resistance training alone and from aerobic exercise alone compared to the inactive controls, only combination physical activity was associated with improvement in sugar control compared to controls, enough to decrease cardiovascular & microvascular events.
In reality, these findings shouldn't surprise us. In fact, a similar size study but of shorter duration demonstrated the same findings 3 years ago. I've reviewed a number of studies demonstrating the benefit of various exercises and levels of physical activity in disparate populations. This just adds to the preponderance of evidence that we need to start getting active in one form or another, preferably both. For today, let's do some resistance exercises before our big meal, after which we can then attempt to walk off the calories.
And let's all be thankful for the men & women (and their families) who (have) put themselves in harm's way to allow us to sit down with our loved ones to celebrate, worship, and speak without fear of reprisal. We owe you a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Chocolate vs Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
This just out: chocolate might help alleviate some of the symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome. Granted, it's a small study of only 10 subjects but it involved chocolate! More specifically 15g of chocolate containing 85% cocoa solids three times daily.
The study was well done in that the participants were randomized to either high cocoa solids chocolate or low cocoa solids chocolate for 8 weeks, given a 2 week washout period, and then received another 8 weeks of the other product. The authors used standardized measures to objectively determine the level of fatigue and function before, during & after the intervention. Yet after taking into account issues of calories consumed, glycemic index of the different chocolate products, etc, they concluded that the polyphenols from the high cocoa solids improved the subjects' chronic fatigue score. Better yet, there was no change in weight, suggesting that increase in physical activity countered the extra calories.
To be clear, we're not talking about your average chocolate candy bar. This is the dark stuff for connoisseurs & cognescenti. So if you're used to a lot of sugar in your chocolate, it might take some getting used to. I thought it might be difficult to obtain this stuff for personal consumption but a quick search for "85% cocoa chocolate" presented plenty of purchasing options. For more reasons to include dark chocolate in your daily meals, take a look at some of my older posts from April 2010, October 2008 post #2, October 2008 post #1, & February 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





