Tag Archives: cardiovascular disease

Is It More Important To Be Fit, Or Healthy Weight?

Men live longer if they maintain or improve their fitness level over time, according to research out of the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, Texas.  Part of that improved longevity stems from reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease (e.g., heart attack and stroke). 

Compared with men who lose fitness with aging, those who maintained their fitness had a 30% lower risk of death; those who improved their fitness had a 40% lower risk of death.  Fitness was judged by performance on a maximal treadmill exercise stress test.

Body mass index over time didn’t have any effect on all-cause mortality but was linked to higher risk of cardiovascular death.  The researchers, however, figured that losses in fitness were the more likely explanation for higher cardiovascular deaths.  In other words, as men age, it’s more important to maintain or improve fitness than to lose excess body fat or avoid overweight.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Lee, Duck-chul, et al.  Long-term effects of changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and bodly mass index on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in menCirculation, 124 (2011): 2,483-2,490

2 Comments

Filed under Exercise, Longevity, Overweight and Obesity

Finally Settled: Alcohol Consumption Linked to Lower Rates of Death and Heart Attack

Canadian and U.S. researchers report that moderate alcohol consumption seems to reduce 1) the incidence of coronary heart disease, 2) deaths from coronary heart disease, and 3) deaths from all causes.  Reduction of death from all causes is a good counter-argument to those who say alcohol is too dangerous because of deaths from drunk driving, alcoholic cirrhosis, and alcohol-related cancers such as many in the esophagus. 

Remember, we’re talking here about low to moderate consumption: one drink a day or less for women, two drinks or less a day for men.  That’s a max of 12.5 grams of alcohol for women, 25 g for men.  No doubt, alcohol can be extremely dangerous, even lethal.  I deal with that in my patients almost every day.  Some people should never drink alcohol.

The recent meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal, which the authors say is the most comprehensive ever done, reviewed all pertinent studies done between 1950 and 2009, finally including 84 of the best studies on this issue.  Thirty-one of these looked at deaths from all causes.

Compared with non-drinkers, drinkers had a 25% lower risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and death from CHD.  CHD is the leading cause of death in develop societies.

Stroke is also considered a cardiovascular disease.  Overall, alcohol is not linked to stroke incidence or death from stroke.  The researchers did see strong trends toward fewer ischemic strokes  and more hemorrhagic strokes (bleeding in the brain) in the drinkers.  So the net effect was zero. 

Compared with non-drinkers, the lowest risk of death from any cause was seen in those consuming 2.5 to 14.9 g per day (one drink or less per day), whose risk was 17% lower.  On the other hand, heavy drinkers (>60 g/day) had 30% higher risk of death. 

In case you’re wondering, the authors didn’t try to compare the effects of beer versus wine versus distilled spirits. 

On a related note, scientists at the Medical University of South Carolina found that middle-aged people who took up the alcohol habit had a lower risk of stroke and heart attack.  Wine seemed to be more effective than other alcohol types.  They found no differences in overall death rates between new drinkers persistent non-drinkers, perhaps because the study lasted only four years and they were following only 442 new drinkers.  

This doesn’t prove that judicious alcohol consumption prevents heart attacks, cardiac deaths, and overall deaths.  But it’s kinda lookin’ that way.

Steve Parker, M.D.

 References:  Ronksley, Paul, et al.  Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysisBritish Medical Journal, 2011;342:d671    doi: 10.1136/bmj.d671

2 Comments

Filed under Alcohol, coronary heart disease

Exercise, Part 1: Exercise Postpones Death

Earlier this month, many folks made New Years’ resolutions to start exercising in conjunction with their other resolution to lose excess weight. I’ve got bad news for them.

Exercise is overrated as a pathway to major weight loss.

Sure, a physically inactive young man with only five or 10 pounds (2 to 4 kg) to lose might be able to do it simply by starting an exercise program. That doesn’t work nearly as well for women. The problem is that exercise stimulates appetite, so any calories burned by exercise tend to be counteracted by increased food consumption.

"Should I go with aerobic or strength training....?"

On the other hand, exercise is particularly important for diabetics and prediabetics in two respects: 1) it helps in avoidance of overweight, especially after weight loss, and 2) it helps control blood sugar levels by improving insulin resistance, perhaps even bypassing it.

Even if it doesn’t help much with weight loss, regular physical activity has myriad general health benefits. First, let’s look at its effect on death rates.   

EXERCISE PREVENTS DEATH

As many as 250,000 deaths per year in the United States (approximately 12% of the total) are attributable to a lack of regular physical activity. We know now that regular physical activity can prevent a significant number of these deaths.

Exercise induces metabolic changes that lessen the impact of, or prevent altogether, several major illnesses, such as high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and obesity. There are also psychological benefits. Even if you’re just interested in looking better, awareness of exercise’s other advantages can be motivational.

Exercise is defined as planned, structured, and repetitive bodily movement done to improve or maintain physical fitness.

Physical fitness is a set of attributes that relate to your ability to perform physical activity. These attributes include resting heart rate, blood pressure at rest and during exercise, lung capacity, body composition (weight in relation to height, percentage of body fat and muscle, bone structure), and aerobic power.

Aerobic power takes some explanation. Muscles perform their work by contracting, which shortens the muscles, pulling on attached tendons or bones. The resultant movement is physical activity. Muscle contraction requires energy, which is obtained from chemical reactions that use oxygen. Oxygen from the air we breathe is delivered to muscle tissue by the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. The ability of the cardiopulmonary system to transport oxygen from the atmosphere to the working muscles is called maximal oxygen uptake, or aerobic power. It’s the primary factor limiting performance of muscular activity.

Aerobic power is commonly measured by having a person perform progressively more difficult exercise on a treadmill or bicycle to the point of exhaustion. The treadmill test starts at a walking pace and gets faster and steeper every few minutes. The longer the subject can last on the treadmill, the greater his aerobic power. A large aerobic power is one of the most reliable indicators of good physical fitness. It’s cultivated through consistent, repetitive physical activity.

Physical Fitness Effect on Death Rates

Regular physical activity postpones death.

Higher levels of physical fitness are linked to lower rates of death primarily from cancer and cardiovascular disease (e.g., heart attacks and stroke). What’s more, moving from a lower to a higher level of fitness also prolongs life, even for people over 60.

Part 2 of this series will cover all the other health benefits of exercise. Part 3 will outline specific exercise recommendations, such as the type and duration of activity.

Steve Parker, M.D.

13 Comments

Filed under Exercise

THIS Is Why I Love the Mediterranean Diet

Italian researchers reviewed the medical/nutrition literature of the last three years and confirmed that the Mediterranean diet 1) reduces the risk of death, 2) reduces  heart disease illness and death, 3) cuts the risk of getting or dying from cancer, and 4) diminishes the odds of developing dementia, Parkinsons disease, stroke, and mild cognitive impairment.

These same investigators published a similar meta-analysis in 2008, looking at 12 studies.  Over the ensuing three years (as of June, 2010), seven new prospective cohort studies looked at the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet.  The report at hand is a combination of all 19 studies, covering over 2,000,000 participants followed for four to 20 years.  Nine of the 19 Mediterranean diet studies were done in Europe.

The newer studies, in particular, firmed up the diet’s protective effect against stroke, and added protection against mild cognitive impairment.

So What?

The Mediterranean diet: No other way of eating has so much scientific evidence that it’s healthy and worthy of adoption by the general population.  Not the DASH diet, not the “prudent diet,” not the American Heart Association diet, not vegetarian diets, not vegan diets, not raw-food diets, not Esselstyne’s diet, not Ornish’s diet, not Atkins diet, not Oprah’s latest diet, not the Standard American Diet, not the  . . . you name it. 

Not even the Low-Carb Mediterranean Diet.

Just as important, the research shows you don’t have to go full-bore Mediterranean to gain a health and longevity benefit.  Adopting  just a couple Mediterranean diet features yeilds a modest but sigificant gain.  For a list of Mediterranean diet components, visit Oldways or the Advanced Mediterranean Diet website. 

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference:  Sofi, Francesco, et al.  Accruing evidence about benefits of adherence to the Mediterranean diet on health: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, ePub ahead of print, September 1, 2010.  doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29673

Comments Off on THIS Is Why I Love the Mediterranean Diet

Filed under coronary heart disease, Health Benefits, Mediterranean Diet

Heart and Stroke Patients: Avoid Weight-Loss Drug Sibutramine (Meridia)

The weight-loss drug sibutramine (Meridia) should be withdrawn from the U.S. market, suggests an editorialist in the September 2, 2010, New England Journal of Medicine.  Based on a clinical study in the same issue, it’s more accurate to conclude that sibutramine shouldn’t be prescribed for people who aren’t supposed to be taking it in the first place.

Sibutramine is sold in the U.S. as Meridia and has been available since 1997.  Judging from the patients I run across, it’s not a very popular drug.  Why not?  It’s expensive and most people don’t lose much weight.

The recent multi-continent SCOUT trial enrolled 9,800 male and female study subjects at least 55 years old (average age 63) who had either:

  1. 1) History of cardiovascular disease (here defined as coronary artery disease, stroke, or peripheral artery disease)
  2. 2) Type 2 diabetes plus one or more of the following: high blood pressure, adverse cholesterol levels, current smoking, or diabetic kidney disease.
  3. Or both of the above (which ended up being 60% of the study population)`.

Here’s a problem from the get-go (“git-go” if you’re from southern U.S.).  For years, Meridia’s manufacturer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have told doctors they shouldn’t use the drug in patients with history of cardiovascular disease.  It’s not the scary “black box warning,” but it’s clearly in the package insert of full prescribing information.

Half the subjects were randomized to sibutramine 10 mg/day and the other half to placebo.  All were instructed in diet and exercise aiming for a 600 calorie per day energy deficit.  They should lose about a pound a week if they followed the program.  Average follow-up was 3.4 years.

What Did the Researchers Find?

Forty percent of both drug and placebo users dropped out of the study, a very high rate.

As measured at one year, the sibutramine-users averaged a weight loss of 9.5 pounds (4.3 kg), the majority of which was in the first 6 weeks.  After the first year, they tended to regain a little weight, but kept most of it off.

Death rates were the same for sibutramine and placebo.

Sibutramine users with a history of cardiovascular disease had a 16% increase in non-fatal heart attack and stroke compared to placebo.  To “cause” one heart attack or stroke in a person with known cardiovascular disease, you would have to treat 52 such patients.

Folks in the “diabetes plus risk factor(s)” group who took sibutramine had no increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

So What?

Average weight loss with sibutramine isn’t much.  Nothing new there.  [Your mileage may vary.]

People with cardiovascular disease shouldn’t take sibutramine.  Nothing new there either.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference:  James, W. Philip, et al.  Effect of sibutramine on cardiovascular outcomes in overweight and obese subjects.  New England Journal of Medicine, 363 (2010): 905-917.

Comments Off on Heart and Stroke Patients: Avoid Weight-Loss Drug Sibutramine (Meridia)

Filed under coronary heart disease, Drugs for Diabetes, Overweight and Obesity, Stroke, Weight Loss

Diabetes and Shortened Lifespan: “How Bad Is It, Doc?”

Diabetes mellitus for years has been linked with cardiovascular disease such as heart failure and coronary heart disease (blocked arteries in the heart, and the leading cause of death in the Western world).  How scared should diabetics be?

An article  in the Archives of Internal Medicine gives us one answer.

Researchers from the Netherlands and Harvard examined medical records of 5,209 people (mostly white, 64% men) enrolled in the Framingham (Massachusetts, USA) Heart Study.  This cohort has been examined every other year for more than 46 years. 

Study subjects who had diabetes at age 50 were identified; health outcomes going forward were then analyzed, with particular attention to lifespan and cardiovascular disease.  “Cardiovascular disease” in this context means coronary heart disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, intermittent claudication (leg pain during exertion caused by blocked arteries), and transient ischemic attack (stroke-like symptoms that resolve within 24 hours).

Results

Compared to those in the cohort free of diabetes, having diabetes at age 50 more than doubled the risk of developing cardiovascular disease for both women and men. 

Compared to those without diabetes, having both cardiovascular disease and diabetes approximately doubled the risk of dying, regardless of sex.

Compared to those without diabetes, women and men with diabetes at age 50 died 7 or 8 years earlier, on average.

[Specific causes of death were not reported.]

Take-Home Points

We’d likely see longer lifespans and less cardiovascular disease if we could prevent diabetes in the first place.  How do we do that?  Strategies include regular physical activity, avoidance or reversal of overweight and obesity, and low-glycemic-index diets.

The Mediterranean diet it linked to reduced heart attacks and strokes, and longer lifespan.  That’s why I’ve been working for the last year and a half to adapt it for diabetics.

ResearchBlogging.orgWe have better treatments for cardiovascular disease and diabetes and these days, so the death rates and illness numbers shouldn’t  be quite so alarming.  Up-to-date management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease will prevent some acute disease events—such as heart attacks and strokes—and prolong life.   

Steve Parker, M.D.

References: 

Franco, O., Steyerberg, E., Hu, F., Mackenbach, J., & Nusselder, W. (2007). Associations of Diabetes Mellitus With Total Life Expectancy and Life Expectancy With and Without Cardiovascular Disease Archives of Internal Medicine, 167 (11), 1145-1151 DOI: 10.1001/archinte.167.11.1145

Knowler, W.C., et al.  Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.  New England Journal of Medicine, 346 (2002): 393-403.

Tuomilehto, J., et al.  Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance.  New England Journal of Medicine, 344 (2001): 1,343-1,350.

1 Comment

Filed under coronary heart disease, Diabetes Complications, Stroke

Are Most Statin Prescriptions a Waste of Money?

A recent medical journal article suggests that three of every four statin prescriptions do nothing to prevent death, since they’re taken by people without an established diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.  The researchers don’t address whether statin drugs prevent heart attacks or strokes or otherwise improve quality of life. 

Most of the “healthy” people taking statins are trying to prevent heart attacks associated with high cholesterol levels.  You’d think if statins prevented heart attacks, they’d prolong life.  That’s not what these researchers found.

Details are at my recent Self/NutritionData Heart Health Blog post.

Steve Parker, M.D.

11 Comments

Filed under coronary heart disease

Diabetes Drug Rosiglitazone About to Be Pulled Off the Market?

ResearchBlogging.orgIt’s over for rosiglitazone.

Sold in the U.S. as Avandia, rosiglitazone is a drug used to control type 2 diabetes either alone or in combination with insulin, metformin, or a sulfonylurea.  It has only one competitor in its class: pioglitazone (sold as Actos).

Both drugs in the thiazolidinedione class (aka TZDs or glitazones) increase the risk of heart failure.  Prior studies had suggested that rosiglitazone increases the risk of heart attack, heart failure, and death.  Research suggested that pioglitazone actually reduces the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

A study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association directly compared clinical use of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.  Investigators looked at Medicare data involving over 227,000 patients, average age 74, average follow-up of 105 days.

Rosiglitazone comes out the loser: users had significantly higher risk of stroke, heart failure, and death.  Risk of heart attack trended a bit higher in the rosi users but did not reach statistical significance. 

The researchers also calculated the composite risk of suffering either a heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or death:  rosiglitazone risk was about 18% higher compared to pioglitazone. 

What do these numbers mean from a practical viewpoint?  The researchers calculated a “number needed to harm.” Treat 60 patients with rosi and 60 with pio for one year; the rosi group will have one extra event—heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or death—compared with the pio users.

Why put up with that risk?  There’s no good reason.  Especially when pioglitazone is available.

Implications

If you take rosiglitazone, ask your doctor to find an alternative or switch you to pioglitazone.  Soon.

Clearly, we don’t know all of the adverse effects of many of the drugs doctors prescribe, whether for diabetes or other illnesses.  We balance the good with the bad, and that equation changes over time. 

Rosiglitazone’s manufacturer may pull the drug off the market voluntarily.  If not, the FDA will do it.  Cardiovascular disease—e.g., heart attacks, strokes, heart failure—kills 68% of diabetics.  The last thing we need is a drug that increases that risk.

Within a month, you’ll see ads on U.S. television from trial lawyers asking if you or a loved one has been hurt by rosiglitazone.  “If so, call this toll-free number now…”

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Graham, D., Ouellet-Hellstrom, R., MaCurdy, T., Ali, F., Sholley, C., Worrall, C., & Kelman, J. (2010). Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, Heart Failure, and Death in Elderly Medicare Patients Treated With Rosiglitazone or Pioglitazone JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.920

9 Comments

Filed under Drugs for Diabetes

MSDP Protects Against MetSyn (NCEP ATP-III Criteria) in FHSOC

ResearchBlogging.orgTranslation:  A Mediterranean-style dietary pattern protected against onset of metabolic syndrome (as defined by National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III) in the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

Made you look! 

Don’t you just love acronyms?  Lately it seems you gotta have a clever acronym for your scientific study or it won’t get published or remembered. 

Metabolic syndrome is a constellation of clinical traits that are associated with increased risk for developing cardiovascular disease (two-fold increased risk) and type 2 diabetes (six-fold increased risk).  It’squite common—about 47 million in the U.S. have it.  Metabolic syndrome features include insulin resistance, large waist circumference, low HDL cholesterol, elevated fasting blood sugar, high triglycerides, and elevated blood pressure. 

For optimal health, you want to avoid metabolic syndrome.

Boston-based researchers reported in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last December that followers of the the Mediterranean diet had less risk of developing metabolic syndrome; not by much, but it was statistically significant.  The study population was the Framingham (Massachusetts) Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

Several thousand men and women were studied via food frequency questionnaires, lab work, and physical exams.  Adherence to the Mediterranean diet was measured via a calculated score ranging from zero to 100.  No diabetics were enrolled.  Average age was 54.  Follow-up time averaged seven years.

They found that those adhering closely to the Mediterranean diet had fewer metabolic syndrome traits at baseline: less insulin resistance, lower waist size,  lower fasting blood sugar, lower triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol levels.

Not only that, the Mediterranean dieters developed less metabolic syndrome over time.  Over seven years, 38% of the folks with least compliance to the Mediterranean diet developed metabolic syndrome.  Of those with highest adherence, only 30% developed it.

This is the first study to show a prospective association between the Mediterranean diet and improved insulin resistance.  Avoiding insulin resistance is a good thing, and may help explain the Spanish study that found lower incidence of type 2 diabetes in Mediterranean diet followers.

Why didn’t the investigators report on the incidence of diabetes that developed over the course of the study?  Surely some of these folks developed diabetes.  Are they saving that for another report?  “Publish or perish,” you know.

You can start to see why the Mediterranean diet has a reputation as one of the healthiest around. 

It would be interesting to score these study participants with a very low-carb diet score (VLCDS—yeah, baby!).  Such diets are associated with lower blood pressure, lower blood sugars, lower triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol.  Like Mediterranean diet followers, I bet low-carbers would demonstrate lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome at baseline and lower incidence over time. 

Reference: Rumawas, M., Meigs, J., Dwyer, J., McKeown, N., & Jacques, P. (2009). Mediterranean-style dietary pattern, reduced risk of metabolic syndrome traits, and incidence in the Framingham Offspring Cohort American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90 (6), 1608-1614 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27908

Comments Off on MSDP Protects Against MetSyn (NCEP ATP-III Criteria) in FHSOC

Filed under Causes of Diabetes, coronary heart disease, Health Benefits, Mediterranean Diet

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Bane of Mankind?

Over the last 30 years in the U.S., consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has increased from3.9% of total calories to 9.2% (in 2001).  In that same time span, the percentage of overweight American adults increased from 47% to 66%.  The obesity percentage rose from15 to 33% of adults. 

[Did the beverages cause the weight gain, or are they just associated?] 

Those are just a few of the many facts shared by the authors of “Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk,” published recently in Circulation.  Sugar-sweetened beverages, by the way, include soft drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks, and vitamin water drinks. 

ResearchBlogging.orgSounds like an interesting article, doesn’t it?  It’s written by some of the brightest lights in nutritional science, including George Bray and Frank Hu.  Unfortunately, the article is a little too boring and technical for most of my readers.  Here are a few tidbits I enjoyed:

  • Fructose (found in similar amounts in sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup) may particularly predispose us to deposit fat in and around our internal abdominal organs (“visceral fat,” which some believe to be more unhealthy than fat  in our buttocks or thighs).
  • Fructose may also lead to fat deposits in cells other than fat cells, potentially interfering with cell function.
  • Fructose may adversely affect lipid metabolism (higher triglyceride levels and lower HDL levels, which could promote heart disease).
  • Fructose raises blood pressure and reduces insulin sensitivity.
  • In the liver, fructose is preferentially converted to lipid, causing high triglyceride levels (associated with heart disease and insulin resistance).  [The authors did not mention the common condition of “fatty liver” (aka hepatic steatosis) in this context.]

Some of the authors conclusions:

  • SSBs are the largest contributor to added-sugar intake in the U.S.
  • SSBs contribute to weight gain.
  • SSBs may cause type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease—separate from their effect on obesity—via high glycemic load and increased fructose metabolism, in turn leading to insulin resistance, inflammation, pancreas beta cell impairment, high blood pressure, visceral fat build-up, and adverse effects on blood lipids.

I especially like their final sentence:

For these reasons and because they have little nutritional value, intake of SSBs should be limited, and SSBs should be replaced by healthy alternatives such as water.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Malik, V., Popkin, B., Bray, G., Despres, J., & Hu, F. (2010). Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Circulation, 121 (11), 1356-1364 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.876185

1 Comment

Filed under Carbohydrate, Causes of Diabetes, coronary heart disease, Glycemic Index and Load, Overweight and Obesity