If you are in the health care industry, whether it be pharmaceuticals, medicine, research, administration, or you’re just interested in your own health and wonder what others think, read this article.
If you’re somewhat skeptical of medicine, health care and big pharma, and you think the health care system needs revamping, you really should read this. It’s long but very provocative.
This is a few days old but I still wanted to comment. In case you missed it, a study released last week indicated obesity was socially contagious. Authors of the study concluded that if you lived, worked or were friends with an obese person, you were more likely to be obese. Conversely, if you were height and weight proportionate, your friends and family were likely to be the same. Hence the socially contagious theme behind the research.
You remember the old saying…”Birds of a feather…”
In some respects the adage is true. You’re not going to find the best lawyers or financial firms on the low-rent side of town, are you? Of course not, they’re likely to be right next door to each other or in the next building – downtown or in the financial district.
But when it comes to this socially contagious idea, I completely disagree with the theory.
Here’s why.
For the last several years we’ve been bombarded with news of the obesity epidemic.
And you’ve seen the headlines many times…
So if obesity is rising at epidemic proportions, how does the Socially Contagious idea fit?
It doesn’t.
It doesn’t fit because if everyone is becoming obese, does it really matter who your friends are? Does it really matter who your family members are? Does it really matter who you work with?
The short answer is no. While there certainly is some relationship, there’s simply too little separation of the data to justify a Socially Contagious theory. By that I mean there are too many related items over-lapping each other that are better predictors of obesity than simply the circle of people you see on a regular basis.
Like a bad diet and too little exercise. At the same time we’re bombarded by the obesity statistics, we’re bombarded by information that our diets are terrible and we can’t get off the couch for 30 minutes of exercise. These are more important than the Socially Contagious idea.
But back to the question…
Does is really matter who your friends are?
If more than 60% of the population is overweight or obese, simply by chance your going to be living, working or socializing with someone that was overweight or obese. So no, it doesn’t.
Calling obesity socially contagious is analogous to saying that humans having two legs is socially contagious. We’re all humans, we all have two legs. And just by chance you’re going to know somone, live with someone or work with someone that is overweight or obese.
So does it make sense to say it’s socially contagious?
From the American Heart Association…
“Research shows that when properly supervised and prescribed in the light of a patient’s history and condition, whether they have cardiovascular disease or not, resistance training increases muscular strength, endurance, independence, and ability to perform a large range of activities. It reduces disability and enhances quality of life. Other benefits include increase in bone mineral density and lean body mass.”
In their recently updated public statement (a full pdf version can be found here) on weight lifitng and heart disease, the AHA has recommended doctors encourage their patients to participate in strength training exercise.
Anyone in the fitness industry worth their credentials on the wall could have told you this years ago. I don’t know how many older clients I’ve trained that walked at least twice as fast once their session was over compared to when it started – no comments about trying to get away from me as fast as possible either 
.
But it’s good to know that an organization the size of the AHA is getting serious about weight training for heart health. As we age, health becomes our main concern. And rightfully so. If we can’t live independently, the golden years are less enjoyable.
Resistance training increases our ability to live independently. We are stronger. Our joints are more mobile. And, importantly, our balance is better by default. So what other benefits could be more important? If you have some better (or if I’ve left something important out), please let me know.
If you’re not lifting weights, start a program now. It’s never too late. There are even fitness centers that cater to those 55 and older. Additionally, most clubs will offer a discount to senior citizens. If the one you’re looking into doesn’t, go somewhere else.
Until next time, lift weights today and break a sweat. It just might do you some good!
Exercise is good. Inflammation in the body is bad! – it’s significantly related to a whole host of cardiovascular diseases.
The most frequently measured biomarker of inflammation in the body is C-reactive protein (CRP). High levels of CRP indicate high levels of inflammation. Essential fatty acids (Omega 3′s, for example) are known to reduce inflammation – so eat some fresh, Wild Salmon today . Other foods known to reduce inflammation are fresh fruits and vegetables, like berries, grapes, celery and avocadoes (there are more but that’s a quick list). Green tea has some anti-inflammatory characteristics too.
Fitness has been shown to be inversely related to CRP, the more fit you are the less CRP in your bloodstream. What hasn’t been very well understood, however, is the mechanism that’s in play. For example, if you are highly fit and have low CRP levels, is that because you are fit or are the habits of living your daily lifestyle (ie, diet full of fresh fruits, vegetables and healthy doses of essential fatty acids) causing your low levels of CRP.
This study attempted to answer that question.
What they found was that exercise was a significant contributor to low levels of CRP. They looked at sympathetic and parasympathetic tone. The former increases heart rate, respiration, substrate utilization, etc… when you start exercising, while the latter brings these values down, back to resting levels once you stop. Their main finding was a direct relationship between parasympathetic tone and CRP, which means the longer your body takes to get back to resting levels, the higher your levels of CRP. And, conversely, the quicker your body gets back to resting levels, the lower your levels of CRP.
So exercise is good for reducing inflammation in the body. Chalk up another one for the good guys.
Understand this, exercise is good but higher intensity exercise is even better. If you want to work on your body’s ability to recover, than do some interval training or other form of high intensity training. It can be cardio, weights, agility drills, anything really, the higher the intensity, the harder your body has to work to recover. Over time, it will recover more quickly and decrease your overall level of inflammation.
So, really, go out and break a sweat today! here in Houston today, that won’t be too hard
Dr. Brian
PS. If you need some guidance on your exercise program, sign up for one of our FREE newsletters. If you are a golfer and want to knock 4-5 strokes off your game, get a copy of the Golf Fitness Boot Camp, you can even download it to your computer right now! It will improve your game and the inflammation in your body.
So glad you asked!
There are many ways to effectively lose weight, some better than others. But for most of us, at least according to this study, your plan should have some accountability.
The study compared formal weight loss programs (diet and exercise only) to those that had a meeting/group component included, which they referred to as dietary counseling. Weekly meetings helped participants understand what their bodies were going through, how to deal with setbacks and learning to live a new lifestyle.
Those in the counseling group lost 10-15 pounds and kept it off for approximately 1 year, significantly greater weight loss and long-term success than diet and exercise alone. Now I know what you are thinking, only 10-15 pounds? I want/need to lose 25, 50 pounds or more. That’s not the point. The point is they lost weight and kept it off for a year.
If you need to lose more and participate in a program that only helps you lose 15, is that failure? I think it’s a darn good success story and gives you all the confidence you need to keep going.
Again, the main point is that they lost weight!
But why?
It’s the social support aspect of the dietary counseling. When you have weekly meetings, you’re more likely to stick with the program. Encouragement from others within the group builds confidence. These meetings also have someone participate that’s “been there, done that.” Their experience alone is invaluable. Finally, should you ever miss a meeting, someone will be there to ask you why. If your excuse is lame, the guilt alone can be enough to get you over a hurdle.
Back to the title of the post. Is this the best way to lose weight? On an individual basis, maybe – maybe not. For most people, weekly meetings (counseling, inspiration, motivation – however you want to label them) work extremely well for long-term success.
Remember, losing weight and then gaining it back is not the ultimate. Keeping it off is.
Have you been in a program like this? What are your thoughts? Have you tried, tried and tried to lose weight, only to have a little success and then fall back to the old habits?
We can help. First, sign up for our fitness center newsletter BSFC Monthly. It’s absolutely free and comes with nice bonus gifts for signing up. Plus, each month it’s loaded with all sorts of good information on fitness, diet, health and exercise.
If you live in Houston or pass through the SW part of town on a regular basis, our Fit Heart Membership is just the ticket for you. The benefits, amenities and services associated with this membership are absolutely second to none!
Until next time, break a sweat today and eat some fruits and vegetables!
Dr. Brian
One major problem in the fitness/health/wellness industry is the lack of a clear, concise message. For example, how much exercise do you need? How often should you exercise? What form of exercise is best?
Pose these questions to 10 different trainers and you’re likely to get 10 different answers.
And it’s not just personal trainers. Different think tanks, non-profits and the like involved in the fitness, health and wellness industry have published their own recommendations. Some say accumulate 30 minutes per day, some say you should exercise for at least an hour each day and some recommend high intensity exercise. They are, quite literally, all over the place.
I could sit here and dissect each one, but that’s not the point of this post, so I won’t do that.
The point of this post is to shed light on how easily it can appear that an entire field of study has no clear, concise message.
Take for example these two headlines, which appeared back-to-back, no less under the heading of depression news in my daily medical research update.
Although not identified in the title, the anti-depressants in question in the first study were SSRI’s (like Celexa, Lexapro, Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft). Yep, the same as those in the second study. So one says there is risk and the other says there is no risk.
Confused yet?
I haven’t examined the studies in-depth to determine if differences in methodology might explain varying results, although if I had to guess, they probably will. But, again that’s not my point.
My point is the message. It’s eminently confusing and reeks of hidden agendas or a severe misunderstanding of the effects these drugs could potentially have – which is a whole separate issue, and quite disturbing when you really think about it.
It’s one thing for the fitness/health/wellness industry to lack a consistent message when it comes to physical activity. Enough people need to simply get up and move that the inconsistency will do little harm, if any at all.
It’s a completely different story when even medical researchers have a hard time agreeing on the potentially adverse effects a particular drug may have on an unborn child.
And that’s why I’m confused.
Potential New Target For Type 2 Diabetes Found By Penn Researchers
“We hope that drug companies will look for new ways to modify fat metabolism in type 2 diabetics using these possible targets.”
Big Pharma dovetails quite nicely with the tertiary nature of our health care system. You don’t visit the doctor before you get sick. Type II diabetes and most chronic cardiovascular conditions are almost completely related to lifestyle. Eat a diet high in nutrient deficient, highly processed foods, do very little physical activity and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict glucose metabolic problems in your future.
But the purpose of this post is to shed light on the dependence of federal research monies on Big Pharma. The quote above is taken directly from the article and shows that perfectly. It’s as if researchers using federal money are directing the research focus of Big Pharma.
Why do we need more or different drugs when a perfectly acceptable solution is available? Why can’t there be a quote like this directed at lifestyle change? It is a perfectly acceptable solution.
I closed a previous post by asking if I was being cynical, maybe I am.
As a former academic (and fully aware of the importance of scientific publications), there are times when I scratch my head and wonder, “Federal dollars were spent on this!”
In nearly all cases, outcomes are predictable within an expected range. It’s called the scientific method. With no desire to get into a discussion of the scientific method, a recent study looked at the role of diet on recovery from colon cancer.
You can read the summary. Here is the first paragraph:
“Patients with stage III colon cancer who have undergone surgery and chemotherapy with the goal of cure may have a higher risk of relapsing and dying early if they follow a predominantly “Western” diet of red meat, fatty foods, refined grains, and desserts, according to research led by investigators at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.”
As I read this summary, all I could think was, “What type of diet do you think got them there in the first place?” I’m sure this research was needed somewhere, after all, if a study doen’st prove it, how do you know it’s true.
But there is some good news…we know now the answer to the question and a “prudent” diet has made some headlines.
Am I just being cynical?
According to this summary and proponents of vitamin D, yes your risk of cancer (and many other diseases) can be significantly reduced with normal levels of vitamin D.
But what does that have to do with sunlight, you ask?
Good question. After all, cancer institutes, dermatological societies and even sunscreen manufacturers extoll the benefits of sunscreen and limited exposure for skin health. Skin cancer is dangerous and can be fatal. So if sunlight is the main culprit, how can it be helpful?
Our bodies make vitamin D when exposed to the sun. In fact, significant rises can be seen in as little as 15-20 minutes.
But there is a catch…
Get a daily dose without sunscreen…it blocks vitamin D production.
How much exposure? At least 15 minutes and some say up to 1 hr. Any more than that and you will need the sunscreen.
“Scientists in Indiana are reporting progress toward development of low glycemic and slowly digestible starch, a form of starch that would be less apt to cause the spike in blood sugar – and perhaps sharp hunger pangs – that many individuals experience after eating bread, baked goods, and other high-carbohydrate foods.”
The rest of the summary can be read here.
My only question is why?
I can understand the need for people to consume healthier foods – particularly than those listed in the quote above. But what if we just ate less of that food and more fruits and vegetables, healthier meats and drank more water? What if we just ate grains as they grow in the field?
Look in your pantry. Foods in plastic bags and carboard boxes are loaded with things that used to be good, healthy foods. Take enriched white flour for example. Out in the field, its a perfectly healthy and natural food.
To end up as a cake, bread or other food, it gets processed. The problem with processing is that it removes the good stuff, mainly the fiber, vitamins and minerals. As the end-product food stuff, it’s a plain-old, bland, quickly digesting starch.
Now, based on the objectives of these scientists, a new, more slowly digesting starch is being manufactured. And they’re making progress. I don’t know if I should jump for joy or just ask the question: “What is wrong with this picture?”
If we have a perfectly healthy food, process it and turn it into something that is not good for our digestive system, why do we want to further alter it so that it is better for our digestive system? Before you answer, think about the steps being taken to make the food better.
Is this coming full circle or am I just missing something completely obvious here? Please enlighten me!
Last 5 tweetsTwitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.
