>10 Biggest Nutrition Myths—Ever
I am a big fan of having people eat a healthy diet. The best of all possible worlds, doctors would know more about diet and have the time to talk with/educate their patients about this. Additionally everyone would have access to a nutritionist/Registered dietitian and access to healthy foods. Lastly, people would not buy into fad diets or believe all of the mis information out there. Here is a list of some things to keep in mind.
Better Sleep May Be Incredibly Important to Alzheimer’s Risk.
Sleep disturbances are common. Sometimes patients have come in with sleep problems that are clearly related to temporal issues (such as stressors like a death in the family, work stress, etc).
It is the people that come in with chronic issues which I think are challenging. Some patients have come on while on medications chronically to help with sleep. One concern is that they end up being too dependent on medications to sleep. When seeing things like this, it makes me wonder if patients on sleep medications chronically are altering their sleep architecture enough that it still puts them at risk for things.
Some sleep issues, such as obstructive sleep apnea, do put one at risk for things like high blood pressure, irregular heart rhythms, etc. luckily for that things like weight loss, CPAP machines, etc can help without the use of medications. This article does make the case for getting good sleep regularly!
In some ways this post is a continuation of my previous one titled “…because it’s natural”. In a lot of diseases such as DM-2, Alzheimer’s, and heart disease, there are multiple mechanisms that contribute to either the disease itself or to it’s complications. Two mechanisms of disease that seem to get a lot of space on TV, print and on the internet is that of inflammation and oxidation. Whether it is someone promoting a “super food” that has a lot of antioxidants in it (or a lot of anti-inflammatory activity), or a pill that has plant extracts in it that reduce oxidation or inflammation, the claims should be taken with a grain of salt. For example in some cases, there may be multiple good studies that show taking said supplement does act as good antioxidant. However this doesn’t mean that the supplement will improve one’s health or lengthen lives. This is a problem with using what’s called a surrogate endpoint. Don’t get me wrong, using surrogate endpoints can be useful when the more significant and relevant endpoints are things to be avoided (death or disability for example) or might not happen for years – I don’t think a study that would take 30 years to start showing something works would get funding – or finding enough people to study would be practical. It helps if a change in the surrogate endpoint has already been shown to be related to reduction in a particular disease’s morbidity or mortality.There are also observational studies that show certain things (high vitamin A levels, higher beta-carotene intake) are associated with lower levels of a particular disease state. Sometimes using a surrogate endpoint (or noticing an association between two things such as high levels of vitamin A and lower rates of a particular disease) ends up leading to people doing negative studies. For example, many deaths after a heart attack are related to arrhythmias. A study called the CAST (short for Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial) showed higher mortality in people who were on anti arrhythmia drugs. It doesn’t mean that the drugs didn’t have a role in other disorders. I have a feeling it means that we were just asking the wrong question (even though it needed to be asked and answered) about treating arrhythmias after heart attacks. I use the example of the CAST study to make the point that showing something changes the level of something (either up or down) that is thought to be involved in causing disease – be it inflammation, oxidation, arrhythmia or otherwise – doesn’t mean it affects the disease it is said to. It may be that to treat a disease with anti-inflammatory medications (or substances), one also needs to block other pathways of that disease as a well for any to be effective. This is why most cancers are treated with more than one drug. This is why people are often on more than one blood pressure medication. As I mentioned in my last post, any claims should have data supporting that they work. The results should be reproducible, hopefully other by other researchers. Getting back to my original assertion from the start of this particular blog post, if someone is touting a “superfood” for health, It is appropriate to ask if it actually improves health, decreases complications, etc. In my opinion, just to say something is a “super food” because it is a ‘super anti oxidant’ is blowing smoke. That isn’t to say that anti-oxidant rich foods don’t promote good health. There are too many studies that are negative that to look at one thing and say “this is the holy grail of food”. This also undersimplifies things too greatly. It’s better, in my opinion, to say “these are the types of foods/eating (or habits if one is talking about other aspects of lifestyle) that are associated with good health. For examples, many of the studies that show that olive oil intake is inversely related to cognitive decline are more agnostic about what role each component in olive oil plays, despite showing benefits. Is it the kinds of fatty acids in olive oil? Is it the polyphenols that act as antioxidants? Is it the anti-inflammatory chemicals in olive oil? I suspect the answer is yes, it is all three. Is it the answer to everything: just have olive oil and you’ll live to 100? I doubt it. My bottom line on health care claims:
Be critical but open minded: ask the following questions: “Does it actually affect or prevent disease? Does it decrease complications of the disease and not just something thought to be associated with disease or complications thereof?”. If the answer is “yes, it does reduce _fill in the blank_ and there is a proportional reduction in the amount of deaths/strokes/people going on dialysis/etc then you have a winner. IF the answer is “it does reduce _fill in the blank_” but there is no reduction in _fill in this blank as well_” it may mean that the answer is more complicated than we think. It may mean that the wrong question(s) were asked, or the right ones hadn’t been asked.
Also be wary of claims that make a product or procedure seem that it’s THE ANSWER for a particular disease. It may be a piece in the puzzle, but in order to be considered as such, the answer to the question ‘where’s the proof’ should be along the lines of “here are the studies…”
If the person makes statements like “doctors are in the pockets of ‘big pharma’ and aren’t interested in curing disease”, then be wary. I think most doctors get into this business to make people better. If there was a pill that taken once or twice cured someone of his or her type 2 diabetes (and did not cause some other severe life threatening disease), I think most doctors would use that pill.
Also ask if this the first study of something? Often a treatment is found in a study to be helpful. The numbers of people may be small. Due to the nature of studies, the participants are typically more homogenous than the population as a whole. Once larger studies are done, the benefits of a medication/procedure, etc may not be as large as initially thought.
Another question ot ask is this better than what we have now? Though it could be asked of a new medication, I’m primarily thinking here of new surgical procedures (eg, robotic surgery for certain things). If offered ask: is the rate of complications less with the new procedure? Is mortality less? Is the recovery time quicker with the new procedure?
This post is one of several on taking care of your health, and in which I’ll be talking about screening and in a future blog, about prevention (this latter one might be several posts).
The concepts of screening and prevention are related, and sometimes overlapping but different concepts and don’t mean the same things. Screening usually means that one is looking for a disease/disease process that is already occurring. For example, at birth babies are screened for hypothyroidism as well as certain inherited disorders such as phenylketonuria. The disorders screened for may vary a little from state to state but share the traits of having treatments that PREVENT severe disease or complications of the disease (eg, growth retardation and developmental disability in the case of hypothyroidism). As I’m an internist I’ll focus mostly on adult screening. Screening for colon cancer, breast cancer, aortic aneurysm in older people with other risk factors (a history of smoking and/or hypertension, example) can save lives or reduce the burden of disease.
There’s good evidence for screening for cervical cancer with pap smears in women 21 to 65 (early diagnosis can lead to less invasive treatment) every 3-5 years depending on whether it’s done with testing for human papilloma virus testing or not. History is important in the decision as well – a woman who’s had a hysterectomy and her cervix removed as well for something other than cervical cancer is in a different category than is someone with a cervix. Screening for chlamydial infection in young women who are sexually active is another test that has some good evidence behind it (it can lead to PID – pelvic inflammatory disease – which can lead to other issues such as infertility)
For people 50-75 there is good evidence for screening colonoscopy. If a polyp is found it can be biopsied – which if it’s small enough removes the whole thing. In many cases if it turns out to be a pre-cancerous lesion, having removed the polyp removes the chances of it turning into cancer. Often if there is a history of colon cancer in a patient’s family, a screening colonoscopy will be suggested 10 years before the index case occurred. For example if a patient’s mother had colon cancer at age 49, all of her children and siblings should start screening at age 39 not 50. When and what age to start screening is also affected by other familial syndromes as well and to go through all of them is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.
For other screening tests, such as screening asymptomatic males for chlamydial infection, older men for prostate cancer, the evidence is less good for routine screening. As time goes by there will likely be better data to make stronger/more definitive recommendations.
Breast cancer is one area that in the past few years has undergone changes in recommendations. but some organizations recommend recommend screening every two years form 40-50 and then yearly after that. When to start screening and how often is best done in conjunction with your primary care physician.
Screening for proteinuria in patients with hypertension or diabetes might not have the press that some of the screening tests I’ve mentioned (and there are others I haven’t), but can help lead to changing treatment to help prevent or delay kidney disease from getting worse.
For more information you can go to the AHRQ website at http://www.ahrq.gov or the U.S. preventative services website at http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org
doctorgladstone 