LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

Cholesterol

AM I GOING TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK?

by

This is the question everyone wants to know. It boils down to “risk.” Just what is my likelihood of dropping dead of a massive heart attack and leaving my family to fare without me?

My question is…why? If we’re honest, from a mainstream medical standpoint, the risk is predicted purely to decide when to medicate. Do we start Lipitor at a cholesterol of 230, 208 or 260?? 

From a personal standpoint, we want to know risk so we can put into perspective healthier lifestyle choices. Our doctor determines we’re at very low risk? McDonalds on the way home follow by an evening as a couch potato. High risk?  Maybe get the salad and go for a walk when we get home…

Sound too simplistic? For me, the perfect world would have no estimation of risk because everyone would be living a life free of processed food and stress and exercising consistently. We don’t need to know our risk, and we could care less because we’re going to do the right things anyway.

But alas, McDonald’s and Kraft still exist.

So, why this topic? Because if we use our estimated risks to determine how our lifestyles should be lived, we may be way off the mark. I’ve covered the concept of surrogate end markers and how this is a house of cards in medicine in previous posts. This particular study compared the relationship between risk factors identified in observational studies and cardiovascular disease and the same relationship seen in actual clinical studies.

As an example, let’s say that, when we looked at a population of 100,000 people, cholesterol levels are determined to be associated with cardiovascular disease. So we then decide to use cholesterol to determine someone’s risk of having a heart attack. So someone with elevated cholesterol now thinks they are at high risk of having a heart attack and makes a decision to take a statin drug to “protect” themselves.

But what happens when we then look at the studies used to determine if these drugs work at lowering the rates of heart attacks? Turns out, in many cases, the risk was not quite so strong as we thought. On average, the risk was actually about 25% lower than was seen in the observational studies.

What does this mean? It means that we use medications to treat what we think are risk factors for disease states (in this case cardiovascular disease). We use the medication when that lab value creeps high enough. But, in reality, what we are doing is using drugs to lower the risk of a disease based on overblown data. The result? Not quite the protection we were looking for, but at great cost.

The beauty of lifestyle changes is that they cut across a single risk factor. That group in the observational study that had lowered risk of a heart attack not only had lower cholesterol, but had higher HDL, lower triglycerides, an ideal body weight, lower hsCRP, low blood pressure, low uric acid, lower liver enzymes… You get the idea.

SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT CHOLESTEROL AT ALL?

by

Everyone not living in a cave understands that total cholesterol is linked to heart disease.  We understand this almost entirely thanks to the development of the class of drugs called statins, of which Lipitor is king.  But is this REALLY true?

Let’s take a moment a review the process by which drug therapies are developed, researched and marketed.  We identify a condition such as heart disease.  Then we study a large group of people and look at their rates of heart disease and try to find lab values that correlate with disease risk.  In thas case, researchers found that those with low rates of heart disease had low total cholesterol levels.  This is called an observational study and we use it to determine associations.

Then we find a drug that can modify the risk factor that we found.  The drug than lowers the level of the risk factor (in this case, cholesterol) and the drug gets approved to lower risk of death for the disease.  Did you notice that we skipped a step?  These drugs were NOT approved based on their ability to lower the risk of the disease, but rather the RISK FACTOR for the disease. 

So what if we were wrong in the observational study in the first place?

What if this $20 billion + a year drug class is based on weak data?

This particular study looks at how close the observational studies were to what is seen in the studies done later when statins were used in clinical trials.  The conclusions of the authors are pretty powerful….

“If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom  moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.”

Still want to refill your prescription for your statins, which, by the way, increase your risk of diabetes…?

 

PROTECTING OUR ARTERIES WITH GARLIC

by

PROTECTING OUR ARTERIES WITH GARLIC.  I always remind patients that cholesterol all by itself does NOT cause damage to our arteries.  It is not until cholesterol becomes oxidatively damaged (now called an oxysterol) that it becomes to cause damage to our arteries.  So, regardless of what your cholesterol level is, we need to protect our cholesterol.  How do we do this?  (hint:  statins DON’T protect cholesterol)  Shockingly, it’s a high phytonutrient, plant based diet.

In this particular study, researchers looked at the use of garlic to protect cholesterol and protect our blood vessels.

 

USE PLANT STEROLS FOR CHOLESTEROL PROBLEMS

by

CHOLESTEROL PROBLEMS? SKIP STATINS AND USE PLANT STEROLS.  For some strange reason, mainstream medicine seems absolutely enthralled with the use of statins for “prevention,” although this is a disturbing definition of the term.  However, we know, without a doubt, that a plant based diet with lower cholesterol equally as well.

Here’s the difference…a plant based diet improves physiology.  The body is happier.  All systems and all markers (blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, HbA1c, hsCRP, etc…) get better.  These markers get better because the dietary changes have improved the way the body is working.  The improvement in the numbers is merely a side effect.  Statins, on the other hand, ONLY fix the number (in this case, cholesterol) in an artificial manner.  This increases chance for risks (of which there are many) and does NOT make the physiology happier.  Good sources of phytosterols?  Beans, whole grains, nuts, oranges, flaxseed.

September 4, 2000 Research Update

by

 

Physicians’ Group Complains About ‘Milk Moustache’ Ads

As many of you may have figured out, I am no big fan of milk. It has probably been one of the best marketing campaigns of the 20th century, and yet there is no data to support benefits of milk. On the contrary, many studies point to the harmful effects of the allergens, pesticides, hormones and other chemicals in cow’s milk.

For the second time, the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine has filed a petition with the US Federal Trade Commission complaining that the “milk moustache” advertisements produced by the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board amount to false advertising. The group says that the ubiquitous ads send the false impression to minorities and women that cow’s milk is healthful. It has sent the FTC an 11-count petition questioning the validity of scientific research that links milk consumption to a lowered risk of osteoporosis. The complaint also asks for a ruling on whether the advertisements ignore the possible dangers of milk’s high fat content. At least one independent organization appears to support the physicians’ group’s position on the accuracy of the ads. “nutrition Navigator,” Tufts University’s online rating guide to nutrition Web sites, rates the Web site of the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board as “not recommended — unacceptable accuracy.”

Effect of a fish-oil on serum lipids in postmenopausal women

Yet another study pointing to the benefits of fish oil on health. I usually recommend patients to use flax seed oil, as it is a plant source of the same type of fatty acids without the possibility of contamination with heavy metals. AJCN — Abstracts: Stark et al. 72 (2): 389

Soy phytoestrogens protect against LDL cholesterol damage

Soy appears to have many routes by which it improves human health. This study suggests that one of these routes is by protecting LDL damage. The “bad” cholesterol can not increase risk of heart disease if it itself is not first damaged. AJCN — Abstracts: Wiseman et al. 72 (2): 395

Magnetic fields and abnormal cell growth

There has been much controversy about the potential dangers of magnetic fields and human health. This article introduces some concepts as to how that may occur. While reading this, you must also consider that cell phones and magnets emit a magnetic field. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15238230

Physical activity and peptic ulcers

Ulcers are still a major scourge in today’s society. Many of the acid blockers were designed for short term use only, and can have long term negative health effects. This study suggests that exercise can reduce the incidence of ulcers. Combine this with the use of cabbage extract or licorice and we have a very viable solution to ulcers without harmful medications. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071012/

Antibiotics and acute bronchitis

Numerous studies have shown that antibiotics have no effect on the course of acute bronchitis. This was an analysis of several studies, once again showing that antibiotics are not needed for acute bronchitis. Not to mention the harmful effects of destroying off the body’s normal protective flora. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11034678

James Bogash, D.C. Mesa, AZ
info@lifecarechiropractic.com
www.lifecarechiropractic.com

 

MY DAD HAD LOW BACK PAIN, SO I GUESS I’LL GET IT

by

It is not an uncommon belief for a person to think that, because one or both of their parents suffered from low back pain that they, too, will suffer from low back pain.  While genetics may play a role, it is nowhere near the most critical one.

This particular study on twins finds that genetics only play about a 11-13% role for patients who have both low back pain and lumbar disc degeneration.  This means that there are other factors at play in the risk for developing low back pain.

In general, the better we take care of ourselves, the lower our risk of developing disc degeneration.  This means adopting a lifestyle that avoids diabetes, exercising and maintaining flexibility through things like yoga.

You see, the discs of our spine do not have their own blood supply. Rather, they are fed nutrients through smaller blood vessels.  So what happens if plague begins to form on these important blood vessels bringing nutrients to the disc?  You guessed it–reduced nutrient delivery and the disc cannot keep up with physiological demands so it begins to break down.

So, protecting your heart will also protect these important blood vessels which will, in turn, protect the discs of your spine.  Certainly other factors like imbalance, poor posture and past trauma play a role as well, but I do not feel that the role is as great as protecting the blood vessels that feed nutrients to our discs.

The lucky thing is that an anti-diabetic lifestyle just so happens to also be an anti-heart disease / pro blood vessel health lifestyle.  See how nicely that works out?  Just when you thought you were going to have to pick a disease you wanted to avoid with lifestyle..

OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS DOOMED!!

by

Let’s start this off by saying that my view on this is apolitical.  I don’t care which side of the fence you’re on, or if you think you can precariously balance in the middle–with no substantives changes in the adoption of prevention of chronic disease in this country NO ONE can afford what’s coming.

You can shift who’s paying.  You can shift how much we pay for stuff.  You can shift cost sharing around.  But when the burden of chronic disease, just taking diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s in account, how is society going to pay for care of half the population when the costs of care per year exceed, say, $100K per sick person?

Could you and your neighbor, spouse or significant other each kick in $50K to pay when one of the two of you needs open heart surgery?  Heck–let’s say the surgery is done in a basement somewhere and the cost is reduced to a measly $10K apiece?  Can you fork that over?

And, WOULD you fork it over if your neighbor watched tv all day, had more dust on his treadmill than the moon and every Monday his garbage can at the curb is filled with beer cans and fast food bags?  This is a very, very serious question we all need to contemplate.

You’re all invited next time my mother and I have a “discussion” where she feels everyone deserves healthcare regardless of how poorly someone takes care of themselves (liver transplants for alcoholics, anyone?) and I feel that personal responsibility trumps all and to a certain degree we need to face financial responsibility for our poor lifestyle choices.  It can get quite animated.  She is, of course, wrong.

So, as the Obamacare plan plays out with only token attention to true prevention, remember that, regardless of who pays for it, we cannot afford where we are headed.  When health”care” spending is 50% of GDP because no one is truly responsible for their actions because entitlement insurance is there to catch you when you fall (which, as we’ve addressed before, is a really false security net), maybe Nabisco, Kraft, Kellogg’s and McDonalds can come up with the new plan.

Remember–the only true answer is, always has been and always will be, prevention through healthy lifestyle changes.

Read more…

DIABETICS SHOULD SNACK ON THESE

by

Despite massive amounts of evidence and research on how to avoid and / or eliminate diabetes, the public still isn’t receiving the message.  Sometimes small changes that are incredibly simple can make major improvements.

As an example, avoiding bottled water and switching to tea is a simple change moving from BPA loaded water to polyphenol rich tea.  Avoiding all artificial sweeteners.  Burst type aerobic exercise, even if it is just for 10 minutes a week.

This particular study focuses on the power of almonds to improve diabetes.  The authors took “well controlled” diabetics (I personally hate that phrase–no one is ever “well controlled” if they need medication to get there) and had them eat a single serving of almonds with breakfast 5 days / wk for 4 months.

They found a massive 30% reduction in blood sugar levels and a 4% reduction in HbA1c levels in these patients, which, in some patients, may be enough to reverse the diabetes diagnosis.  Few medications than can do this are without side effects.

These results are even more surprising when you take into account the standardized breakfast that the diabetics ate was bagels, butter and juice–ALL absolute no-nos for diabetics!  Despite the pro-diabetic breakfast, the almonds were still powerful enough to drop HbA1c levels.  How simple is that??

Two things to add..

First, raw or dry roasted almonds only.  Nothing that comes out of a can or has any added oils to them.  Big mistake that many make.  And while this study looked at almonds, I would not be surprised to find many other nuts having similar effects.

Second, chew more.  Several studies have found that by merely chewing food more we get a stronger anti-diabetic effect, especially in almonds.

If you’re diabetic, what are you waiting for?  If you’re not, you should make it a habit anyway..

Read more…