Functionomics, your necessary back-up plan for a longer better life.

The first person to live up to 150 years has already been born.

That's what Steven Austad, David Sinclair and Stuart Kim think.

All three are Professors: 
Of Biology, of Genetics and of Developmental Biology respectively.
Sinclair at Harvard Medical School and Kim at Stanford University.
Just in case you thought I quote some nutcase science colleagues.


Now, imagine, you being that person living to 150.


You'd only enjoy the privilege if you could live fully functional 150 years.


That's quite the opposite of how we experience aging today: a gradual loss of function.
It typically leads to dementia, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, frailty, you name it.


Treat that loss of function before it has deteriorated into any of those chronic diseases, and you not only prevent the diseases but you also extend your fully functional lifespan.


Treatment of function means an extension of lifespan and freedom from disease.

No need to be a professor to get that point.

But you apparently need to be in medicine to NOT GET IT.


With its refusal to acknowledge aging as a medical condition, medicine is guilty of causing bodily harm:
By withholding the treatment for functional decline until this treatable condition has deteriorated into one or several incurable diseases.

These diseases are not called chronic for nothing.


That's why I am an advocate for treating aging like a disease.


That's why our professors are big fans of two cool strategies:
Strengthening the innate repair mechanisms and bio-engineering the necessary repair or replacement technologies.

Back to the question whether you will make it to 150.


Probably not.


Because by the time these new strategies will have found their way into the clinic, you'll be dead.
I am pretty sure I will be.

Initial exuberance about any new biomedical insight is rarely justified. Just check back at the decoding of the human genome. 

Genomics was then hyped as THE hack for personalized disease prediction and prevention. Ten years later the sobering realization: "The numerous genetic variants that mediate disease risk … are thus meager in their predictive power. " [1].

So, don't bet on getting any lifespan extension treatments within your lifetime.


UNLESS…


… you start with a third strategy. It's called robustification against aging.

It simply means to slow down, stop or even reverse the functional decline that comes with age.

Now imagine, if we could quantify and measure your organism's robustness against all the things that can go wrong under the hood we can keep it robust.
The best part is, we do not need to know the myriad of things that eventually will go wrong under the hood.

Surprisingly, measuring function is something sorely neglected in medical science.


That's where functionomics enters the stage.


Let's take the cardiovascular system as an illustrative example.


This system's failure is the cause of roughly half of all deaths (which is one reason why I have made it my priority).


Its purpose is to deliver oxygen and nutrients to each and every cell of all organs.
And then to carry away all the cells' waste products that come from metabolizing these nutrients and oxygen.


It has a second purpose: to unburden the heart, by actively pumping the blood through its conduits (the arteries).


The cardiovascular system does its job as a purely hydraulic system. 
Therefore cardiovascular function can be fully described by the same physical parameters that engineers use to build hydraulic systems.


The tool to describe and quantify the cardiovascular hydraulics is cardiovascular functionomics.


It's a profile of all the functional parameters that together determine your system's functional capacity. Much like your genomic profile determines your inheritance.


Translate that functionomic profile into a correction factor of your calendar age, and we have two vital things.


First, we know how robust you are against threats to this system.

Second, we have a benchmark that can tell us how good we are in robustifying you, say, with a drug or exercise or diet.


We do not need to know what exactly it is that might be threatening YOUR system, as long as we know that YOU are robust enough to withstand anything that CAN happen.


What is the net effect of 'robustification the functionomics way'?


It buys you time.


It may be only a couple of years, say, a decade.


But 10 years of staying functionally fit may make a sizable difference, between on the one hand living long enough and in good enough health to benefit from future technologies of rejuvenation, and on the other hand missing that boat.


Because, even if our professors' exuberance may be a bit overboard, we are pretty close to some exciting new life and health extension technologies. 

And if it wasn't for medicine, we would be much further ahead on that path by now.


That's why I conceived of functionomics.


It may make you, and me, the first ones to make it to a healthy 150 after all.


Bibliography

[1]      J. P. Evans, E. M. Meslin, T. M. Marteau, and T. Caulfield, “Deflating the Genomic Bubble,” Science (80-. )., vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 861–862, Feb. 2011.

PrintPDF

Pass me the salt. And shut up about stroke risk.

They say, statistics lie.

That's a bad rep for a science, which has no other aspiration than that of making sense from data, of discovering an association between salt intake and stroke, of proving that the former causes the latter. Statistics is above lies. Those who interpret it are not. 

PrintPDF

It's not your genes, stupid.

Imagine traveling back in time and meeting your caveman ancestor of 10,000 years ago. Imagine telling him about what life is like today: that, with the tap of a finger you turn darkness into light, a cold room into a warm one and a tube in the wall of your cave into a spring of hot and cold water. You tell him...

PrintPDF

To hell with exercise

Who says that exercise is medicine? For one, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) of which I'm a professional member. Then, how can I say it isn't?

Let's look first at the conventional view of the benefits of exercise. There is a large and increasing amount of evidence which clearly tells us that exercise prevents today's number 1 killer: cardiovascular disease. That is, heart attack, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. Mind you, what is common knowledge today emerged only some 50 years ago when Morris and colleagues discovered that UK bus conductors, the guys climbing up and down the double-decker London buses, had better fitness and fewer heart attacks than their all-day-seated driver colleagues [1].

In the years since then our knowledge about the effects of physical activity on cardiovascular, metabolic and mental health has virtually exploded. From this evidence the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) concluded in 2008 that the most active people of the population have a 35% reduced risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to the least active people [2]. The WHO lists insufficient physical activity (PA) as the 4th leading cause of death world wide after high blood pressure, tobacco use and high blood glucose. What's wrong with this picture? High blood pressure and high blood glucose are known consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. So is obesity, which ranks 5th place on the WHO killer list. Which is why physical inactivity deserves top spot on that list.

What most people don't know is the way lack of physical activity causes all those diseases, from insulin resistance and diabetes to arterial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, and from there to heart attack, stroke, kidney failure. The mechanisms are extremely complex, and, while we have untangled quite some of them, there are probably a lot more to discover. I'll try to make this the subject of one of the next blog posts. 

Now you are probably asking yourself, how the hell, with all this evidence, will I ever be able to make my point that physical activity is not a medicine. Ok, here it comes: it's a matter of viewpoint. The one I'm taking is the one of evolutionary biology. Let me play its advocate and present as evidence a couple of insights.

First, our human ancestors, who had roamed this Earth as hunter/gatherers for the most part of human existence, had, by necessity, a much more physically active lifestyle. A lifestyle which required at least 1.7 to 2 times the normal resting energy expenditure [3]. [To get an idea about resting energy expenditure and physical activity levels and how they are calculated, simply follow the links to the videos.] Those ancestors' genes are what we have inherited. And these genes are exposed to a lifestyle which is vastly different from the ones under which these genes evolved. Specifically with a view to physical activity, which brings me to evidence no 2:

What we typically observe today are physical activity levels with factors of somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 of our resting energy expenditure. That's true for most people.

Even if you were to follow the ACSM's recommendation of 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise on at least 5 days per week, would you NOT reach the level of 1.7 if you are working in a typical office job or doing house work. Which means, the physical activity levels which we recommend today, do not add a behavioral type of medicine into our lives, they merely reduce the extent of a "poisonous" behavior called sedentism. It's like cutting down from 2 packs of cigarettes per day to 1 pack. Would you call this a "medicine"? Would the ACSM call that a medicine? With respect to exercise they do.

So, OK, if you had been attracted to this post in the hope of finding some excuse for not doing exercise, or some argument to get those exercise evangelists, like myself, off your back, I'm sorry to have disappointed you. No, actually, I'm not sorry. And neither will you be, if you get your physical activity level above those 1.7. Then you may just start calling exercise a medicine. Until then, chances are you will still go to hell with exercise, because you get too little of it. Certainly too little to stay out of that hell of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and many cancers.

1.           Morris, J.N. and P.A. Raffle, Coronary heart disease in transport workers; a progress report. Br J Ind Med, 1954. 11(4): p. 260-4.

2.           Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2008, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, D.C.

3.           Eaton, S.B. and S.B. Eaton, An evolutionary perspective on human physical activity: implications for health. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol, 2003. 136(1): p. 153-9.

F4F9V7QE32W3

MORRIS JN, & RAFFLE PA (1954). Coronary heart disease in transport workers; a progress report. British journal of industrial medicine, 11 (4), 260-4 PMID: 13208943
Eaton, S., & Eaton, S. (2003). An evolutionary perspective on human physical activity: implications for health Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 136 (1), 153-159 DOI: 10.1016/S1095-6433(03)00208-3 PrintPDF

Do vitamin supplements make you healthier?

The (non-)sense of vitamin supplementation?

Almost one in two American adults is a regular user of vitamin and mineral supplements, either in the form of single- or multivitamin/mineral formulations (MVMS). It all adds up to a market of US$ 9 Billion annually, or one third of the total US supplements market. Does all the pill-popping help their users to achieve better health or longevity? 

That's one question raised by Björn, one of the readers of my blog. Thanks, Björn, I wanted to write on this subject for some time. You just got me going on this a little earlier than I would have otherwise. And also thanks for the second question: Does the latest technology of delivering the drug (not to your house, but within your body to your organism's cells) via "nano-encapsulation" improve that health effect in any way? Let me try to answer these questions one by one.

When you talk about vitamins, you talk about essential micronutrients, for which the human organism has either no or only a very limited ability to produce (e.g. Vitamin D) on its own. If you want to group vitamins according to their solubility you'll find that they come in two flavors: water soluble and fat soluble. Of course, you could group them for any other biochemical characteristic, but grouping them according to their solubility makes immediate sense when you keep in mind that the fat soluble ones (A, D, E and K) can accumulate in your body's tissues, whereas the water soluble Vitamins typically can't. Whatever can accumulate, can also accumulate to the point where there is too much of it in a body's tissue. So, yes, too much of a good thing may turn into a not so good thing, as is the case for vitamins A and E for example. Or, too much of a good thing may just be flushed out of the body, as is the case with water-soluble vitamin C.

The supplement industry certainly does a good job convincing the public that supplementing one's diet with additional vitamin formulations is good for one's health. It's certainly good for the industry's bank accounts. In such cases it always pays to ask one simple question: Where is the evidence?  

In a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT, the gold standard of clinical research methodology), the authors investigated the effects of vitamins E and A on the risk of cardiovascular disease and death in altogether 220,000 patients [1]. The effects? Zilch. The authors recommendation? The evidence does not support any recommendation for the use of Vitamins E and A. On the contrary, they found a slight increase in all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality associated with vitamin A supplementation.

In another 2007 review on the subject, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, its author came to the same conclusion, stating that "Results to date are not compelling concerning a role for MVMs in preventing morbidity or mortality from cancer or CVD." [2] The two largest trials on Vitamin A and E supplementation in smokers, the Finnish Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (ATBC Trial) and the US Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) enrolled 29,000 and 18,000 smokers. In the Finnish trial, supplementation with Vitamin A increased the risk for lung cancers by 18% within a 5 to 8-year observation period [3]. And the US trial was halted after 2 years for the same reason: a 28% increase in lung cancer risk, a 26% increase in risk for dying from cardiovascular disease [4]. In 22,000 healthy men who had been observed for 12 years, supplementation with vitamin A showed neither benefit nor harm [5].  

So where is the evidence for you to believe that buying Vitamin E and A supplements will make you healthier and live longer? Maybe I'm blinded by a perverse distrust of everything a sales man tells me, but I can't see it.

So, how about multi-vitamins? In the group of people with the highest take-up rate of multivitamins: post-menopausal women? Again, the authors of a study which pooled the data from the Women's Health Initiative trial and observational study cohorts, come to the same conclusion "the WHI CT and OS cohorts provide convincing evidence that multivitamin use has little or no influence on the risk of cancer or CVD in postmenopausal women." [6].

Not even for infections is there any evidence that MVMS have any protective effect on those most vulnerable, the elderly [7]. 

Of course, keeping all this in mind, the nagging question remains: would there be an effect if only the delivery of the drug in the human body was improved? After all, if vitamins are essential for survival, and if vitamin supplementation does not improve health, then there are several possible reasons for this observation. For instance, we might get enough vitamins from our food, and adding vitamins has simply no effect. Or, maybe we have vitamin deficiencies but the supplements are ineffective in delivering their vitamin loads.

Which brings us to Björn's second question: "Does nano-encapsulation improve the effect of MVMS?

And may I add my nagging question: Or is "nano-whatever" just a cool gimmick of the industry to push a market, which currently grows only moderately? In the next post (Monday 16. April) I'll try to answer this question. So, stay tuned. 

1.           Vivekananthan, D.P., et al., Use of antioxidant vitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet, 2003. 361(9374): p. 2017-23.

2.           Prentice, R.L., Clinical trials and observational studies to assess the chronic disease benefits and risks of multivitamin-multimineral supplements. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007. 85(1): p. 308S-313S.

3.           The Effect of Vitamin E and Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Lung Cancer and Other Cancers in Male Smokers. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994. 330(15): p. 1029-1035.

4.           Omenn, G.S., et al., Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med, 1996. 334(18): p. 1150-5.

5.           Hennekens, C.H., et al., Lack of Effect of Long-Term Supplementation with Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Malignant Neoplasms and Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1996. 334(18): p. 1145-1149.

6.           Neuhouser, M.L., et al., Multivitamin Use and Risk of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease in the Women's Health Initiative Cohorts. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009. 169(3): p. 294-304.

7.           El-Kadiki, A. and A.J. Sutton, Role of multivitamins and mineral supplements in preventing infections in elderly people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2005. 330(7496): p. 871.

PrintPDF

How to get those vegetarian zealots off your back.

Does red meat kill you? Only in a vegetarian's dream!

Red meat is the favorite enemy of nutritionists nowadays. Their studies and publications are often (ab-)used by those evangelical vegetarian types who would love to impose their no-meat religion on the rest of us. Don't buy it. Now let me show you how you can profess your love for steak AND support it with the data from the same studies which the zealots use for their vegetarian crusades.

Earlier this year Pan et al. published a study titled "Red meat consumption and mortality" [1]. They had pooled the data of two large prospective studies, the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study. Collectively these studies had followed 121,000 people, who were free of cardiovascular diseases at baseline, for more than 20 years. Altogether, the participants accumulated close to 3 million person years for observation. During the observation period close to 24,000 deaths occurred of which 6,000 were of cardiovascular causes, that is heart attack, stroke, heart failure.

The researchers discovered that for every increase of 1 serving of unprocessed red meat per day the hazard ratio of dying from any cause was 1.13 and the hazard ratio of dying from a cvd-cause was 1.2. That means for every increase of a serving of red meat per day the chances of dying from any cause and from a cvd-cause increased by 13% and 20% respectively. Those rates were a little higher for processed red meat. To put this into perspective the researchers also calculated that if all participants had eaten less than half a serving of red meat per day (42g/d), 9% of deaths in men and 7.6% of deaths in women could have been prevented. Wonderful. Sounds impressive, but it isn't for one simple reason:

Unreliable data acquisition. Just ask one question: how did the researchers know how much red meat those people ate? This question cuts to the heart of many, if not most, studies on diet-disease associations. Data on food consumption are typically acquired through food frequency questionnaires (FFQ). These FFQs ask you about your consumption of food items over the past days, weeks or even months. And as you can imagine, such recall can be terribly unreliable. So much so, that other researchers wanted to quantify this effect. So they used FFQs and compared the results with objective quantitative measurement of energy intake and protein intake [2]. And lo and behold, they discovered that if relative risks (such as the hazard ratio mentioned above) were calculated from FFQs they overestimate the true diet-disease association very severely. In fact so severe, that a hazard ratio of, say, 2 would in reality be around 1.3.

What does that mean for a hazard ratio which is, as in the study of Pan and colleagues, less than 1.3 to begin with? It means possibly nothing. You certainly can't conclude from these data that red meat kills you. That's what it means.  And mind you, this inaccuracy of FFQs shows up with recall periods of a few weeks. Pan and colleagues had to rely on FFQs which were conducted YEARS apart. In fact,  data acquisition based on FFQs is so flawed, that the question been raised "is it time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire?" [3]. And the authors state: "We should be very circumspect about analyses of current studies that have used FFQs for dietary assessment." That was 7 years ago. We still have those FFQs and you  still have the media telling you  how bad red meat is for you.

And I'm going to have a real nice steak now. How about you?

1.           Pan, A., et al., Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2012: p. archinternmed.2011.2287.

2.           Kipnis, V., et al., Structure of dietary measurement error: results of the OPEN biomarker study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003. 158(1): p. 14-21; discussion 22-6.

3.           Kristal, A.R., U. Peters, and J.D. Potter, Is it time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire? Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 2005. 14(12): p. 2826-8.

PrintPDF