Exercise may actually be bad for you! A professor says he stumbled upon this "potentially explosive" insight. The New York Times has been quick to peddle it. And couch potatoes descend on it like vultures on road kill. But professors can get it wrong, too.
PrintPDF
Our best bet for healthy aging is to escape the flawed health care system. It makes disease treatment more profitable than prevention. It neglects aging as a treatable cause of diseases. And it denies access to personalized lifestyle medicine. This blog is about how you can overcome these limitations. It is about challenging half-truths and outdated ideas. It is focused on evidence-based, personalized lifestyle medicine for lifelong health. Delivered by a feisty public health scientist.
Showing posts with label exercise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exercise. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
No Time To Exercise? You Are Not Alone!
Lack of time is the most often cited excuse for not exercising. I deliberately chose the word "excuse" over its less judgmental alternative "obstacle". Simply because I cannot see an "obstacle" when I compare two simple metrics: the hours people spend watching TV and the minutes needed to maintain one's health with exercise. With high intensity interval training, or HIT, health enhancing exercise can be compressed into an amazingly short amount of time. When done right.
[tweet this].
PrintPDF
Thursday, May 31, 2012
How to Live Longer And Exercise Shorter?
Let's face it, if exercise was really that much fun, everybody would do it and we wouldn't be fat, diabetic or die of heart disease. So when your doctor tells you that you better start exercising, your immediate question might be: how much do I have to do? The answer is, it depends. It depends on whether you want to hear the polite version or the truth. [tweet this].
Monday, April 30, 2012
Guess who is hiding the magic pill to longevity?
Imagine a medicine which protects you against cardiovascular
disease, cancers, diabetes, depression and dementia. A medicine which works
best when taken regularly and long before any symptoms of any of those diseases
appear. A medicine which is cheaper than any supplement or aspirin. Would you
take it?
PrintPDF
Friday, April 27, 2012
Your shortcut to longevity.
If you don't die from an accident, a serious infection or a
cancer, you'll live as long as your arteries let you. And how long they let you
is all in your hands. I know this sounds over-simplified, but it's biomedical
knowledge in a nutshell. Lets look at what happens in and to your arteries and
what that means for keeping them in mint condition.
Labels:
about health,
artery,
atherosclerosis,
chronic disease,
endothelial,
endothelium,
exercise,
health,
health benefits,
high intensity,
HIT,
interval exercise,
longevity,
physical activity,
plaque
Location:
Baden-Baden, Deutschland
Monday, April 23, 2012
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.
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
Labels:
cardiovascular disease,
chronic disease,
diabetes,
energy expenditure,
exercise,
health behavior,
heart attack,
morbidity,
mortality,
prevention,
primary prevention,
stroke
Location:
Baden-Baden, Deutschland
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
When risk scores for heart attack really suck!
When risk scores really suck.
If you are a man aged 55 or younger, or a woman aged 65 or
younger and have had your risk for heart attack and stroke profiled recently,
chances are your doctor told you that you have a low risk. So you probably
walked out of her clinic, seeing no reason to change your lifestyle. Now here I
am, the party pooper, who is going to rain on your parade. How so?
Well, first off, those risk scores, like the Framingham
score used in the US and the PROCAM score used here in Germany, typically look
at things like cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, smoking status, age
and gender. From these values the scores determine your 10-year forward risk. Conventionally,
if your chances of suffering a heart attack, stroke or any other of the
cardiovascular diseases endpoints is less than 10% for that 10-year period, yours
is categorized as low-risk. If it was in excess of 20%, you would be considered
a high-risk person, and anything in between is called moderate risk. Now here
is the problem: of the women who are hospitalized for their first heart attack
at an age younger than 65, typically none would have scored as high-risk even a
day before the event [1].
In fact, 95% of these women would
have flown under the risk radar in the low-risk altitude.
How come, you may ask. To understand the reason you need to
know how heart attacks and strokes happen. Most of them are the result of a blood
clot being formed at the site of a ruptured plaque (those fatty streaks) in one
of your arteries. Traveling downstream these clots may be dissolved or they may
be not. If they get stuck some place downstream, blocking the supply of blood,
and thereby of oxygen, to your heart or brain tissue, a heart attack or stroke
occurs. But most plaque ruptures do not cause a heart attack or stroke. There
is a large element of chance involved. Fact of the matter is, we can't really
predict which plaques will cause a heart attack or stroke. We can't even say
whether a stable or a so-called vulnerable plaque will still be stable or
vulnerable in a few months down the line. They can change their status. Which
means, even if your doctor was able to map all the plaques in all the arteries
throughout your body, he still wouldn't be able to tell you exactly your risk.
How much less accurate will his risk prediction be when he uses risk factors
which just correlate somewhat with plaque burden, such as cholesterol? There
you go.
Which is why you should not look at 10-year risk, but at
lifetime risk. For a woman that risk stands at roughly 40% once she has reached
the age of 50 [2].
Men, by the way have a 52% risk at that age. But here is the kicker: being free
of any of the risk factors (those of the Framingham or PROCAM variety) at that
age, means a dramatically lower lifetime risk of 8% and 5% for women and men
respectively.
So here you are. Your doctor has just sent you off with a
low-risk assurance for the next 10 years, even though 2 of your risk factors
are elevated. You walk out of his clinic with a strong sense of invulnerability
and no real motivation to change your lifestyle and to get those two risk
factors back into the green zone. That's why risk scores really suck. When they
rain on your parade later on it's a lot worse than if I, the party pooper, do
it right now. Don't you think?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Are fat people just lazy?
Are fat people just lazy? Or is it in their genes?
Let's look at an unlikely place for the answer: an AA
meeting. If you get up and say "My name is Jane, and I'm not really an
alcoholic, I don't drink that much..." they throw you out. They welcome
you back, once you say "My name is Jane and I'm an alcoholic". The same should be true for fat people. And I'm using this politically incorrect term
deliberately. Because unless you wake up to the reality, you won't be able to
change that reality.
AA have long ago realized that fact. And they have a 50%
long-term success rate. That is, half the alcoholics who join AA stay dry for
the rest of their lives. That's way more than what public health, clinical and
commercial weight loss programs achieve with obese participants. We are happy if 10% of those who enter
these programs achieve a 10% weight loss AND keep it for more than 2 years.
It's that bad. Is it because of the genes? A study published recently in
Nature Genetics, might supply another excuse to some overweight people. But
before we look at this study, let's look at some other facts first.
One thing we all know for sure: if you are overweight, you
obviously have taken in more calories than you have expended. Over quite some
time, because it takes a while to accumulate all those energy reserves on your
waist and hips. Boils down to one of the tenets of a universal law of physics
that says: Energy can neither be destroyed nor miraculously created. Not even
on your hips.
Now I know all the objections raised by so many overweight
people, like "But, I hardly eat anything. How can I be fat? Even my
friends say, from what you eat nobody can get fat." Believe me, I've heard
them all. And my heart sinks, when
I do, because I know there goes the hopeless case. The Jane who goes to AA and
tells them she is different. The study published in Nature Genetics might just
deliver her the next excuse. Not because the researchers tell her so, but
because some media genius might just read it the wrong way. As they often do. So,
let's look a what the researchers say.
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of some 14 genome
wide association studies involving altogether 14,000 children, one third of
which were obese. They found 7 genetic markers which correlated with obesity
and which also turned out to correlate with obesity in adults. The beauty of
looking at genetics in kids is, that they haven't been exposed to decades of
lifestyles which may obscure such links.
So, the results clearly point into the
direction of some genetic signature predisposing a person to become obese. But
having this signature doesn't mean you'll inevitably become obese. Because most
kids who have the signature are not obese. It's only that this signature shows
up a little more often in the obese kids than in their non-obese peers. And there is one more thing, you need
to keep in mind. Over the past 20 years the human genetic make-up hasn't
changed at all. But the obesity rate in US kids has. In fact it has tripled
during that period. And health behavior has changed, too. And so did our
environment.
What makes me always frustrated in all this debate
about genes vs. environment vs. behavior is my scientist colleagues' and the
media's inability to educate their audience about the complete picture. Genes
make up the blueprint to your organism. True. But they don't make that
organism. Genes make proteins, but whether they make them or whether they are
silenced into not making them, that depends on epigenetics, on the interaction
with your environment, and on your behavior, which again is influenced by all
the others. It is a very complex relationship, and I'm afraid, genetics will
not help us, to solve the obesity epidemic. But neither will the stigmatization
of the obese. What we need, is a way to help those who recognize their fatness as a resolvable reality, resolve it. That's why I'm working on the GPS tochronic health, because I know that once the health behaviors put you on track to chronic health and longevity, your overweight problem will resolve automatically. As a side effect. But only if the obese person works with us.
So did that answer the question? You decide for yourself. PrintPDF
Labels:
calorie balance,
diet,
dieting,
eating behavior,
exercise,
food addiction,
health,
health behavior,
obesity,
overweight,
stigmatization,
stigmatizing,
weight loss
Location:
Baden-Baden, Deutschland
Friday, April 6, 2012
How to get to chronic health. With three steps into the age of chronic health and longevity.
Into the age of chronic health.
My yesterday's post was all about what's holding us back from achieving chronic health for everybody. Today I want to look at the three important steps we can do right now to enter the age of chronic health and longevity.
Incentivize health!
Earlier this year Standard & Poor's told the G20
economies: Get prevention to work
or we will downgrade your triple A rating by latest 2018. Because your
economies won't be able to deal with the costs for treating your sick, demented
and frail population. Of course Standard & Poor's phrased it more politely
but the message was all the same. Why is that so important? Because it's the first step to
making everybody realize that your chronic health is not just this often
proclaimed "higher good", it is an economic asset. It makes you more
productive for your employer, and less costly for your health and life insurer.
Once your health shows up in the shareholder value universe, employers have an incentive
to invest into it. And they have an incentive to share with you in the form of
a health dividend. The keyword here is incentive. The lack of it is what ails our
current health care strategies. Because until now we have failed to incentivize
people's prevention efforts. Think about it: Whether it's status or money or anything
else that turns your neighbors green with envy, the driving force behind all
human endeavors is the prospect of incentives. It's hardwired into our brains.
It's why everybody's efforts to achieve chronic health needs incentives, too.
As we have seen, the prospect of being healthy in a distant future can't beat
the siren call of a humble tiramisu, or of the drag on a cigarette, or of staying
on the sofa instead of jogging through the Park. So, if the phenomenon
of hyperbolic discounting has taught us anything, it is the need for incentives
with which to beat those that lure us into unhealthy behaviors.
What holds our companies and insurers back from incentivizing
health big time? Certainly it is not unwillingness, and rarely is it uncertainty
about the size of the returns on investment. It is rather the lack of a tool
with which to direct incentives to where they are deserved and to withhold them
from where they are not. A tool which helps you to express, in objectively
measurable terms, not only your health but also your efforts and achievements
of preserving it. We are currently testing the first prototype of such a tool. We started to develop it with this and two more goals in mind. The first is to help you to...
Outfox your brain!
As you have learned above, the evolutionary ape in us is
well protected against any interference of free will and reason, the two things
that make us human. But whether human or ape, we all have the ability to
develop a 6th sense for mastering any skill which improves our chance of
survival, makes our life easier or more enjoyable. In your case, think
swimming, think cycling, think keeping your in-laws out of your hair. So we
thought, how about a 6th sense for your daily calorie balance? We thought, if
you knew it intuitively, at any moment, and before it shows on your bathroom
scale, you would effectively know your metabolic state. With that knowledge you
will be able to correct and to keep that balance always in line with your
weight targets. This intuitive knowledge does not eliminate the craving for the
tiramisu. But it enables you to recognize the need for taking some compensatory
measure and to select the appropriate size of that measure. This idea was borne out of the results
of a new web-assisted intervention which we developed and tested in Germany
with the aim to institute lasting behavior change in adults at elevated risk
for chronic disease. Once the participants of our clinical trial showed signs
of mastering this 6th sense, they also started to drop their dress sizes. And they
still keep those dress sizes down.
Now, I can hear your question: Even if, say, my employer
pays me a monthly or quarterly health dividend, in the form of money or annual
leave or whatever floats my boat, how can you be so sure that my new lifestyle
of eating right and exercising right will bring me chronic health and
longevity? Which brings me to the last point.
Take Biomedicine's most powerful tools!
Let's just look at how your chances play out. If, at age 45,
you are free of any risk factors, you stand a 97% chance of making it through
to your 80th birthday in good health. If, however, you already have 2 risk
factors, such as hypertension and elevated blood sugar, for example, those
chances shrink to a mere fifty-fifty. And even if you are among the lucky half,
who will see those 80 candles on their cakes, chances are that you won't blow
them out under your own steam. Because one of those nasty chronic diseases will
have taken that last piece of strength and dignity away from you. The good news
is that simple health behaviors - physical activity, dietary and smoking
behaviors - determine which version of the party, if any, will apply to you. In
fact, biomedicine currently knows no intervention which prevents disease and
promotes longevity better than physical activity and dietary behaviors. There
is one caveat, though: these simple behaviors need to be tailored to your
individual health profile, which also means to your genotype AND your phenotype.
Which is why my colleagues and I are building an intervention matching
feature into the tool I mentioned earlier. It will give you the means to match your
individual health and risk profile with the physical activity and dietary
strategies most suitable for your profile. We call this tool the GPS to chronic health and longevity. It takes its coordinates on the landscape of health from your vital functions and keeps you right on track towards your health goals.
It is the engine which we hope will give you the
power of mapping and following your personal path into the age of chronic
health and longevity. After all, nobody deserves the indignity of a stroke or a
heart attack and the disabilities that come as a consequence.
I firmly believe we are only a tiny step away from the age of chronic health and longevity. To that tiny step you can contribute. Just visit me at indiegogo until 31st of May.
I'm looking forward to meeting you there.
PrintPDF
Labels:
6th sense,
calorie balance,
chronic disease,
exercise,
health,
health behavior,
health dividend,
overweight,
prevention,
primary prevention,
Standard and Poor,
weight loss
Location:
Baden-Baden, Deutschland
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The three hidden barriers to chronic health, weight loss and weight maintenance.
Into The Age of
Chronic Health
The most amazing thing about modern health care systems is
that they let most of us die from chronic diseases which we know how to
prevent. So why don't we?
As a public health scientist I have devoted the past 15
years of my life to answering this question. Many of my colleagues outdo each
other with doom and gloom predictions of aging societies buckling under the
economic burden of aging related diseases. I believe that the age of chronic
health and longevity is about to begin. With you. And with a radically new approach
to make the prevention of heart attacks, strokes diabetes and cancers finally
work.
Because, until now, it doesn't. But don't just take my word
for it, let's look at some of the facts first:
You have probably heard that obesity is the new smoking. In
fact for every American who stopped smoking in 2011 another one became obese.
Today, for the first time in human history there are more
overfed than malnourished people walking this planet. And their lifestyles of
too much food and too little exercise have become the number one risk factor for
the number one chronic disease and killer: cardiovascular disease with its most
well-known end points - heart attack, stroke and heart failure. With nasty
other diseases on the side: diabetes, kidney failure and certain cancers.
You probably also heard about major studies, like the U.S.
government funded Diabetes Prevention Program, and the Look AHEAD trial, which
proudly, and correctly, report weight loss and major reductions in
cardiovascular risk factors among participants in the lifestyle arms of these
trials. What you don't hear so often, is that within 3-4 years after
enrollment, most participants will have regained not only most of their weight but
also all their risk factors.
Ok then, lifestyle
change prevents disease. But what prevents lifestyle change?
Why is it that over the last 30 years of public health
efforts we have not seen a demonstration of any program that results in a
clinically meaningful weight loss that can be maintained for more than 2-3
years in the majority of participants and at low cost? That's the question which Dr. Richard
Khan threw at an assembly of public health advocates, who had gathered earlier
this year under the event's message "Prevention works!". Dr. Khan, who teaches medicine at the
University of North Carolina, was the chief scientific officer of the American
Diabetes Association for 25 years. The man certainly knows what he is talking
about.
Now think about the implication. If you chose a lifestyle of
which you know might increase risk of disease and premature death, then you
make that choice either willingly or it is not your free will which makes that
choice.
My money is on the latter. Because how else could we explain
that an obese child maintains her fattening habits despite experiencing the
same psychological agony as a child with cancer? How else could we explain that
obese adults maintain their bulk when it significantly reduces their chances of
getting an academic education, a job and a mate? How else could we explain that
over the past 20 years the obesity rate in the US went up by 60% when, during
the same period, Americans doubled their spending on weight loss products to
US$ 60 billion annually? They WANT to lose weight, but they don't. The
explanations are called addiction, hormones and hyperbole.
Food addiction
The neurohormonal architecture which drives an addict to
crave and consume his drug, despite knowing and hating the consequences, is
exactly the same architecture that keeps us going for the sweet, fatty and
salty stuff in restaurants, hawker centers and vending machines. Does that
explain, why the food industry adds sugars to so many foods in which you least
expect it? You bet. In fact we shouldn't be afraid of calling ourselves food
addicts, because this is what Mother Nature intended us to be all along. With
this addiction she drove our ancestors for millions of years to what is
naturally sweet in the natural human habitat: fruits. They deliver not only the
carbohydrates for which we have very little storage capacity in our bodies and without
which our brain can't function. Fruits also pack a punch of essential
micronutrients. Unlike the cokes and cakes and cookies which deliver more sugar
than we need and no other nutrients with it.
Hormones
Once you have changed your figure into the shape of a
beached whale, you will also have changed the way the hormones of your gut and
of your fat tissue work. It's a rather complicated picture unfolding in the
labs of biomedicine, but one emerging theme is a colossal malfunction of the
satiety and appetite signaling pathways. Instead of feeling full, you are now
ready to add a tiramisu to a lunch that would have satiated a family of four in
rural Bangladesh.
Hyperbole
Actually it's called hyperbolic discounting, and it's a
simple mathematical formula, which behavioral scientists have found to neatly describe
why we will still grab that tiramisu tomorrow even though we swear today that
we won't. It has to do with how we more steeply discount the relatively larger
but more distant reward of staying healthy against the relatively smaller but immediate
reward of enjoying the tiramisu. It doesn't operate only in humans. The
behaviors of rats, pigeons and apes, for example, follow the same formula.
Which means, Mother Nature must have found out early during evolution that this
principle is a recipe for survival in her species. We simply inherited this
survival tool.
With all these issues stacked in favor of an ever expanding
population of chronically ill people, why do I believe that we might be close
to the age of chronic health and longevity? For three reasons: Because Wall
Street is getting into the act, because we can outfox our brain, and because
biomedical science has got the tools ready.
How we will enter the age of chronic health is the subject of the next episode, so stay tuned!
In the meantime, visit my crowd funding campaign, watch the videos, recommend the campaign to your friends and, if you like what you see, participate in our chronic health project: www.indiegogo.com/adiphea
Labels:
chronic disease,
diabetes,
diet,
dieting,
exercise,
food addiction,
health,
hyperbolic discounting,
obesity,
overweight,
prevention,
primary prevention,
sugar addiction,
weight loss
Location:
Baden-Baden, Deutschland
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The daily super stimulus to prevent diabetes, or maybe not?
The daily super stimulus to prevent diabetes, or maybe not?
Today a newly released case report in the British Medical
Journal caught my attention: "Towards creating a superstimulus to
normalise glucose metabolism in the prediabetic: a case-study in the
feast-famine and activity-rest cycle". Normalizing glucose metabolism in
the prediabetic person means nothing less than preventing diabetes in those at high
risk. Naturally I sought enlightenment.
PrintPDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)