How to Live to Your 90s

/in /by

Today’s message is based on my father-in-law, Don Jones, or Joner as most of us knew him. As I said Wednesday, he passed away last Sunday. He lived to 94 years and six months; Peggy, the sister he was closest to, died at the exact same age. How was he able to live that long? I’ll give you my observations based on his life.

  • Genetics: it pays to have the right genes and Dad certainly did. Several of his siblings lived into their 90s.
  • Quit smoking: he quit smoking before he turned 21 years old. That’s probably the single most important thing he did. His father and siblings who smoked all died much younger. He never drank alcohol after that either.
  • Love: he loved his wife of over 70 years deeply, and as I said Wednesday, he longed to be with Ruth again. That’s a love that transcends life itself.
  • Humor: he had a great sense of humor. He gave it and was able to take it as well. My big ears were a frequent target. Once after we came in from a run together on a cold day, he said, “I know why you wear that headband: reduce wind resistance.”
  • Demeanor: he was almost always calm and pleasant and rarely showed any anger. Paula said when she was a kid and acted up, he’d just hang his head and sigh, and that hurt worse than any spanking. Once when he was mad at me, he showed it by leaving the newspaper at the top of the steps instead of putting it on the counter. He never stayed mad long.
  • Faith: he believed in God and lived his faith.
  • Exercise: he worked physical jobs most of his life. Then he began running when he was 70 and continued until he was in his mid-80s, hitting 700 miles for 2002. No doubt that helped him live longer than he might have with a genetic tendency toward stroke. He was never very fast but once you’re over 70, there’s not a lot of competition and he enjoyed picking up trophies at many of his 5Ks. I’m sure that competitive spirit added zest to his life.
  • Body weight: he was never fat for his height. That reduced any additional stress on his joints.

Those are my observations on how Joner lived into his 90s. While you can’t change your genes, you can certainly make the most of what you’ve got; his lifestyle and approach to life certainly helped my father-in-law.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

I’m Alive V2.48

/in /by

When I opened my eyes this morning, I said the same thing I’ve said for the past 24 years: I’m alive! I’ve come to believe that if I wake up this morning, it means I have at least one more year. It makes no sense, but I can’t change the way I think about this one thing.

The question is why. My dad died 48 years ago today at the age of 41. Ever since I opened my eyes on May 10th when I was 41, I believed I would live another year. Again, it makes no sense but it’s what I believe. For the many new subscribers, now you have a little insight into how I think.

This year also has a similar message to the one from three years ago. My father-in-law, Don Jones (Joner to most of us), passed away on May 7 at the age of 94. It was three years to the day and almost the same time of day as my mother-in-law, Ruth Jones. While we most definitely will miss him and all his stories, we’re not sad. His body had let him down the past couple of years; I think he decided it was time to go be with his Ruthie again and he just quietly slipped away. How can you be sad about that? They were together on this earth for over 70 years and now they have eternity. That deserves a celebration.

Whether it’s a day, a month, a year, or until I’m 94, I’ve got a lot to do to help you get healthy and fit to be able to live life the way you want to live it. Stay tuned because we’re just getting warmed up.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Why You Should Get “Cooked”

/in /by

While Paula and I were visiting our son and his wife last week, I suggested that all of us watch a series on Netflix called “Cooked”; it’s a series written by Michael Pollan from the book of the same name. I talked about him early last year and his movie “In Defense of Food.” I had read the book and watched the series earlier, and although Paula doesn’t generally like how-things-are-made programs, she watched a couple of minutes with me and ended up going to bed an hour late.

Each major chapter of the book has been made into a segment that lasts about an hour. The titles define the topic as it relates to cooking: fire, water, air, earth. Each one has been crafted to provide a little common-sense science along with interesting stories and background. I loved the book and now I love the series; the family did as well.


“Cooked” Insights

The series is full of revelations that seem obvious in hindsight, but that you’ve probably never thought about before. Like cookware: humans couldn’t effectively combine the flavors of various foods until a pot was invented that could withstand the heat of the cooking fire. No pot? No boiling. No soup, no stew, no sauces.

And did you know there’d be no chocolate without fermentation? Paula was surprised to learn that about one of her favorite foods.

A thread that ran throughout the series was this: the key role of sharing a meal in the process of human bonding. Mute the phones and leave them in your pockets; spend mealtime loving the ones you’re with. Unless you’re a doctor on call, all those messages will wait.


The Bottom Line

Watch this series on Netflix; you’ll learn more about meat and vegetables and how they’re transformed into food than any other place I can think of. You’ll have a great time learning, and I bet it will change your thinking about food. Paula insisted I warn you that a few scenes in “Fire” are tough to watch, but we’re grown-ups and we need to face the truth about where meat comes from. If you’re watching with your kids (which would be really great), you may want to pre-screen that segment.

My favorite story? The nun with a PhD in microbiology who makes cheese. You’ll begin to understand the microbiome more clearly after you see the “Earth” segment.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Classic: Type III Error

/in /by

You know that eating fruits and vegetables is good for you, right? I tell you that all the time because that’s what the research indicates. But according to an editorial piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), maybe we’ve been wrong all this time (1)—at least as it relates to reducing our risk of cancer. Here’s a recap of the editorial and my take on it.


The Editorial

Mike Mitka is a well respected senior writer for JAMA; he’s published numerous articles that are well researched and contain interviews with the authors and other experts. In a 2010 JAMA article, he writes that an article from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) clearly demonstrates that high intakes of fruits and vegetables do not reduce the risk of cancer, at least not very much.

Based on the study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, increasing fruit and vegetable intake by six ounces per day reduced the risk of cancer only 3% (2). A couple of well-known researchers supported the notion that research does not support plant intake reducing the risk of cancer, including the director of nutrition for the American Cancer Society.

The problem is that it’s just not true, at least not in that study. The way it’s written, the study suggests that when subjects increased their intake of vegetables and fruits by six ounces, the reduction of cancer risk was a paltry 3%. This was an observational study, not an interventional study. No one kept track of who increased or decreased their plant material intake, and there’s no way to know that from the data collected.

The way I read the article, the EPIC study is central to this new belief about plant consumption not being related to decreased cancer risk. The first articles from the study were published in 2003, and that’s when scientists suggest the evidence grew weaker supporting reducing cancer by plant consumption.

I’ve written about EPIC before; it’s one of the largest observational studies ever conducted with over 520,000 subjects from 23 different centers in 10 European countries. While I suggested that there was strength in numbers when you want to try to tease out subtle effects, I mentioned that the researchers gathered nutritional information at the beginning of the study with a Food Frequency Questionnaire; subjects were asked as many as 256 questions about what they had eaten in the past year. There are two problems with that when you’re looking at the rate of cancer.

First, you have to assume that this one-time questionnaire on diet applies to the patterns of the way the subjects ate and will continue to eat. By the validation studies that were done for the EPIC study itself, that certainly was not true (3). Correlations between what people ate one year apart were as low as 36% in a sub-sample of the subjects. Researchers chose to adjust levels statistically, but that just isn’t the same as actually collecting the data. But when you’re dealing with a half million subjects, you just can’t collect dietary histories on every subject.

Second, the assumption is that the levels that the subjects ate were actually adequate to reduce the rate of cancer. In the study, the average fruits and vegetable intake for men was 17 ounces per day and about 19 ounces per day for women (4). Using an example from the editorial, a medium apple is 10 ounces and a serving of broccoli is about 3.5 ounces. That’s just two servings and that’s close to what the subjects actually ate.

The fact is that most subjects in the study did not eat very many vegetables and fruits and it got worse the further north the country was located. That should have been the overwhelming conclusion of the study to begin with before any other analysis was conducted.


My Take

Trying to explain statistics is not my strong suit, but I adapted this from a blog by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist in London and a contributor to Psychology Today (5).

There are two types of errors in statistics. There’s the error of a false positive: you think that the data reflect your hypothesis when it doesn’t. Then there’s the error of false negative: you think the results do not support your hypothesis when it does. Statisticians call the former type of errors “type I errors” and the latter type of errors “type II errors.”

My feeling is that Mitka and researchers who are using the EPIC study to make suggestions about the relationship between plant intake and cancer risk are committing a “type III error.” What’s that? An unwavering belief in statistics: you don’t look at anything but the numbers, and that rules what you believe. Maybe a better way of describing a type III error is hubris, an overbearing pride in statistics. These researchers are very smart people. Did no one consider that the way the data were collected didn’t make sense when tracking diet’s effect on cancer risk? That’s hard to believe unless pride gets in your way.

But when you get right down to it, if you eat an apple and some broccoli on a typical day and someone told you that adding a banana or a tomato would reduce your risk of cancer by 3%, doesn’t it seem like a great idea to add that banana or tomato? Imagine what you could do if you actually ate the recommended eight to ten servings!


The Bottom Line

This will not be the last time I write about EPIC because there are over 500 articles published to date. I still think that eating more vegetables and fruit reduces the risk of all disease including cancer based on the thousands of other studies that say that it does. It seems like the larger the study, the less beneficial effects anything seems to have whether it’s diet, exercise, or supplementation. Maybe someone should start considering whether the effects are being washed out by regressing to the mean. But that’s a message for another day. Time for some berries!

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

References:
1. JAMA. 2010; 303 (21): 2127-9.
2. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Apr 21;102(8):529-37.
3. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 26 (Suppl. 1): S26–S36.
4. Public Health Nutrition: 5(6B), 1179–1196.
5. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bloggers/satoshi-kanazawa

 

Classic: Vitamin Dumb

/in /by

As Paula and I visit our son and his wife this week, I’m choosing what I call Dr. Chet’s Classics. This one from 2010 illustrates two points. First, mega-dosing vitamins and minerals can have consequences that someone might not expect, and “if some is good, more has to be better” is not a good idea unless there’s a genetic or other reason. Second, even with the best intentions, researchers sometimes don’t use their heads when designing research studies.

Researchers reported in JAMA on the effects of vitamin D on fractures and falls in a group of over 1,500 women over 70. The results were surprising in that the vitamin D group had more falls and more fractures than the placebo group. Well, maybe not so surprising.

Remembering to take medications as well as supplements is a problem. So how did the researchers choose to address that issue? Give the women a year’s worth of vitamin D once a year.

That’s right. They gave these subjects 500,000 IU vitamin D once a year. I was almost rendered speechless—500,000 IU? What in nature would give them a model to follow? If you spend all day in the sun without sunblock, your body shuts down the production of vitamin D automatically; that’s why you can’t overdose on D from the sun. But this was oral intake; in what universe did these researchers think this was a good idea? Would they give someone a year’s supply of cholesterol-lowering medication or pain medication in one dose per year just because the subjects might not remember to take their meds every day? And what earthly good would that do?

In an editorial in the same issue, the authors suggested that medical professionals examine how vitamin D is administered, and that maybe administering 50,000–100,000 IU doses isn’t such a good idea.

Do ya think?

Taking up to 10,000 IU vitamin D3 is safe and 2,000-6,000 IU per day is a good goal. But this study illustrates that there’s no need to megadose. Doing that is like taking vitamin Dumb.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: JAMA. 2010;303(18):1815-1822.

 

Men, Their Microbiome, and Infertility

/in /by

What role does a man’s microbiome play in infertility? Maybe a lot more than we thought. There are many more factors that affect fertility, with more studies published every day, but this week’s posts have focused on the microbiome. We’ll finish with a study on men.

Researchers examined the sperm of men who contributed semen to an in-vitro fertilization clinic before IVF with their partners. They wanted to determine whether there was a relationship between periodontal disease and sperm quantity and motility—how many sperm and how well those sperm moved. They found that men with periodontal disease had low sperm counts and the sperm were not as active. Those two problems can contribute to infertility.

Just as with women who have periodontal disease, the pathogenic bacteria appear to have an affect on fertility. The same type of treatment for periodontal disease may help fertility issues for both partners. But let me be clear: the microbiome is only one aspect of fertility; there are other issues that contribute to infertility that may also need to be addressed.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Jun;38(6):542-6.

 

Your Oral Microbiome and Infertility

/in /by

Is there a relationship between the health of your teeth and your ability to conceive? Yes, and in today’s message, I’ll give you the latest research to come to that conclusion. This week’s messages provide insight into some of the health issues surrounding infertility. It’s also a kick-off of the second edition of my Healthy Babies CD and download.

In a review article, researchers examined the literature that was related to periodontal disease and women’s health. The examined systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and narrative reviews to evaluate all possible associations between periodontitis, systemic diseases, and women. The strongest association they found in the published literature was between infertility and periodontal disease, a growth in pathogenic bacteria in the gums surrounding the teeth. With open access to the bloodstream, these bacteria can affect many disease conditions such as heart disease. They can also contribute to infertility. And let’s be realistic: carrying a baby is a health challenge. You don’t need any rogue bacteria attacking your mouth or the rest of your body.

In this case, the solution for periodontal disease is simple: treat the periodontal disease and begin good oral hygiene including flossing, regular brushing, and regular dental check-ups. That will contribute to a healthy oral microbiome. There may still be other factors related to infertility that should be addressed, but you’ll have ruled out one possible obstacle as well as doing something great for your overall health.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: Curr Med Res Opin. 2017. Mar 24:1-11.

 

How Your Microbiome Affects Infertility

/in /by

Many couples struggle with infertility; they want to start a family but time passes with no results. This week, I’ll cover three recent studies that examine some factors that may affect fertility.

Researchers tested the fluids from the cervical-vaginal area in 96 subjects to examine the microbiome: were there any differences in the microbes in these women when compared to an established database of microbes typically found in that area? They found differences in the quantities of several bacteria. The researchers commented that the pattern of the microbiome was similar to women with bacterial vaginosis; it didn’t mean they had the condition, simply that there was a similar pattern in the microbiome. The researchers concluded that testing techniques could be developed along with treatment specific to the microbiome that could help infertility.

In this case, the researchers provided more questions and areas for further research. Where’s the solution? What can we do now? Ask yourself this: what makes the microbiome healthy in general? Without question, one of the primary ways is through diet. Eating vegetables, yogurt, and fermented foods contributes to a healthy microbiome.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: J Cell Physiol. 2017 Jul;232(7):1681-1688. doi: 10.1002/jcp.25806.

 

Pop Quiz on Fake Health News

/in /by

In last week’s posts, I gave you six questions to evaluate fake health news. Did I forget to say there’d be a quiz?

Below are three stories that you’ve sent me to check out. If you click on the link, it will take you to the story. As I take the rest of the week off to work on other projects, I want you to use what you learned last week, then send me an email about what you’ve found.

Here are the stories:

I know that some of you would not use any of these products, but choose one anyway. I want you to take out the emotion and just look at the facts you find.

I hope you’re healthy and well during Easter and Passover. I’ll be back with more health news next Tuesday.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

The Bottom Line on Fake Health News

/in /by

The final questions about checking fake health news completely depend on you—what you know and what your gut tells you. Let’s take a look:

5. Does it match your prior knowledge?
We all come to the table with a certain amount of knowledge. When it comes to health, it may be from a high school health class, listening to a lecture by a doctor, or other ways you’ve learned reliable health facts. Does what you’re reading seem to agree or conflict with that? Science changes as we get newer technology to examine things we couldn’t before, but it should still line up with what you’ve learned.

6. The final question is the simplest: does it make any sense?
What does your gut tell you? Is it reasonable that someone with no training in the sciences could discover something millions of trained scientists couldn’t? Sure, there’s always the exception, but it still should seem reasonable.

Those questions, along with the ones from Tuesday and Thursday, are what I ask every time I see something that promises too much. You know the old saying: if something seems too good to be true, it often is.

Keep in mind, too, that fake news is often click bait, and sometimes the owners of the site don’t just want to get paid for your click—they want to plant something harmful on your computer. It gives a whole new meaning to the term “breaking news.” If it doesn’t ring true, don’t even click it.

 

The Bottom Line

I thought the California teacher did his students a great service. If you read the article, you know they now fact-check him as well. I welcome you to do the same thing to me. That’s why I provide references for what I write. My goal is to always be one of those reliable sources. I gladly submit to anyone who wants to fact-check me—and now you know how to do it.

What about things that are complicated? Two that come to mind are soy and artificial sweeteners such as sucralose. In both cases, I’ve examined the research that Internet authors have used to say that they’re bad for us and given you what the research really says. Because they’re in a form you can reprint and give to your clients, your doctor, or your know-it-all cousin, they’re for sale on my website. All Bottom Line PDFs contain all the references I used to verify the facts, as do the zip files for the MP3 versions, and now all Bottom Lines are available as MP3s. Check them out today.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: http://bit.ly/2ozc2kC