LiveLongAgeWell

For those of you with dreams of life extension, there was good news last week. It has been known for many years (since the 1930s), from fruit fly, worm, and mice studies, that long-term calorie restriction extends  life spans in many of these animals. Some mice, who from birth have been fed 30% fewer calories than normal mice, have had their life spans increased by up to 30- or 40%. But before you go on a radical diet (or worse, put your kids on such a diet), be aware that many strains of mice and rats do WORSE on such a diet. Still, the fact that many animals aged so much better has tickled the fancy of anti-aging researchers.

A big step up from rodent studies, and before human trials, is primate research. Monkey studies are very expensive to carry out, and life span research, as you might imagine, take many years to complete. Still, twenty years ago, a long-term rhesus study was started at the University of Wisconsin, and now there are preliminary results supporting the value of calorie restriction in suppressing diseases. The rate of tumors and cardiovascular disease was cut by half for the calorie-restricted monkeys, and none of the these monkeys developed any signs of diabetes (which affected about 40% of the normally-fed monkeys). Further, the calorie-restricted monkeys had less muscle and brain shrinkage, and also looked younger than the normally-fed group.

Identical ages; one on right fed long-term low calorie diet.

Since these monkeys normally live about 27 years (and up to 40 in some cases), this 20-year-old study is only about half-way completed, and life span comparisons will take some time yet. But (and here’s your chance again to be part of a research study if you live in the Eastern United States), the so-called CALERIE study is beginning in several U.S. medical centers, which attempts to see if a 25% reduced calorie diet (of course nutritionally balanced) will show positive changes in humans.

Scientists don’t know why calorie-restriction diets might work. Of course if we have lower cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, fewer cancers, less diabetes and so forth, it’s not so hard to imagine a longer life span, but other factors are also suspected. It is thought that semi-starvation shuts off some of our genes that are directed towards reproduction, and turns on genes that promote better maintenance of our current bodies (our organism senses there is not enough food to share with other, new people, so to best preserve the species, our bodies work harder to preserve our own bodies).

Realistically, a calorie-restricted diet on a long-term basis is not easy to maintain, so many biotech researchers are trying to mimic this semi-starvation effect through medication. Many of the efforts involve resveratrol, an “anti-aging” component found in red wine. This sort of medication would have an incredible market potential as you can imagine, and I believe that within ten years we will a FDA-approved pill we can take that will replicate this semi-starved state.

But for now, I think anyone interested in trying a severely calorie-restricted diet should talk to their regular physician, as well as to an endocrinologist and a nutritionist to see if it’s a good idea, as there are risks. These potential, yet unknown risks and a constant feeling of deprivation might not be worth it, and you might well wait for more human trial results or some proven pill to be released. Failing that, there are studies showing that periodic short fasts—by stressing your body much as exercise stresses your muscles, yet makes you stronger—might offer some of the same benefits. It may be that some form of alternate-day fasting may be as good as full-time calorie restriction. Again, talk it over with your doctors, and if you decide to try something like this, get regular blood tests and physical exam monitoring to see how you are doing.

Finally…..I want to mention to my subscribers that only about 1/2 of the LLAW posts are sent out (I know there is too much mail)…but if you care to read other posts, on other topics, you need to go the the LLAW website itself. Thanks for your interest.

I have a regular disagreement with a doctor friend of mine. I tell him that most research supports that people who drink a little alcohol each day live longer, and he says no, sorry, that can’t be… (or if he’s in a good mood, he might concede: “yes, but only if it’s red wine”). And I always respond: no, actually, even people who drink a little gin or vodka or whatever each day live longer and with less risk of early death. It’s always the same argument.

So I was happy to see this recent publication of a large, impartial research project (part of the U.S. Health and Retirement Study) from a reliable institution; the University of California San Francisco, which followed 12,519 adults age 55 and over during a four year period with one question: who was more likely to die—of any cause—during the four-year period—those who didn’t drink any alcohol, those who drank “moderately” (one drink per day), or those who drank “heavily” (three or more drinks per day).

They found that people who had one drink per day enjoyed a 28 percent lower risk of dying during the four-year period. The researchers controlled for other factors like race, smoking, obesity, socioeconomic status and so forth to make sure that what made the difference was only the alcohol intake, and not some other factor(s), like that people who could afford a little alcohol each day also were thinner, or had better diets, or wore their seatbelts more, etc.

The study further concluded that people who drank three or more drinks per day increased their risk of dying during the four years by 11%. Those who drank just a little bit—averaging one drink per week—did not show a lower death risk like those who had one drink a day. In this study, the people who drank a little bit, or we might say moderately (one drink per day),  survived the best.

Alcohol and health though is a complex and controversial topic, and it brings out lots of passion and guilt, fear, danger…all of that, in doctors as well as in the general public. Floating around is the concern regarding addiction, and for all of us, that needs to be considered.

If you care to read more about this, and how cancer risk compares with heart risk and alcohol, I suggest you might start with this recent WebMD article.

Now I’ll ask my doctor friend—the one with whom I argue this issue—and see what he thinks about this UC San Francisco study. I suspect he won’t believe it. If you remind me, I’ll tell you what he says.

ps….yes, Buzz the poodle is better

We are now (hard to believe) weeks after the New Year…yet many LLAW readers are still asking about diet and weight loss, so today I am highlighting an important recent report from the British Medical Journal. This was a so-called meta-analysis, which is a kind of super-statistical study that examines a large number of other studies done on one subject. A good meta-analysis like this one looks at how each sub-study was done, discards the sub-par research (not uncommon), and come to a grand conclusion after summing the best of the studies.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine: is the Mediterranean diet really as good as it’s supposed to be? Does it cut disease and make people healthier? The conclusion, after assembling over 1.5 million subjects, was that yes, the Mediterranean diet really does lead to a drop in the death rate and can help you avoid chronic nasty diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

The Mediterranean diet is also a tasty one, one that you can stick to for life, and for your life. It’s not a six-week or year-long program. It’s best forever. Named after the traditional diet of countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (traditionally with some of the lowest incidences of heart disease), here it is:

1. Most of your fats come from Olive Oil, and secondarily, Canola Oil (rather than butter or other oils).
2. Eat Nuts, but no more than handful per day (since they are high in calories); peanut butter, cereals, and seeds are great.
3. Lots of Fish, at least several times per week.
4. Minimal red meat, preferably a few times per month.
5. Lots of Fruits, Vegetables, Whole Grains, and Legumes. For dessert, choose fresh fruits over the typical processed sugar products.
6. Red Wine in moderation (unless you have a problem with or sensitivity to alcohol).

This is not such a difficult diet to adhere to, for one reason because it’s relatively high in fat. This fat though comes from vegetable sources (such as olives), so they are healthy monosaturated fats, rather than the saturated fats from animal sources.

The result of the BMJ meta-analysis was that those who stuck to this diet had a significant decrease in early death from all causes, and specifically a decreased risk of dying from cancer and heart disease, along with a modest (13%) diminished risk of Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s.

Finally, one recent Spanish study concluded that if you stick to a Mediterranean diet, you are much less likely to be part of the group which gained an average 7.5 pounds (3.4 kilos) over a ten-year period. (Unfortunately, many young Mediterraneans have moved away from their traditional healthy diet to a Western diet full of more processed foods and saturated fats, and the rate of obesity in these countries has jumped alarmingly.)

Since cancer and heart disease are the number one and two causes of death in the U.S., I would love to report that taking vitamins will lower your risk, but several recent research reports cast doubts at least on vitamins C and E. Actually, these recent studies are part of a research trend showing that many vitamins—taken in pill form that is—have not been as effective as many had hoped for in preventing various diseases.

There is even the suggestion that taking some vitamin pills, particularly the B vitamin folic acid or vitamin E, might increase your chance for certain diseases, but the data is inconclusive and controversial, and further analysis is needed (and being done). Still, caution seems to be in order as far as taking vitamin pills.

At the recent American Association for Cancer Research “Frontiers in Cancer Prevention” meeting, the results of a 10-year long study were presented. This was a randomized clinical trial (the best type of research study), and it followed nearly 15,000 physicians. Some were given 400 IU of vitamin E every other day, some 500 mg. vitamin C every day, and others given placebo (dummy) pills. After a 10-year period the number of cancers was analyzed, and those who had taken the vitamins showed the same cancer rate as those who had taken the placebo. They also measured the rate of heart attack, heart failure, stroke, and angina, and again there was no benefit for the group that took the vitamins.

People who eat a diet full of fruits and vegetables seem to have a lower cancer risk, so it was hoped this long-term vitamin study would show similar benefits. Does this mean that vitamins have no benefit? No, but it does indicate that perhaps the only way to get the anti-cancer and heart-protective benefit, at least for these vitamins, is through your diet, and not through pills or supplements. Most likely there are many more substances in fruits and vegetables, particularly “phytochemicals“, that are more important for disease prevention than the vitamin content.

The status of vitamins in the medical literature will be unsettled for some time; for example, while vitamins C and E are falling out of favor, other vitamins such as D and B12, even in supplement form, are currently showing promise. And keep in mind that today we only considered if these vitamins help decrease the risk of cancer and heart disease; we haven’t touched on other diseases, such as cataracts, where vitamin supplements might be effective. I will discuss this in future posts and more completely in my book.

The trends though in vitamin research indicate this general recommendation: get your vitamins through a diet rich in a variety of fresh vegetables and fruits. Don’t rely on pills. As further vitamin research is released (a good study is underway on multivitamin pills), I will report it here.

Imagine—whether you’re currently 32 years old or 72—that you arrive into your 80s with a good mind and you are happy and active, but you develop a problem with a valve in your heart. So you go to a surgeon who tells you: “Sorry, you’re too old to have your heart fixed…” This is what many people have faced, in the past and even today, so it was good to read of two research studies presented at the recent American Heart Association meeting which gave the green light to needed surgery at any age.

Yes, even now it’s not uncommon that a surgeon can turn away an older individual who needs critical surgery. Instead of really fixing their problem, the patient gets some pills or other palliative treatment that really doesn’t solve their condition; just lets them limp along. This age discrimination is based on the belief that people in their 80s or 90s are just too fragile to survive or recover from major surgery, but this current research suggests that even some 90 year-olds can do just as well as much younger people.

These two studies analyzed the surgical records of nearly 10,000 elderly patients who underwent heart surgery in Florida and in the Northeastern U.S. The results were quite amazing; many of those who had surgery survived as long as individuals their age who did not have heart disease. The elderly took longer than younger people to recover (and as heart surgery is risky, some did not survive), but the large majority who successfully recovered later overwhelmingly reported a good quality of life. Of course, not all 80- or 90somethings are healthy enough for major surgery, but many are, and chronological age alone should not be a determinate of who is a surgical candidate. Further, while these two studies concerned heart operations, the results should also apply to other surgeries.

These studies are important for our society as the 75 and older age group is the fastest-growing segment of our population, and important for you because if you take care of yourself, you will also hopefully arrive at 80 then (sooner than you realize) your 90s, and you will want every option for the best treatments possible, even major surgery if needed. So no matter what our age is now (keep this in mind for ourselves or for our parents)—the research supports: end age bias in surgery!

Considering our current economic times, I will continue to regularly blog about research and ideas that hopefully will help us cope better. Previously I’ve addressed topics such as deep breathing, omega-3 supplements, and eating more fish (you are trying to eat more fish, aren’t you?)… as ways of cooling off our body’s stress response. Often we can’t control our outside stresses, but we can control how our body responds to those stresses, and that’s a big help.

This week at the American Heart Association’s meeting in New Orleans, a preventive cardiologist Dr. Michael Miller presented research showing how blood vessels respond differently to music we like, versus music that makes us feel anxious. Dr. Miller previously showed that laughter was good for the heart, since it seemed to relax our blood vessels and thus allow better blood flow. In the current study he found that when a group of volunteers were exposed to music they really liked, even their blood vessels relaxed, resulting in a 26% better blood flow. In contrast, music that made the test subjects feel anxious temporarily dropped their blood flow by 6%.

While Dr. Miller measured blood flow only in the arm, it’s likely that pleasant music would cause increased blood flow throughout the body, an effect that is good for the heart. (The opposite of what occurs in a person with high blood pressure where the vessels tend to be constricted and tight—not a heart-healthy process.) Dr. Miller didn’t discover the mechanism that made music open up vessels, but he suspects it has to do with the release of endorphins, chemicals released from deep in the brain which result in feelings of well-being.

One of the best ways to keep your brain functioning well as you get older is to frequently challenge it with new ideas, new activities….and even new types of music; music you might not initially like, but with a flexible brain, you learn over time to actually enjoy. Dr. Miller’s research suggests to me though that in times of stress—particularly if you already have high blood pressure or heart disease—one healthy way to chill out is to pro-actively seek out music that is most relaxing for you, and allow your blood vessels to open up and relax too.

Remember this for example next time you go to the dentist for some uncomfortable work, or on an airplane if flying stresses you. Be assertive; protect your heart as well as your mind…bring your iPod and put on whatever you most like, from hip-hop or rap to classical or christian contemporary, and let the blood flow. Don’t be shy; the research supports you.