Tag Archives: cardiovascular disease

RMore Incredibly Bad Science From Dr. Esselstyn’s Plant-Based (Vegan) Diet Study

A while back the skeptical cardiologist exposed “The incredibly bad science behind Dr. Esselstyn’s plant-based diet.

The diet has the catchy slogan “eat nothing with a face or a mother” and Esselstyn was featured in the vegan propaganda film “Forks Over Knives.”

After detailing the lack of science I concluded:

Any patients who were not intensely motivated to radically change their diet would have avoided this crazy "study" like the plague.

This "study" is merely a collection of 18 anecdotes, none of which would be worthy of publication in any current legitimate medical journal.

Three of the 18 patients have died, one from pulmonary fibrosis, one presumably from a GI bleed, and one from depression. Could these deaths be related to the diet in some way? We can't know because there is no comparison group.

The post garned little attention initially but in the last few months several hundred visitors per day apparently read it and Essesltyn followers have started leaving me testimonials to the diet along with nasty comments.

Here’s are some typical ones (with my comments in red)

“If your (sic) not backed by some meat industry or cardiac bypass group I would be much surprised.”

I am completely free of bias. Nobody is paying me anything to do the research and writing I do. My only purpose is to find the truth about diet in order to educate my patients properly. I have  saved many more patients from bypass surgery than I have referred for the procedure.

“it is so arrogant to think the only science could come from clinical studies which may be funded by an interested party.”

Doctors like randomized (and preferably blinded) clinical studies because they minimize the bias introduced by interested parties like patients and zealous investigators (like Dr. E)  motivated to see positive outcomes. Small, non-randomized studies can only generate ideas and hypotheses which larger, randomized studies can prove with a greater degree of certainty.

“the entire nentire western medical system is skewed due to the big pharma influence…unfortunately western medicine believes the only science is the pen and the scalpel..whereas …history is the best teacher of all…”

By pen I assume you mean medications. If we examine history as  you suggest we see that life expectancy was 50 years in 1945  but today in developed countries it is around 80 years. This advance corresponds to (among other things) advances in vaccines, antibiotics, anti-cancer drugs, cardiac and blood pressure medications and surgery: the pen and the scalpel. It does not correspond to following a vegan diet.

“Your foolishness is the embarrassment.”

Thank you for this insightful comment! I’m considering it as my epitaph.

One man felt that changing to the Esselstyn diet dramatically improved his cardiac situation and commented:

“Nothing like bashing something that works just because you want to eat meat. .”

I do enjoy meat in moderation but I also really enjoy vegetables, nuts, fish, legumes, olive oil and avocados. I looked into Esselstyn’s diet in detail because it stands out as particularly misguided in banning nuts, avocados, fish and olive oil to heart patients.

..”.So sicking (sic) to see people talk trash about something that works so well… It saved my life…”

I’m happy you are doing well with your cardiac condition but it is impossible to know what would have happened to you on a more reasonable diet such as the Mediterranean diet (which actually has legitimate scientific studies supporting it). And again criticizing Esselstyn’s ideas and “study” can hardly be considered trash talk.

“I personally have followed dr. esselstyn’s program for what will be 5 years in 11/17 and have made tremendous gains in my cardio pulmonary function….my cardiologist looks at me in wonder…why are you here? and often says , if everyone did what you have…Id be out of business…so…isnt that telling and sad?”

I’m glad you’re doing well with the program, most patients can’t follow this kind of diet for more than a few months.  But perhaps we shouldn’t judge its effectiveness until  we make sure you don’t suffer a heart attack next week. Your cardiologist is wrong: see what I wrote about “dealing with the cardiovascular cards you’ve been dealt.” Some individuals inherit genes that guarantee progressive and accelerated atherosclerosis that will kill them at an early age despite the best lifestyle.

“…the phrase “follow the money” comes to mind…and since theres no big money to be made….science will attempt to dispell the results and thousands of years of history that proves this dietary system works…”

Using a scientific approach to analyze Esselstyn’s diet (which tries to claim a scientific basis) seemed appropriate to me but I wasn’t motivated by money. I’m looking for what is best for my patients, pure and simple.

The Plural of Anecdote Is Not Data

One man wrote:

“But since this is only anecdotal evidence – it must be junk science…”

Esseslstyn devotees like to post what their personal experience is with the diet but as skeptical medicine has pointed out “the plural of anecdote is not data.” 

One woman described in detail a good response her husband had after starting the diet following a heart attack:

I’m concerned about the skeptical cardiologist going after the person of dr. Esselstyn versus the science, such as quoting how you States dr. Esselstyn came up with the diet. So there may be a personal bias there. I’m sure there are more people out there on the esselstyn diet that are not noted in the study years ago. I hope there is another book coming out

I’ve reviewed in detail my comments about how Esselstyn came up with the diet but I am at a loss to find any ad hominem attack.

This woman went on to say

We will keep you posted, as my husband is willing to get another cardiac Cath and 12 months to visually see the difference after the diet.

I have to point out that if his cardiologist performs a cardiac cath (which carries risks of stroke, heart attack and death) for the sole purpose of checking the effect of the diet he is engaging in unethical medical behavior and likely insurance fraud. By the way, I hope that your husband is on a statin like most of Dr. Esselstyn’s are!:)

and a man wrote

Calling Essylstein ilk shows a little too much biased hatred on your part

Please note the definition of ilk “a type of people or things similar to those already referred to.” No pejorative there. And no ad hominem attack.  I wrote:

 It is possible that the type of vegan/ultra-low fat diets espoused by Esselstyn and his ilk have some beneficial effects on preventing CAD, but there is nothing in the scientific literature which proves it.

I should be able to criticize the methods and ideas of Dr. E without it being considered an attack on his person

Completely wrong. Esselstyn has saved my life. His book explains it all, how the endothelium cells get ruined, inflammation … heart attack proof (his words). One does not continue as head of the Cleveland Wellness Center if one is a quack.

Words are easy to come by on the interweb but Dr. E’s are not supported by science and as for the “Cleveland Wellness Center” it is probably not wise to get me started. Dr. E ‘s program is listed as being part of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Center which is an attempt to capitalize on the market for pseudoscientific enterprises. He is not the director. The director recently came under intense criticism for promoting anti vaccine quackery. (See here).

The Wellness Center promotes so-called functional, integrative, complementary and alternative approaches. (Functional medicine is fake medicine!) These are approaches that have not been proven to work and could arguably be called quackery. (Let me be clear, however, I am not calling Dr. Esselstyn a quack but the fact that he is part of the Wellness Center does not add any scientific validity to his work.)

“I’m sure there are more people out there on the esselstyn diet that are not noted in the study years ago. I hope there is another book coming out”

Fake News, Fake Science

As a matter of fact, Dr. E has been hard at work over the last 30 years and has added a grand total of 176 patients who are considered “adherent” to the diet: about 6 per year. The “original research” was published in The Journal of Family Practice in 2014. Unfortunately the bad science present in the original publication has only been amplified.

In addition to any randomization or suitable control group for comparison, the data collection techniques are unacceptable:

“In 2011 and 2012 we contacted all participants by telephone to gather data. If a participant had died, we obtained follow-up medical and dietary information from the spouse, sibling, off-spring or responsible representative.”

In other words, there was no actual systematic review of medical records, autopsies or death certificates, just word of mouth from whomever answered the phone.

“Patients who avoided all meat, fish, dairy, and knowingly, any added oils throughout the program were considered adherent.”

Imagine, if you will, that your husband died 10 years ago and you received a call from Dr. E’s office or perhaps Dr. E himself and he asks you if your husband “avoided all meat, fish, dairy and added oils.”  For one thing, it would be very difficult for you to answer that question with any degree of accuracy: was your husband cheating on Dr. E’s diet when you weren’t looking, do you remember his entire diet from 10 years ago?

For another thing, you know that the caller has an agenda. If your husband died of a heart problem the caller is not going to be happy until he/she gets you to admit that your husband had some guacamole on Cinco de Mayo in 2002. If he’s alive and doing well, the caller is likely to be satisfied with a simple answer that , yes, he’s following the diet.

Yes, we have more data from Dr. E but it turns out to be even more incredibly bad than the first lot.

Let the anecdotes and ad hominem attacks begin!

-ACP

Dr. P’s Heart Nuts: Preventing Death In Multiple Ways

The skeptical cardiologist has finally prepared Dr. P’s Heart Nuts for distribution. IMG_8339The major stumbling block in preparing them was finding almonds which were raw (see here), but not gassed with proplyene oxide (see here), and which did not contain potentially toxic levels of cyanide (see here).

During this search I learned a lot about almonds and cyanide toxicity, and ended up using raw organic almonds from nuts.com, which come from Spain.

I’ll be giving out these packets (containing 15 grams of almonds, 15 grams of hazelnuts and 30 grams of walnuts) to my patients because there is really good scientific evidence that consuming 1/2 packet of these per day will reduce their risk of dying from heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

IMG_7965The exact components are based on the landmark randomized trial of the Mediterranean diet, enhanced by either extra-virgin olive oil or nuts (PREDIMED, in which participants in the two Mediterranean-diet groups received either extra-virgin olive oil (approximately 1 liter per week) or 30g of mixed nuts per day (15g of walnuts, 7.5g of hazelnuts, and 7.5g of almonds) at no cost, and those in the control group received small nonfood gifts).

After 5 years, those on the Mediterranean diet had about a 30% lower rate of heart attack, stroke or cardiovascular death than the control group.

It’s fantastic to have a randomized trial (the strongest form of scientific evidence) supporting nuts, as it buttresses consistent (weaker, but easier to obtain), observational data.

Trademark

I applied for a trademark for my Heart Nuts, not because I plan to market them, but because I thought it would be interesting to possess a trademark of some kind.

The response from a lawyer at the federal trademark and patent office is hilariously full of mind-numbing and needlessly complicated legalese.

Heres one example:

"DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
Applicant must disclaim the wording “NUTS” because it merely describes an ingredient of applicant’s goods, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).

The attached evidence from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows this wording means “[a]n indehiscent fruit having a single seed enclosed in a hard shell, such as an acorn or hazelnut”, or “[a]ny of various other usually edible seeds enclosed in a hard covering such as a seed coat or the stone of a drupe, as in a pine nut, peanut, almond, or walnut.”  Therefore, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods, in that they consist exclusively of nuts identified as hazelnuts, almonds, and walnuts.

An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace.  See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983).  A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.

If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  SeeIn re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).

Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “NUTS” apart from the mark as shown."

I’ve gotten dozens of emails from trademark attorneys offering to help me respond to the denial of my trademark request. Is this a conspiracy amongst lawyers to gin up business?

Nuts Reduce Mortality From Lots of Different Diseases

The most recent examination of observational data performed a meta-analysis of 20 prospective studies of nut consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in adult populations published up to July 19, 2016.

It found that for every 28 grams/day increase in nut intake, risk was reduced by:

29% for coronary heart disease

7% for stroke (not significant)

21% for cardiovascular disease

15% for cancer

22% for all-cause mortality

Surprisingly, death from diseases, other than heart disease or cancer, were also significantly reduced:

52% for respiratory disease

35% for neurodenerative disease

75% for infectious disease

74% for kidney disease

The authors concluded:

If the associations are causal, an estimated 4.4 million premature deaths in the America, Europe, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific would be attributable to a nut intake below 20 grams per day in 2013.

If everybody consumed Dr. P’s Heart Nuts, we could save 4.4 million lives!

Meditativeterraneanly Yours,

-ACP

If you’re curious about why nuts are so healthy, check out this recent meta-analysis, a discussion of possible mechanisms of the health benefits of nuts complete with references:

Nuts are good sources of unsaturated fatty acids, protein, fiber, vitamin E, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemicals. Intervention studies have shown that nut consumption reduces total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the ratio of low- to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and triglyceride levels in a dose–response manner [4, 65]. In addition, studies have shown reduced endothelial dysfunction [8], lipid peroxidation [7], and insulin resistance [6, 66] with a higher intake of nuts. Oxidative damage and insulin resistance are important pathogenic drivers of cancer [67, 68] and a number of specific causes of death [69]. Nuts and seeds and particularly walnuts, pecans, and sunflower seeds have a high antioxidant content [70], and could prevent cancer by reducing oxidative DNA damage [9], cell proliferation [71, 72], inflammation [73, 74], and circulating insulin-like growth factor 1 concentrations [75] and by inducing apoptosis [71], suppressing angiogenesis [76], and altering the gut microbiota [77]. Although nuts are high in total fat, they have been associated with lower weight gain [78, 79, 80] and lower risk of overweight and obesity [79] in observational studies and some randomized controlled trials [80].

Nutella: Healthy and Natural Spread or Highly Processed, Slickly Marketed Junk Food?

It’s World Nutella day according to Ferrero, the Italian confectonery company and manufacturer of the globally beloved hazelnut-based spread.screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-6-28-42-am

“With Nutella we spread positive energy to families to bring more happiness to the world” we are informed. On this day, apparently, the world should be spreading Nutella on as many food products as possible, ramping up positive energy levels to unprecedented levels.

Here are some of the other products Ferrero sells:screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-9-08-21-am

Three of them are clearly recognized by consumers as candy.

Should Nutella be in the same category as tic-tacs?

 

 

Nutella Ingredients

Perhaps in anticipation of World Nutella Day, a graphic has been appearing on Twitter:

nutella-englisy

detailing the ingredients of Nutella. The English version of this was posted on Reddit on a subreddit that I can’t mention on my family-friendly blog. It is a translation of a graphic that was published in German originally.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-8-18-31-am
If you thought you were getting mostly hazelnuts under the lid as this Nutella website graphic implies, you will be disappointed.

I’m not sure where the original data for the graphic came from but it seems to be a reasonable illustration of how much of Nutella is made up of palm oil and sugar. A 2 tbsp serving of Nutella (37 grams) contains 12 grams of fat, 21 grams of sugar and 2 grams of protein. Only about 12% of Nutella comes from actual hazelnuts.

I don’t have any concerns from a cardiovascular risk standpoint with the fat content of either the palm oil or the hazelnuts in Nutella.

But the 5 teaspoons of sugar per serving screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-8-44-16-am

are just still another source of empty
sugar calories adding to the daily dietary glut of sugar consumers face when consuming highly processed foods.

Nutella definitely is a highly processed, highly sugared product that shouldn’t be a regular part of a healthy Mediterranean diet. Most of the ingredients have gone through  complex sourcing and factory processing although their marketing material strains to emphasize the freshness and naturalness of these ingredients.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-6-30-27-am

One ingredient not depicted on the now viral graphic of Nutella is vanillin. From Nutella’s ingredient graphic one might think the screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-6-34-38-amvanillin is being extracted from (per wikipedia)

“the seed pods of Vanilla planifolia, a vining orchid native to Mexico, but now grown in tropical areas around the globe.”

In reality, however, the Nutella people,  ” use synthetic vanillin, an aroma identical to the one naturally present in the vanilla pod.”

Is the Palm OIl In Nutella Carcinogenic?

Some question the healthiness of the palm oil in nutella, either due to its high saturated fat content or its carcinogenic potential. A european food safety authority paper in May, 2016 declared certain toxins found in palm oil in particular to be “genotoxic and carcinogenic”

EFSA assessed the risks for public health of the substances: glycidyl fatty acid esters (GE), 3-monochloropropanediol (3-MCPD), and 2-monochloropropanediol (2-MCPD) and their fatty acid esters. The substances form during food processing, in particular, when refining vegetable oils at high temperatures (approx. 200°C)

The highest levels of GE, as well as 3-MCPD and 2-MCPD (including esters) were found in palm oils and palm fats, followed by other oils and fats. For consumers aged three and above, margarines and ‘pastries and cakes’ were the main sources of exposure to all substances.

As a result, According to Reuters, In Italy, some products containing palm oil have been removed from grocer’s shelves and one pastry company has eliminated palm oil from it products, labeling them as “palm oil free.”

High temperatures are used to remove palm oil’s natural red color and neutralize its smell, but Ferrero says it uses an industrial process that combines a temperature of just below 200C and extremely low pressure to minimize contaminants.

Nutella has fought back, defending its use of palm oil, with television and print advertisements.

Healthier Alternatives To Nutella

Conner Middleman, nutritionist , cooking instructor and author of Zest For Life, has shared with me her recipe for Nutritella, a healthier version of Nutella you can make at home. She points out in her intro to the recipe:

Nutella was invented in the 1940s in the Piedmont region of northern Italy, where hazelnuts grow plentifully. Alas, modern, store-bought Nutella contains a mere 13% hazelnut and only a hint of cocoa; the rest is made up of sugar, palm oil and artificial vanilla flavoring. My home-made version of Nutella, on the other hand, contains very little sweetener (in the form of raw honey), 3 tablespoons of flavonoid-rich dark cocoa, and about 90% hazelnuts, which boast a particularly high concentration of antioxidants and healthy fats (mostly monounsaturated). This is not to say that you should eat this spread by the tablespoonful; its high fat content means it’s high in calories and it should be enjoyed in sensible amounts (1-2 tbsp/day). The good news is that a high-fat food such as this one keeps you sated for longer, and because it is made from whole, real foods, it’s not only rich in calories, but also in nutrients! 

Here’s the recipe:

1 cup/125g toasted hazelnuts (Trader Joe’s roasted Oregon hazelnuts work great here; alternatively buy plain, raw hazelnuts and roast them yourself as described below)

½ oz/2 tbsp/15g unsweetened cocoa

3 tbsp hazelnut oil (La Tourangelle is my favorite brand – available in the oils section of good supermarkets or online)

3 tbsp honey or maple syrup

2 tsp alcohol-free vanilla extract (e.g., Trader Joe’s)

6-8 tbsp milk/plant milk/water

If you are roasting the hazelnuts from scratch, preheat oven to 350F. Place nuts on a dry, clean baking sheet and roast for 8 minutes (set timer). Remove and tip hot nuts onto a clean kitchen towel (pictured here).

As they cool, the skins will loosen, crack and flake off. Gather up the towel by its corners and scoop together into a tight bundle. Hold the bundle with one hand and knead the nuts with the other through the cloth to rub the skins off them. Place bundle back on a flat surface and open; lift out the nuts and lightly shake off the skins. (Leave some skin on the nuts – it’s where most of the antioxidants reside.)

If using pre-roasted nuts, start here.

Place the hazelnuts in an electric blender with the cocoa, oil, honey/maple syrup and vanilla extract. Process on “high” for about 30-40 seconds until all the ingredients come together in a coarse paste.

With the motor running, add milk or water (whichever using), a tablespoon at a time, and keep processing until the mixture reaches the desired consistency.

Transfer to a clean glass jar and refrigerate. Keeps for at least 2 weeks.

You can check out Conner’s excellent website, Modern Mediterranean, replete with more recipes and information on the cancer-fighting benefits of the Mediterranean diet,  here. and her You-tube channel here.

Of course, the skeptical cardiologist Heart Nuts project advocates just eating  heartnutsunadulterated hazelnuts along with other healthy drupes, nuts and legumes for snacking and soon we will be distributing these to you using our trademark-pending walnut-auscultating squirrel, Sparky.

Notnutellingly Yours,

-ACP

 

Say Hello To Heart Nuts

The skeptical cardiologist nut project (aka the nutty cardiologist project) now has a logo. Say hello toheartnuts  the world’s only walnut-auscultating promoter of nut consumption. Soon you will see his smiling face on the packets of nuts I’ll be handing out to help defeat cardiovascular disease.

Special thanks to my wonderful Washington University computer-science major and  bass guitar wiz daughter, Gwyneth, for creating the squirrel doctor during her winter break.

I promised 10 bags of nuts and “oodles of glory” to the reader whose name I selected but I can’t identify who proposed Heart Nuts. Let me know who you are and I’ll get the nuts to you.

Now I need a name for the squirrel.

Squirrelly Yours,

-ACP

See here for my post on KIND bars versus Simply Nuts and here for my review of nuts, drupes and legumes and reduced mortality.

N.B. Nuts are recognized as promoting reduced cholesterol, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.

I’ve focused on their cardiovascular benefits (perhaps mediated by dietary fiber, magnesium, polyunsaturated fats, vitamin E, and antioxidants)  but recent studies suggest  other health benefits that could contribute to improved longevity.

Nuts contain bioactive compounds both known (ellagic acid, anacardic acid, genistein, resveratrol, and inositol phosphates) and unknown which may reduce the risk of cancer or other chronic diseases.

A recent meta-analysis found that consuming one serving of nuts per day was associated with a 15% lower  risk of any cancer and a 22% lower risk of dying from any cause.

Embrace the nuts I say!

 

Are You On The Fence About Taking A Statin Drug?

The father of the eternal fiancee’ of the skeptical cardiologist (FOEFOSC, let’s call him “Geo”) is a typical 61 year old white male. A year ago his primary care physician informed him that he needed to start taking a statin drug because his cholesterol was high. The note accompanying this recommendation also stated “work harder on diet and exercise to get LDL<130.”  No particulars on how to change his current diet and exercise program were provided.

Neither of Geo’s parents and none of his siblings have had heart problems at an early age and Geo is very active without any symptoms. His diet is reasonably free of processed food and added sugar, he is not overweight and his blood pressures are fine. Due to concern about side effects he had read about on the internet and because he doesn’t like taking medications , Geo balked at taking the recommended statin,

Reluctance to start a new and likely life-long drug is understandable especially when combined with a constant stream of internet-based bashing of statins.

My advice was sought and I suggested a few things that would be helpful in making a more informed decision:

-Calculate Geo’s 10 year risk of heart attack and stroke using the ACC ASCVD Risk estimator app.

-Assess for early or advanced build-up of atherosclerotic or fatty plaque in the carotid arteries (vascular ultrasound) and coronary arteries (coronary calcium scan).

As I’ve pointed out before (here), the vast majority of men over the age of 60 move into a 10 year risk category >7.5%, no matter how great their lifestyle is, and Geo was no exception with a risk of 8.4%. His total cholesterol was 249, LDL (bad) 154, HDL (good) 72 and triglycerides 116.

The vascular ultrasound showed below normal carotid thickness and no plaque and his coronary calcium score was 18,  putting him at the 63rd  percentile. This is slightly higher than average white men his age.

When Geo presented these findings to his PCP, he seemed unaware of the ASCVD risk estimator (recommended by AHA/ACC guidelines first published in 2013), which no longer suggests LDL levels as goals. His PCP also seemed miffed that he had gotten the coronary calcium scan. Geo felt like the PCP’s attitude was “shut up and do what I tell you.”

Geo’s PCP’s approach exemplifies a not-uncommon traditional doctor-patient relationship, but a better approach is shared decision-making (see here). Geo, like many patients, welcomes more information on the risks and benefits of any recommended treatment so that he can participate in deciding the best course of action.

I steer patients who want more complete information towards my  evidence-based blog posts on statins (see here for discussion on statin side effects and here for statin benefits beyond cholesterol lowering.)

By giving patients more information on the risks, side effects, and benefits of the statin drugs along with a better understanding of their overall risk of heart disease and stroke, we can hopefully move more patients “off the fence” and onto the most appropriate treatment.

Stay tuned to find out what The Skeptical Cardiologist Recommended for Geo.

Decisively Yours

-ACP

For more discussion on the value of coronary artery calcification (CAC) and the value of statin in lower risk patients see this recent paper entitled “Refining Statin Prescribing in Lower-Risk Individuals: Informing Risk/Benefit Decisions”(PDF refining-statin-prescribing-in-lower-risk-individuals-informing-riskbenefit-decisions)

If you’d like to read the recently published recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force on statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease see here. Importantly this panel of unbiased experts concluded that statin therapy significantly reduced overall mortality and cardiovascular mortality. In addition, the review found no increased risk of diabetes overall with statin therapy. The only trial that identified an increased risk was using high intensity statin therapy (Crestor (rosuvastatin) >20 mg).

And,  since the internet is jammed with people who believe statins robbed them of their brain power, I would advise noting that the writers concluded  “These findings are consistent with those from a recent systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies that found no adverse associations of statins with incidence of Alzheimer disease, dementia, or decreased scores on tests of cognitive performance.”

 

 

What Does The Death of Robert Atkins Tell Us About the Atkins Diet?

In the spring of 2003 at the age of 72 years, Robert Atkins, the cardiologist and  controversial promoter of high fat diets for weight loss, fell  on the sidewalk in front of his Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine in Manhattan.  He lost his footing on a patch of ice, slipped and banged his head on the pavement.  At the time of his fall his book ”Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution” lead the NY times paper-back best seller list.

He was taken to nearby Cornell Medical Center where a clot was evacuated from his brain. Thereafter he lapsed into a coma and he spent 9 days in the ICU, expiring on April 17, 2003.

screen-shot-2016-11-27-at-8-44-55-amThe cause of death was determined by the New York Medical Examiner to be “blunt injury of head with epidural hematoma.”

An epidural hematoma is a collection of blood between the skull and the tough outer lining of the brain (the dura) which can occur with blunt trauma to the head which results in laceration of the arteries in this area. It is a not  uncommon cause of death in trauma . Actress Natasha Richardson (skiing, see below)  died from this. Nothing about the manner in which Robert Atkins died would suggest that he was a victim of his own diet any more than  Natasha Richardson was.

However, within the year a campaign of misinformation and deception spear-headed by  evangelistic vegans would try to paint the picture that Atkins died as a direct result of what they perceived as a horribly dangerous diet.

Michael Bloomberg, then New York major,  was quoted as saying

“I don’t believe that bullshit that [Atkins] dropped dead slipping on the sidewalk.”

According to the Smoking Gun:

“The 61-year-old billionaire added that Atkins was “fat” and served “inedible” food at his Hamptons home when Bloomberg visited. The mayor’s inference, of course, was that Atkins was actually felled by his meat-heavy diet, that his arteries were clogged with beef drippings. “

Enter The Vegans

Richard Fleming, a physician promoting prevention of cardiovascular disease through vegetarianism and with close ties to an organization  called Physicians Committe for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) sent a letter to the NY Medical Examiner requesting a copy of the full medical examination of Atkins. The NYME office  should have only issued copies of this report to physicians involved in the care of Atkins or next of kin but mistakenly complied with this request.  Fleming, who would subsequently publish his own low fat diet book, conveniently gave the report to PCRM which is directed by animal rights and vegan physicians.

screen-shot-2016-12-18-at-7-50-24-am
From the front page of pcrm.org. The two major concerns of the group are converting everyone to veganism and animal rights.

Neal Barnard, the President of PCRM, in an incredibly unethical move sent the letter to the Wall Street Journal with the hope that the information would destroy the popularity of the Atkins diet, a diet he clearly despises..  Barnard said the group decided to publicize the report because Atkins’ “health history was used to promote his terribly unhealthy eating plan..” The WSJ subsequently published an article summarizing the findings.

To this day, advocates of vegetarianism and low fat diets, distort the findings of Atkins’ Medical Examination in order to depict high fat diets like his as dangerous and portray Atkins as a victim of his own diet.

To scientists and thoughtful, unbiased physicians it is manifestly apparent that you cannot base decisions on what diet plan is healthy or effective for weight loss on the outcome of one patient. It doesn’t matter how famous that one person is or whether he/she originated and meticulously followed the diet. It is a ludicrous concept.

Would you base your decision to engage in running  based on the death of Jim Fixx?  Fixx  did much to popularize the sport of running and the concept of jogging as a source of health benefit and weight loss. He died while jogging, in fact. An autopsy concluded that he died of a massive heart attack and found advanced atherosclerosis (blockage) of the arteries to his heart.

Fixx inherited his predisposition to heart disease and couldn’t run himself out of it. Multiple studies over the years have documented the benefit of regular aerobic exercise like running on longevity and cardiovascular risk.

Would you based your decision to engage in  a very low fat diet based on how Nathan Pritikin died?  Pritikin authored an extremely popular book emphasizing eliminating fat from the diet but developed leukemia and slashed his wrists,  committing suicide at the age of 69 years. Would vegetarians accept the premise that their preferred diet results in leukemia or suicidal depression based on Pritikin’s death?

The Distortion of Atkins Death

The NYME report lists Atkins weight at autopsy as 258 pounds. Low-fat zealots seized on this fact as indicating that Atkins was screen-shot-2016-12-17-at-5-32-56-ammorbidly obese throughout his life.  For example, a  you-tube video of an audio interview of Atkinas online posted by “plant-based coach”  has this obviously photoshopped head of Atkins put on the body of a morbidly obese man. Atkins actually weight around 200 pounds through most of his life and a hospital note on admission showed him weighing 195 pounds. A substantial weight gain of 63 pounds occurred in the 9 days after his admission due to the accumulation of fluid volume and swelling which is not uncommon in the critically ill.

screen-shot-2016-11-27-at-8-42-59-amscreen-shot-2016-11-27-at-8-42-39-am

No autopsy was performed on Atkins but the NYME wrote on the document that he had “h/o of MI, CHF, HTN.”

MI is the acronym for a myocardial infarction or heart attack. As far as we can tell without access to full medical records, Atkins never had an MI. He did have a cardiac arrest in 2002. While most cardiac arrests are due to a cardiac arrhythmia secondary to an MI they can also occur in patients who have a cardiomyopathy or weakness in the heart muscle from causes other than MI. In fact, USA Today reported that Stuart Trager, MD,  chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council in New York, indicated that Atkins was diagnosed with a cardiomyopathy at the time of his cardiac arrest and that it was not felt to be due to blocked coronary arteries/MI. Cardiomyopathy can be caused by viral infections or nonspecific inflammation of the heart muscle and would have nothing to do with diet.

Trager also stated that Atkins, as a result of the cardiomyopathy, had developed heart failure (CHF) and the pumping ability of his heart (ejection fraction )had dropped to 15 to 20%. While CHF can be due to heart attacks causing heart weakness in Atkins case it appears it was unrelated to fatty blockage of the coronary arteries causing MI and therefore not related in any way to his diet.

What Does Atkins Death Tell Us About His Diet 

The information about Atkins death tells us nothing about the effectiveness or dangers of his diet.  In one individual it is entirely likely that a genetic predisposition to cancer or heart disease overwhelms whatever beneficial effects the individual’s lifestyle may have had. Thus, we should never rely on the appearance or the longevity of  the primary promoter of a diet for the diet’s effectiveness.

The evangelists of low-fat, vegan or vegetarian diets like PCRM have shamelessly promoted misinformation about Atkins death to dismiss high fat diets and promote their own agenda. If their diets are truly superior it should be possible to utilize facts and science to promote them rather than a sensationalistic, distorted focus on the body of one man who slipped on the ice and fell to his death.

Epidurally Yours

-ACP

Addendum: Earlier versions of this post cited  MLB pitcher Brandon McCarthy as a victim of a fast ball to the head causing epicardial hematoma. I was corrected by astute reader Fred N who pointed out that McCarthy is still pitching for the Dodgers and was hit by a line drive (off the bat of Erick Aybar). McCarthy had emergency surgery for the epicardial hematoma in 2012. His diet had nothing to do with the epicardial hematoma.

N.B. Natasha Richardson fell while taking beginner skin lessons at a Canadian Ski resort. According to a release from the resort:

Natasha Richardson fell in a beginners trail while taking a ski lesson at Station Mont Tremblant,” the statement said. “She was accompanied by an experienced ski instructor who immediately called the ski patrol. She did not show any visible sign of injury but the ski patrol followed strict procedures and brought her back to the bottom of the slope and insisted she should see a doctor.

“As an additional precautionary measure, the ski instructor as well as the ski patrol accompanied Mrs. Richardson to her hotel,” the statement continued. “They again recommended she should be seen by a doctor. The ski instructor stayed with her at her hotel. Approximately an hour after the incident Mrs. Richardson was not feeling good. An ambulance was called and Mrs. Richardson was brought to the Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe and was later transferred to Hôpital du Sacre-Coeur.”

A spokesperson for the resort noted Richardson was not wearing a helmet while skiing and didn’t collide with anything when she fell. Thursday, in the wake of her death, Quebec officials said they are considering making helmets mandatory on ski slopes, according to The Associated Press.”

The last time I skied I found myself falling and banging my head an extraordinary amount. If I ever ski again (in contrast to my resistance to bike helmets) I plan to wear a helmet.

 

Cigarette Smoking Kills: Should Missourians Vote Yes To Raise Cigarette Taxes?

Recent statistics show that cigarette smoking is  responsible for 167, 133 cancer deaths annually in the US or 29% of all cancer deaths.

Cigarette smoking also kills annually in the US  160,000 people by promoting cardiovascular disease.

Thus, from a health standpoint we should be doing everything possible to stigmatize and make more difficult cigarette smoking.

One approach to this is to tax cigarettes, raising the financial burden of smoking. Across the US, therefore, states have added cigarettes taxes which average 1.65$ per pack.

My state of Missouri has the lowest state tax on cigarettes of 17 cents per pack. Multiple ballot attempts to raise this amount have failed in the past.

However, on this Tuesday’s ballot there are two competing options that we can  vote on that will raise cigarette taxes: Amendment 3 (raises cig taxes  60 cents and earmarks funds for a newly created Early Childhood Education and Research Fund) and Proposition A (raises taxes 23 cents and earmarks funds for infrastructure.) (Links are to Ballotpedia, a reputable source of information nationwide.)

I’ve been researching both of these proposals over the last few days since receiving an email from a physician colleague urging  me to vote no on Amendment 3. Remarkably, a coalition of health organizations (The American Cancer Society Cancer Action NetworkAmerican Heart AssociationAmerican Lung Association in MissouriCampaign for Tobacco-Free KidsHealth Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City and Tobacco-Free Missouri) has come out against the propositions to raise cigarette taxes with the following statement :

Small increases to the tobacco tax – like the proposals being considered – will generate new revenue, but will not keep kids from becoming addicted to cigarettes or help adults quit.Tobacco taxes work when the price increase is substantial enough to motivate current smokers to quit and prevent kids from starting. A dime here or there is not sufficient. Tobacco companies are adept at finding ways to absorb small tax increases through adjusted pricing. What’s worse, these marginal increases could hamper future efforts; promising profitable returns for the tobacco industry at the continued expense of Missourians’ health…

Tobacco products in Missouri are too cheap and the health costs are too high. Our state is long overdue for a tobacco tax increase, but it needs to be one that will make a difference and save lives. A meaningful tobacco tax increase – of $1.00 per pack or more – has proven time and again to be an effective way to reduce tobacco use, cut healthcare costs and generate state revenue.[7]

Our local public radio station had a good discussion recently which is summarized here.

I found the PRO comments of Jane Dueker particularly persuasive as summarized below:

PRO: Jane Dueker wants people to vote “Yes” on Constitutional Amendment 3. Here are her main points:

Jane Dueker is a proponent of Constitutional Amendment 3.
CREDIT KELLY MOFFITT | ST. LOUIS PUBLIC RADIO
  • This tax would provide $300 million in funding for early childhood education, healthcare and smoking cessation programs. Right now, Missouri can’t even fund the K-12 Foundation Formula, so any extra funding is needed for early childhood education.

  • By filing this as an amendment, we were able to make a constitutional “lock box” that would keep the legislature and special interests from taking money that is specifically dedicated to this fund, like what happened with lottery funds.

  • Right now, only 3 percent of 4-year-olds in Missouri are in a publicly-funded preschool. Missouri is behind states like Oklahoma with 76 percent, Illinois with 27 percent and Arkansas with 38 percent.

  • Higher tobacco taxes have failed in 2002, 2006 and 2012. This is more reasonable and we don’t have a clause that says another tobacco tax could not be added on top of this one to give that “sticker shock” to consumers.

  • This closes a loophole that kept cheap cigarette companies from paying their fair share into a 1998 court settlement to recover some of state governments’ tobacco-related health-care costs. Now, smaller tobacco companies would pay a 67-cents-a-pack hike on low-cost cigarettes in addition to the 60 cent tax on all cigarettes. This would give Missouri $1 billion annually we currently don’t get. Missouri is the only state that hasn’t closed this loophole and the state is a “dumping ground” for the cheapest cigarettes in the country.

  • Groups that oppose this either think the tax is not high enough (health groups) or that they don’t get money from this fund (pro-choice and research institutions).

  • Missouri’s Foundation Formula public school funding starts at kindergarten and cannot fund early childhood education. This money could go to public or private early childhood education entities in a way it would not be distributed through the foundation formula.

  • $15-30 million dollars would be raised through this tax that would go to smoking cessation programs.

  • The fund will be administered by a board of unelected people because they have special experience in early childhood education. A “person of faith” is required on the board because of their position as a community anchor.

At this point, I’m leaning toward voting yes on Amendment 3 but confused as to why RJ Reynolds is supporting it to the tune of 12 million dollars and the “good guy” health organizations oppose it. I’d appreciate any input/comments on this from readers. I strongly urge everyone to read and learn as much as you can about the issue before walking into the voting booth.

By the way, I recently observed this Canadian cigarette package img_7957which I think excellently conveys the horror of cigarette smoking.

Truthily Yours

-ACP

Some more  stats to ponder from the CDC

Cigarette smoking causes premature death:

  • Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers.
  • Quitting smoking before the age of 40 reduces the risk of dying from smoking-related disease by about 90%.

Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 41,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:

  • Secondhand smoke causes 7,333 annual deaths from lung cancer.
  • Secondhand smoke causes 33,951 annual deaths from heart disease.

The Name For The Nuts Poll: Part Deux

The results of my request for reader input on naming the mixed nuts based on the PREDIMED study I plan to give out to my patients are hot off the presses.

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-2-50-42-pm

 

 

The winner of the pre-specified names was “Pearson’s Health Nuts.”

Second place went to my personal favorite “Dr. P’s Stroke-bustin’ Nuts.

However, readers submitted some suggestions not in the poll:

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-2-50-53-pm
And I had one patient bring in her suggestion with a design already created!:

img_7954-1

and one sketch out her suggestion on what appears to be a post-it note:

img_7959
I’ll term this heart (symbol)NUTZ in the poll

Consequently, I’m soliciting your input into a revised poll that incorporates some of the newer suggestions.

There is much excitement here at mixed nut central because the non-fumigated raw almonds have arrived!

Polldaddily Yours

-ACP

 

 

 

Donald Trump Has Moderate Plaque Buildup In His Coronary Arteries and his Risk For A Cardiac Event Is Seven Times Hilary Clinton’s Risk

Donald Trump recently appeared on the Dr. Oz show and handed a letter to the celebrity medical charlatan and TV host, Mehmet Oz.

The letter was written by his personal physician , Dr. Harold Bornstein,  screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-3-21-11-pm
and summarized various  laboratory and test  results which led Bornstein to conclude  that Mr. Trump is in excellent health (Bornstein did not repeat his earlier, bizarre statement that “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”)

From a cardiovascular standpoint the following sentence stood out:

“His calcium score in 2013 was 98.”

Regular readers of the skeptical cardiologist should be familiar with the coronary calcium scan or score (CAC) by now.  I’ve written about it a lot (here, here, and here) and use it frequently in my patients, advocating its use to help better assess certain  patient’s risk of sudden death and heart attacks.

coronary calcium
Image from a patient with a large amount of calcium in the widowmaker or LAD coronary artery (LAD CA).

The CAC scan utilizes computed tomography (CT)  X-rays, without the need for intravenous contrast, to generate a three-dimensional picture of the heart. Because calcium is very apparent on CT scans, and because we can visualize the arteries on the surface of the heart that supply blood to the heart (the coronary arteries), the CAC scan can detect and quantify calcium in the coronary arteries with great accuracy and reproducibility.

Calcium only develops in the coronary arteries when there is atherosclerotic plaque. The more plaque in the arteries, the more calcium. Thus, the more calcium, the more plaque and the greater the risk of heart attack and death from heart attack.

What Does Donald’s Trump’s Calcium Score Tell Us About His Risk Of A Major Cardiac Event?

We know that, on average, even if you take a statin drug (Trump is taking rosuvastatin or Crestor), the calcium score goes up at least 10% per year which means that 3 years after that 98 score we would predict Trump’s calcium score to be around 120.

Based on large, observational studies of asymptomatic patients, Calcium scores of 101 to 400 put a patient in the moderately high risk category for cardiovascular events.

When I read a calcium score of 101-400, I make the following statements (based on the most widely utilized reference from Rumberger

This patient has:

-Definite, at least moderate atherosclerotic plaque burden

-Non-obstructive CAD (coronary artery disease) highly likely, although obstructive disease possible

-Implications for cardiovascular risk: Moderately High

Patients in this category have a 7-fold risk of major  cardiac events (heart attack or death from coronary heart disease) compared to an individual with a zero calcium scorescreen-shot-2016-10-04-at-3-16-25-pm

 

 

Clinton versus Trump: Zero is Better

Since we know that Hillary Clinton recently had a calcium scan with a score of zero, we can estimate that Trump’s risk of having a heart attack or dying from a cardiac event is markedly  higher than Clinton’s.

Clinton, born October 26, 1947 is 68 years old and we can enter her calcium score into the MESA calcium calculator to see how she compares to other women her age. A  coronary calcium score of 6 is at the 50th percentile for this group.

Interestingly, Trump’s score of 98 at age 67 years was exactly at the 50th percentile. In other words half of all white men age 67 years are below 98 and half are above 98, creeping into the moderately high risk  category.

(This should not be surprising, I touched on the high estimated cardiovascular risk of all aging men in my post entitled “Should all men over age sixty take a statin drug?”)

So, based on his coronary calcium score from 2013, Donald Trump has a  moderate build up of atherosclerotic plaque in his coronary arteries and is at a seven-fold higher risk of a cardiac event compared to Hilary Clinton.

Let the law suits and tweets begin!

Electorally Yours,

-ACP

 

 

 

 

Running For Longevity: From A-Punk to Aba Daba Honeymoon

About two years ago I wrote about a study that found that any amount of leisure-time running was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease which  made me reconsider my usual advice to patients on exercise:

As part of a prospective longitudinal cohort study at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, Texas, Lee, et al. looked at data from a group of 55,137 adults on whom they had information on running or jogging activity during the previous 3 months.
Those individuals who described themselves as having done any running in the last 3 months had a 30% lower risk of all-cause mortality and a 45% lower cardiovascular mortality.

Amazingly, it didn’t matter how much you ran.

Those who ran <51 minutes per week did just as well as those who ran >176 minutes per week.

At the time I felt the study was not definitive, but food for thought. Evidently, it got me thinking so much that I began running regularly (despite my previous dislike of running).

Music and the Tempo of Running

During my runs I listen to music on my iPhone, either through Apple Music or songs that I have purchased.

Today, after deciding Leonard Cohen’s Live in Dublin (although awesome, and one of the best live albums I’ve ever heard) was not motivating enough, I hit the first song on my iPhone: A-punk by Vampire Weekend.

A-Punk is one of my favorite songs released in the last decade. It’s very upbeat.. perfect for a running accompaniment. The opening guitar riff is simple, fast and catchy. It’s simple enough that I can play it on guitar but, so fast that my fingers fatigue quickly.  The bridge portion features a wonderfully fast and complicated bass line with punchy drums and an overlying synth flute melody. You can watch a video of it here:

As I ran I realized that the tempo of A-Punk was perfectly suited to my preferred running speed of 6.1 MPH. You’re probably wondering what the tempo of A-Punk is. It’s likely that the only time song tempo comes up in general conversation is when talking about CPR and the need to compress the sternum at 100 beats per minute, the alleged tempo of The Bee Gees Stayin’ Alive (it’s actually 104 BPM.)

A-Punk’s tempo turned out to be 175 BPM. If you are not inclined to count the actual beats in a minute to determine the tempo of a song, you can enter the song into this site to get the number or download a smart phone app for the purpose.

Oddly enough, the next song on my alphabetical listing of songs, Hoagy Carmichael’s version of Aba Daba Honeymoon, also had a screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-8-45-44-amtempo (174 BPM) perfectly suited to my running speed. (The song after that was my old band Whistling Cadaver attempting to play the medley at the end of Abbey Road at our 30 year high school reunion in 2002-not good for running to, but immensely entertaining).

Monetizing Music For Running

Having observed that the tempo of certain songs matched perfectly to my running tempo, I wondered if there were any advantages to selecting such songs. Would I run faster or longer or with less discomfort or less injuries?

The web site run2rhythm would certainly like me to believe that screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-9-45-42-amrunning to the right tempo song will improve my performance. This site claims that “the wrong musical playlists can be detrimental to your training as they will not provide any synchronization between the body, the music and the mind. The body is almost always out of sync with the music.”

screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-9-03-39-amRun2rhythm provides a chart of the BPM that corresponds to different running speeds and sells playlists starting at $3.99 corresponding to specific tempos. These are playlists by unknown artists created for run2rhythm and the samples were not inspiring to me.

Here’s an example:screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-9-05-39-am

 

 

Is Music a Legal Drug For Athletes?

It turns out that there is a body of scientific literature related to music and exercise, and the vast majority of it seems to come from one man,  Dr Costas Karageorghis at Brunel University in London, an expert on the effects of music on exercise.  In his 2010 book, Inside Sport Psychology, he claims that listening to music while running can boost performance by up to 15%.

In media articles on the topic he is often quoted as saying “Music is a legal drug for athletes.”

However, in a 2012 review article he is more circumspect, concluding:

Music is now rarely viewed in a manner akin to the ‘vitamin model’ described by Sloboda (2008) wherein one can ascribe immutable effects to a specific musical selection for all listeners and at all times. The beneficial consequences of music use stem from an interaction between elements of the musical stimulus itself and factors relating to the traits and experiences of the listener, and aspects of the exercise environment and task. In particular, the role of music is dependent on when it is introduced in relation to the task and the intensity of the exercise undertaken. In closing, the evidence presented in this review demonstrates that music has a consistent and measurable effect on the psychological state and behaviour of exercise participants

Creating Your Own Tempo Playlist

The research on music and exercise suggests that songs with inspirational themes (apparently, “Gonna Fly Now,” the Rocky theme, is the most popular workout song of all time) are more effective performance enhancers. Also, self-selection of songs works better.

For me, running while listening allows me to focus on nuances of instrumentation, timing  and lyrics that otherwise I would not pay attention to. It is essential, then, to have songs that are worthy of such close listening.

I wondered if anyone has compiled lists of songs of a certain BPM that were originals and good songs.  Sure enough, the folks at jog.fm have exactly such a function.  My search for songs with tempo of 175 BPM yielded A-Punk and hundreds of other songs, screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-10-10-58-amincluding some I like (thumbs down for Footloose and Wonderwall (which is really 1/2 of 175 BPM or  88 BPM), thumbs up for Dancing With Myself).

You will note that my preferred tempo of 175 BPM corresponds to a much faster running speed than my preferred 6.1 MPH. This may have to do with my short legs or my running style. It makes sense to count the number of steps you take per minute at your optimal speed rather than rely on charts or averages.

Achieving the Right Dose of Exercise

Whatever you listen to while running, walking, cycling or hopping, hopefully it will assist you to achieve the dose of exercise per week that results in improved cardiovascular outcomes.

This chart from recent European guidelines on lifestyle for prevention of disease describes different intensities of aerobic exercise:

screen-shot-2016-10-01-at-10-18-34-am
If you engage in vigorous exercise such as running or jogging, cycling fast or singles tennis, you only need to achieve 75 minutes per week. Moderate exercise such as walking or elliptical work-outs requires 150 minutes/week.

As a result of switching to running, I’ve cut down my total exercise time per week by half leaving me more time to create music!

Readers – feel free to share your favorite workout songs and let me know what tempo works best for you.

Synchronously Yours,

-ACP

Yikes! This is a silly video. I’m not sure I can run to the song anymore.