In This Issue
For the heart, magnesium functions to help the heart muscle and nerves that control the heartbeat. It may help prevent arrhythmias, helps control blood pressure, and may help prevent angina by maintaining healthy blood vessels.
Population studies suggest that a diet rich in magnesium promotes a lower risk for heart disease and stroke.
Magnesium is crucial to insulin use and carbohydrate metabolism. As such, a magnesium-rich diet may help prevent diabetes.
In concert with calcium and vitamin D, magnesium is important to development and maintenance of strong bones and teeth.
Foods rich in magnesium include whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds, fish, leafy greens, and avocados. For anyone not eating a balanced diet, taking a multi-vitamin/mineral supplement is a good choice.
Where to store medications? In the medicine cabinet, right? After all, that's what it was built for. As it turns out, the medicine cabinet in the bathroom is just about the worst place to store medications -- too hot and humid. Especially prescription medications can be damaged by high heat and humidity, and lose some of their effectiveness. They should be stored somewhere like in a drawer in your bedroom. Somewhere not susceptible to those damaging conditions: high heat and humidity. Maybe the construction industry needs to start building medicine cabinets somewhere other than in bathrooms.
Wou might ask yourself, which health tests should be regularly scheduled, and when? Table 1, below, indicates the most commonly recommended tests, at what age, and frequency.
| Health Test | Frequency | Starting at Age |
| Blood Pressure | every two years | 18 |
| Pap smear | yearly | 18 |
| Cholesterol | every five years | 20 |
| Mammography | yearly | 40 |
| Blood Sugar | every three years | 45 |
| Glaucoma | every two years | 50 |
| Colonoscopy | every -10 years | 50 |
| Stool occult blood | yearly | 50 |
For years physicians have puzzled over why so many heart attack victims were shown to have relatively "clean" blood vessels when it was so well-known that heart attacks were a common result of narrowing of arteries from plaque build-up due to excessive cholesterol. There may now be an answer. It seems that a substance known as C-reactive Protein (CRP) may provide that answer. CRP proliferates in reaction to inflammation deep in one's body, and as a result CRP is becoming widely accepted as a major risk factor, along with high cholesterol, for heart disease.
The ascendancy of CRP as a prominent risk factor for heart disease; however, should not be viewed as a reason to overlook cholesterol. It is seen to be a double whammy if one has both high cholesterol and a high CRP level. With those dual conditions present, it would be a good idea to be sure your will is updated. High levels of each raise your risk nearly ninefold.
Dr. Paul Ridker of Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital estimates that there are roughly 25-35 million Americans with normal cholesterol levels, but with CRP levels that put them at high risk for heart attack or stroke. High levels of CRP carry about twice the risk of those with elevated cholesterol levels.
Furthermore, high levels of CRP are predictive of future heart attacks or strokes years off in the future.
It is thought that internal inflammation has a variety of sources. One possibility is that plaque itself becomes inflamed by white blood cells mistakenly attack it as a foreign body. Another possible trigger is fat cells. They release inflammatory proteins, which may explain why being overfat is a risk for heart disease. Other triggers might be: high blood pressure, smoking, and low-level infections (such as chronic gum disease) that tend to hang on for long periods of time.
It turns out that CRP is very easy to measure, and that is why many doctors are coming to believe that CRP should be measured routinely, at least for those over 40 years of age, even though some feel that only those with other risk factors need be tested . Dr. Wayne Alexander of Emory University, and part of the American Heart Association's recommendations committee, thinks CRP is now a major risk factor and should be measured at least once during just about everyone's middle-aged years.
Performing the test is currently possible in most hospitals, but analyzing the results is still a rather arcane procedure, so there will likely be a time lag before CRP testing becomes routine.
[Adapted from an article in the Sunday, August 4, 2002 issue of the San Jose Mercury News.]
I want to talk about an amazing experience I have recently had. I underwent a procedure called Sound Wave testing (part of Sound Wave Therapy) to ascertain imbalances in my body; basically everything from muscle imbalances, to nutritional deficiencies, and even mood problems (depression, primarily).
I went into this with a heap of skepticism -- mumbo jumbo I thought, but now I don't think so. The therapy involves a discovery and analysis phase, and a treatment phase. I have only gone through the discovery/testing and analysis phase so I can't vouch for the treatment phase, but others have, and even traditional physicians and nurses are beginning to take notice. Treatment involves sound, massage, and other interventions.
The testing phase is based on a voice analysis -- you talk into a machine for a relatively short time (I've forgotten the exact duration, but it was no more than three minutes.), and the sound waves are analyzed. Some 3000 points are fed through a sophisticated data base to determine the condition of various muscles, nutrients, and other factors.
In my own case, I was found to have muscle weaknesses particularly in the shoulders and inner thighs (various hip flexors); not surprising since I had previously talked to the analyst/therapist about those areas, but surprisingly I was told that there was a problem with the vertebrae in my mid-back (middle of the thoracic vertebrae), which I am aware of but had not discussed. It was also mentioned that I have a very weak serratus posterior muscle, which I have never heard of; although, if I understand Gray's Anatomy, (and I don't very well), it helps support the spine; which relates to the previous comment about my weak mid-back. One last indignity was the suggestion that I suffer from depression, characterized by not being able to focus on important things (I quote: "when works, works only on physical issues, and often vegetative.")
And there is more, but I have bared my inadequacies enough for today.
In case you missed it, the point of this communiqué is to recommend a very interesting holistic approach to analyzing and fixing body problems, and while I have not yet undergone the treatment phase (equally of a holistic nature and completely non-invasive), many attest to its efficacy.
I have not tried to explain the dynamics of how this works, because I don't really understand them myself, but if you are interested, contact:
Everyone knows about high blood pressure (hypertension), but there is a lesser known twist on this subject -- high blood of the lungs; called Pulmonary Hypertension (PH). This condition is characterized by shortness of breath, dizziness, possibly fainting spells; and may lead problems like heart or liver failure. There is no cure for this serious, possibly fatal condition, but it can be treated.
First, what is it exactly? As you know, oxygen is continually being provided to your body through the blood vessels -- ultimately from the lungs. Used blood (oxygen depleted) is returned to the heart from various body parts then via the pulmonary artery to the lungs, where it is reoxygenated. The refreshed blood is then sent back to the heart, and back out to the rest of the body. This cycle is, of course, active 24 hours per day for our lifetimes. [If you are really interested in more detail, look at the Circulatory System in Issue 5 of the 1996 MAF Fitness Newsletter.]
That said, PH occurs when branches of the pulmonary artery in your lungs becomes constricted or obstructed. Blood pressure in the lungs is normally quite low, but when constricted it increases, hence PH.
The exact causes of this condition are largely unknown, but treatments include: oxygen supplementation, a calcium channel blocker, diuretics, and vasodilators (commonly epoprestenol (Flolan).
What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie is the title of an article that appeared in the July 7, 2002 issue of the New York Times, and has gotten quite a lot of attention. The big lie in question, according to Gary Taubs, the author, is the promotion over the last several years of the eat-low-fat-to-lose-weight concept. He seems to be suggesting that Dr. Atkins and others actually have the truly effective approach to weight loss, and that is a low carbohydrate diet. Taubs throws out phrases like glycemic index, Syndrome X, The Zone, and basically suggests that the common "eat less fat" advice is incorrect (a lie?). The true solution to the burgeoning over-fat population in the U.S. according to his article is to cut back on or eliminate carbohydrates (except vegetables if I recollect correctly); that they are the new "bad guys" of the nutrition world.
The low carbohydrate diet is certainly far from being universally accepted; as is eating according to the glycemic index, of which there are several, all with different numbers.
One thing Taubs is correct about is that the "eat low-fat" recommendation has been a failure, and that some fats are healthy. The rush to low fat food has lead many people to forget about calories, which is one of the primary problems with fat, it has twice as many as either proteins or carbohydrates. In switching to low-cal food, it has been overlooked that many low-fat products have more calories than the originals; and it is after all, excess calories that make people pile on the fat.
The glycemic index, except perhaps in some very specific instances, makes no sense to me as a useful guide to eating. For instance, you might read that someone says to avoid potatoes, "they make you fat." Actually there is such a variety of potatoes (red potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc., and all with different numbers of calories and different nutrients) that it seems ludicrous to lump them all together. Preparation and cooking techniques also create significant differences. For instance, mashed potatoes have more calories than other styles, and adding sour cream and/or other condiments make a difference. And sweet potatoes, as healthy as they are, often get turned into candy (Glazed, is it?) before they are actually consumed.
Carbohydrate bashing is as bad as fat bashing. Carbohydrates do not form a monolithic entity. Twinkies and 100% whole wheat bread, for instance, are not nutritionally equivalent. The different processing levels of grains is an example of carbohydrate diversity. Take "enriched rice." It is initially milled to the point where it can be easily stored for long periods of time -- it is so devoid of nutrients and fiber that insects can't live off of it. Before it is actually sold at a grocery store, it is "enriched" (i.e., some nutrients are reintroduced). So, we start with healthy brown, long-grained rice and turn it into a mere shadow of its' former self. The same happens to many grains and cereals.
It is also a pretty common concept among nutrition experts that food groups (macronutrients: carbohydrates, proteins, and fats) should not be eliminated. A balanced diet is recommended.
Nutrition science is still very much an evolving body of knowledge. There simply isn't enough evidence to recommend a low carbohydrate diet, or low fat either, for that matter.
Another problem I have with the "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie" article is that the major move toward less physical activity, more "eating out," and larger portions have all been glibly dismissed as important factors in the fattening of Americans. That seems to be an egregious error, and in fact they may well be a major cause.
There is some evidence that low-carb diets may lead to kidney and bone damage. In a recent story from Nutrition Focus (Sept 17, 2002) it was reported that a small study performed on ten subjects, who where fed specific diets for eight weeks (see Note 1). At the end of the eight weeks, it was discovered that urine of the study participants contained a significant acid load, which increases risk for kidney stones. Concurrently, the urine contained calcium at 60% higher than normal. Since the elevated levels were not counteracted by increased absorption from the kidneys, calcium balance decreased by 40 mg per day (about 5% of normal intake). [As reported in the August 2002 issue of the American Journal of Kidney Diseases.]
Although this small study was short, the results extrapolated over years suggest the onset of osteoporosis. This is one more piece of evidence that supports the avoidance of unbalanced diets, such as the low/no-carb diets that seem to be all the rage nowadays.
Specifically, this admittedly small study suggests that a low/no carb diet (such as that of Dr. Atkins, whose book is a hot property once again) is not a healthy one.
Note 1 - A customary diet for two weeks, followed by two weeks of a severely restricted carbohydrate diet, then four weeks on a moderately restricted carbohydrate diet.
Exercise Corner in this issue introduces a new exercise (at least to me), which I call hybrid arm curls. I didn't make this exercise up, but the name is mine, so you won't see it anywhere but here in Exercise Corner.
This exercise combines static with dynamic muscle contractions, and can be done in a wide variety of positions, but just for fun let's describe it as done in a seated position.
Choose a seat with a backrest, then in an erect, seated position, with arms hanging straight, and while holding dumbbells with a supinated grip (palms up), and elbows close to your sides, bend one elbow until your forearm is parallel to the floor (elbow bent to 90 degrees. Maintain that position (a static contraction) while you do 6-8 full repetitions with the other arm. Now lower the static side so both arms are fully extended, raise the other arm to 90 degrees, and do 6-8 repetitions on the opposite side. That is one set.
(Q) Vitamin E, as an antioxidant, has been touted by some as practically a miracle healer -- lately for macular degeneration, which is the primary cause of vision loss among the elderly. Does it really work? I'm getting up there in age myself, and would much prefer not to lose my eyesight.
R. L., Reno, NV
(A) It has been suggested at one time or another that vitamin E cures nearly everything, including cancer and heart disease, and now macular degeneration. It's healing power has been attributed to its antioxidant properties. As you know, antioxidants have been big news for the last few years as being super healthful substances -- essentially a miracle cure, like going to Lourdes, or. . .
While there is still much hope that antioxidants will become very effective health tools, the effectiveness, to date, of vitamin E supplements has been disappointing. In a recent study, 600 subjects were given 500 IU of vitamin E daily. At the same time another 600 subjects were given a placebo. The vitamin E supplementation resulted in no affect on the development or progression of macular degeneration, as was true of the placebo group. [Reported in the July 6, 2002 issue of the British Medical Journal.]
It still appears that eating foods containing antioxidants is preferaable to supplements. Vitamin E supplements especially seem to have no special benefits. Low dietary intake of vitamin E can be problematic, but vitamin E supplements are not the answer. It may be that there is a symbiotic relationship between vitamin E and some unidentified ingredient in foods containing E that make it effective, but that isn't present in supplements.
(Q) I commonly have a bedtime snack of cereal and milk, and a piece of fruit. My sister says eating late makes you fat. Is she right?
A.B., Coalinga, CA
(A) Not necessarily. The time when you eat has been found to be irrelevant. It isn't inherently "bad" to eat late, as was once thought. But, if the calories are ''extra,'' you will add weight. It is calorie balance that is important for weight control, not when you eat.
(Q) How much exercise do I need to do to maintain my current strength level if I reduce the amount of exercise I do? I am about to go, temporarily, to work at an off-site, where because of facilities, environment, and time, my strength training will necessarily be minimized; but, I don't want to lose what I have worked so hard to gain.
J. R., Providence, RI
(A) The general guideline is once a week to retain, but not increase, strength levels. A recent study on this issue was done on 70-something men, but seems to apply generally. Of course there are individual differences in response to exercise so the once-a-week is not absolute, but should at least minimize strength loss, if there is any.
(Q) I've heard something about a "Caveman diet." Does it make sense that our bodies haven't adapted to eating and physical activity changes established back in Paleolithic times, and that is a large part of why modern populations are suffering from excessive weight gain, diabetes, and other health problems?
G, E,. Sunnyvale, CA
(A) There are a few supporters of the theory that many ills of modern man are a result of not adapting over the past 50,000 years to innovations in growing/harvesting grains and food produced therefrom, as well as accompanying changes in activity levels.
The very idea seems absurd. Eating game meat is healthy -- it's much leaner than what we typically eat. But aside from the fact that most nutritionists/dieticians still stand behind caloric balance (calories in = calories out), it is ludicrous to suggest we go out and track down, kill, and dress our food. Although maybe we could start on our neighbors' cats and dogs to eat with berries and roots. I guess we would just starve when it wasn't hunting season.
To reiterate, it is a balanced diet and calorie balance (in = out) that is important.
(Q) What's worse, trans or saturated fat?
M. L., Livermore, CA
(A) One answer is trans fat because it raises only LDL cholesterol, while saturated fat raises both HDL and LDL cholesterol; however, in reality saturated fat is worse because we commonly eat more of it -- about 2% of calories in a typical diet come from trans fat, whereas about 13% comes from saturated fat. But the bottom line is that we should try to minimize both.
(Q) I really have trouble with downhill running, but there are no elevators. Are there any viable options?
T. J., Missoula, MT
(A) Steep downhill running is obviously much more stressful than uphill or flat running. As you descend your speed increases, you tend to lengthen your stride, and the force of impact as you land with each forward stride is much greater than otherwise, which is the cause of excess soreness and possible injury. At the same time you are picking up speed, you are trying to put the brakes on to prevent becoming a runaway train. Running downhill in a zigzag pattern rather than going straight down helps, as does maintaining a modest forward lean with you knees slightly bent. Walking down is probably your best option.
_____________________________________
Send questions or comments to Michael Fenner: email to Mike Fenner
To see the MAF FITNESS NEWSLETTER archives, go to http://www.dinc.com/maf/