August 21st, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Uncategorized
3 Comments »
I had an interesting dialog with Dr. Bruce Campbell recently. In his blog he described a patient who lost about 60 pounds after losing his sense of taste. The patient had undergone radiation therapy for throat cancer, and in the process lost his ability to taste food. He soon lost interest in eating, and eventually dropped 60 pounds – not from the cancer, but from the side effect of radiation therapy. In this case there was a happy ending (his sense of taste eventually returned and he regained some of his weight) but it made me think about the relationship of flavor to obesity.
Just as I was musing on this very fact, a new research study was published in the journal Neurology. It suggested that unexplained weight loss was an early warning sign of dementia. They speculate that this could be linked to another early sign of dementia: loss of the sense of smell. Of course taste is largely a function of smell, so we can easily understand how people lose interest in eating when they can’t enjoy the flavor of food.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could temporarily alter a person’s sense of taste in order to affect weight loss? I doubt I’m the first to think of this… has anyone else heard of such a strategy? Surely this would be a little bit less invasive and dangerous than bariatric surgery.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
August 13th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
5 Comments »
I came across an interesting weight loss invention this weekend that proposes to allow people to have their cake and eat it too. Scientists have constructed a kind of plastic intestinal condom to block digestion of food. Since gastric bypass surgery essentially reduces food absorption while decreasing stomach size, this removable plastic lining could act as a sort of non-invasive alternative to such a permanent procedure. Sounds intriguing?
Well, before we get our hopes up, it’s always best to check with the gastroenterologists. I dropped Dr. Brian Fennerty a note to ask him what he thought of this proposed weight loss solution. His response was enlightening – “The Endobarrier Gastrointestinal Liner is potentially very dangerous as it may block the pancreatic duct and cause pancreatitis, dislodge resulting in bowel obstruction, or ulcerate. There are no comparative trials and as such I would consider it investigational at best.”
Why is blocking the pancreatic duct scary? The pancreas is a little organ that should get a lot more respect, in my opinion. It produces enzymes that are secreted into the intestine to break down food – I like to think of the pancreas as a bag that contains acid as strong as Alien blood (those of you who’ve seen the movie will get that reference). Basically, the pancreas can liquify a steak – so plugging up the exit route for those enzymes is a really bad idea. You can imagine why pancreatitis is so painful.
And then there’s the risk of the liner getting loose and wadding up in a plastic ball and blocking your bowels, or the risk of the plastic irritating the intestinal lining and causing an ulcer which could bore a hole straight through your gut.
Well, I don’t mean to resort to scare tactics here… but honestly, this procedure has serious risks that one doesn’t really get from the media’s article on the subject, “New Procedure Could Help Millions.” So be careful out there folks – always check with your doctor before you try something new to lose weight. I’m afraid that diet and exercise are really the safest options out there.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
August 10th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
3 Comments »
I rarely get too excited about mouse studies, but this one is pretty amazing. Researchers at my alma mater have discovered that osteoblasts (cells that create bone) secrete a certain protein that affects the health of the pancreas. The protein (osteocalcin) stimulates the pancreas to create more insulin-secreting beta cells. When people don’t secrete enough insulin, the result is often type 2 diabetes. So a healthy pancreas with a good insulin secreting capacity is critical to regulating blood sugar.
The researchers also discovered that mice who were bred to have no osteocalcin gene had abnormal amounts of fat in their bodies. So this means that bones may have something to do with energy metabolism and weight gain.
Of course it’s too early to speculate on the implications of all this (what’s true for mice is not necessarily true for humans – but I’m going to anyway). Since bone cells (osteoblasts) are sensitive to gravity, and increase their activity with weight bearing, this could explain why exercise (especially weight lifting) is important in weight loss. The new ACSM guidelines recommend weight training as part of a healthy exercise regimen, and the underlying mechanism for this may be that bone cells rev up metabolism and insulin secreting capacity in response to weight lifting.
So, if you want to lose weight – make sure you stimulate those bone cells with some good weight bearing exercises. They may just help to reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes as well!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
2 Comments »
A new study in the journal Sociology of Education suggests that obese girls are only half as
likely to go to college as non-obese girls.
I interviewed the study’s author, Dr. Robert Crosnoe, to learn more
about the relationship of weight, self-esteem, and peer popularity to the
education of young women.
Dr. Val: What did your study reveal about the impact of
obesity on the education of young girls?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 1
Dr. Val: How does popularity figure into the equation?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 2
Dr. Val: How do you explain the gender gap – that obesity
didn’t seem to influence whether or not boys went on to college?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 3
Dr. Val: What should we do based on the study results?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 4
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
1 Comment »
A provocative press release crossed my desk today, “Study Finds Association Between Low Cholesterol Levels and Cancer” with subtitle: “Benefits of Statin Therapy Outweigh Small Risk.” Well that’s fairly terrifying, isn’t it? It sounds as if they’re saying that taking a statin (like lipitor or zocor) is good for your heart but might carry with it the “small” risk of developing cancer.
First of all, let me assure you that this is a gross misinterpretation of the metanalysis. The authors themselves never postulated a cause and effect between statins and cancer, and in fact did all they could to avoid drawing this conclusion. They merely observed that there was a slight trend towards higher cancer rates among people with low LDL cholesterol.
There are two very good explanations for the higher cancer rates in people with low cholesterol:
1. Everyone knows that “unexplained weight loss” is an ominous sign. Often times a patient’s first clue that they have cancer is sudden weight loss – since cancer has a voracious appetite and steals nutrients from the rest of the body. When people lose weight, their cholesterols decrease. So it’s possible that low LDL cholesterol is really just a surrogate marker for those who already have very early stages of cancer that have not yet been detected otherwise.
2. Statins are well known to reduce cholesterol and the atherosclerotic plaques that put people at risk for heart attacks and strokes. Lower cholesterol levels can reduce overall mortality risk/year by 30%, and so people live longer when they have lower cholesterol levels. People who live longer extend their opportunity to develop cancer. And so lower cholesterol levels inadvertently raise your cancer risk simply because they may extend your life.
Why else do I think the link between cancer and statins is faulty? Because the observed increase in cancer rates was in ALL cancer types – the genetics of cancer is so complex, and the reasons why certain cell types begin to divide in an uncontrolled manner is so diverse, that it’s hard to imagine any possible trigger could stimulate all cells to become cancerous. Also, most cancers develop very slowly, and the 5 year window in which the authors observed people taking statins and developing cancers is too short to be a cause and effect. And finally, previous statin safety studies showed no link between them and the development of any form of cancer.
The Journal of the American College of Cardiology admits in an
accompanying editorial, “In the 5 years that we have been stewards of
the Journal, no other manuscript has stimulated such intense scrutiny
or discussion.” Do I think they should have published this study? Yes – but to me the most interesting question out of all of this is: could cholesterol screening be used for early cancer detection? If an extra low LDL is observed, maybe that should prompt some additional investigations to rule out occult malignancies?
Obviously, more studies are needed to determine the potential validity of such an approach… but for now, there is absolutely no reason (based on this study) to cease statin therapy for fear of developing cancer. Hope that allays some fears!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
