Lifestyle

Dr Linda Calabresi
Clinical Articles iconClinical Articles

As they say in the classics – run Forrest, run! New research shows people who run, regardless of how fast, how far or how often are likely to live longer than people who don’t. According to a systematic review and meta-analysis including 14 studies and over 230,000 participants, running as exercise was associated with a 27%, 30% and 23% reduced risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, respectively.

Dr Linda Calabresi
Clinical Articles iconClinical Articles

Eating a high-fat ‘fast food’ meal can reduce testosterone levels by 25% within an hour of ingestion in overweight and obese men, Australian research shows. And the effect can last for up to four hours, say the South Australian study authors in a recent issue of Andrologia. The new finding goes some way to explain, at least in part, the well-known link between male obesity and androgen deficiency and impaired fertility. If an obese man regularly consumes high fat meals and snacks throughout the day he will be constantly reducing his testosterone level to 75% of normal, and given that he is likely to be low in testosterone already (given his obesity) he can ill afford this further reduction if he wants to father a child.

Dr Linda Calabresi
Clinical Articles iconClinical Articles

Bad news for steak lovers. The latest findings from two very large, well-known prospective cohort studies show that increasing your intake of red meat, even if it’s only by half a serving a day, significantly increases your risk of death. And the increased mortality risk is independent of how much red meat you were eating to start with, what other lifestyle factors you make at the same time you increase your red meat intake or whether the meat is processed or unprocessed, although the association was stronger for processed meat, according to the research recently published in The BMJ. The researchers were analysing data from Nurses’ Health Study (over 53,000 women) and the Health Professionals Follow-up study (involving almost 28,000 men). Both US studies included repeated measures of diet and lifestyle factors, so the study authors were able to determine that increases in red meat consumption of at least half a serving a day over eight years was associated with a 10% higher mortality risk over the next eight years. The increase in deaths was generally related to cardiovascular or neurodegenerative disease. It’s been known for some time that eating lots of red meat is not good for you, increasing your risk of chronic diseases and premature death. What we haven’t known (until now) is what difference changing your consumption of red meat over time does to this increased health risk. Interestingly the analysis also found a decrease in red meat consumption was not associated with mortality. But if the meat intake was replaced by a healthy alternative then your risk of dying prematurely is lowered. “A decrease in total red meat consumption and a simultaneous increase in the consumption of nuts, fish, poultry without skin, dairy, eggs, whole grains, or vegetables over eight years was associated with a lower risk of death in the subsequent eight years,” they said. So it really is yet another nail in the coffin for the traditional Aussie high meat diet. “Our analysis provides further evidence to support the replacement of red and processed meat consumption with healthy alternative food choices,” they concluded.  

Reference:

Zheng Y, Li Y, Satija A, Pan A, Sotos-Prieto M, Rimm E, et al. Association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality among US women and men: two prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2019 Jun 12; 365: I2110. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l2110
Dr Patty Thille
Clinical Articles iconClinical Articles

When Ellen Maud Bennett died a year ago, her obituary published in the local newspaper gained national media attention in Canada, though she wasn’t a celebrity. Bennett’s obituary revealed she died from cancer days after finally being diagnosed — after years of seeking help. Her diagnosis came so late, beyond the point where treatments were possible, because the 64-year-old woman was repeatedly told her health problems were caused by her weight — or more specifically, by the amount of fat on her body. She died because of bad assumptions that caused poor quality care. And she used her own obituary to share her dying wish:
“Ellen’s dying wish was that women of size make her death matter by advocating strongly for their health and not accepting that fat is the only relevant health issue.”
How to know if this might be happening to you? When do you need to advocate for yourself? I studied the phenomenon of anti-fat stigma in Canadian primary care clinics for my PhD. Knowing how it happens might help.

Fatness as a sign of inferiority

Bodily fatness is a stigmatized body characteristic in Canada and other wealthy countries. Within any given culture, some characteristics or histories are assumed to reflect a character flaw. The characteristic is treated as a sign of inferiority. The result is loss of social status and widespread societal discrimination. With bodily fatness, the assumed character flaws are laziness, ignorance or weak willpower. In a comprehensive review published 10 years ago, there was strong evidence of fatness-related discrimination in employment, while other sectors were less researched. Studies carried out since that time confirm the pattern — including within health care.

‘Just eat more salads’

Poor quality clinical care due to anti-fat stigma occurs when doctors or nurses assume the stereotype holds true. One common way this happens: a clinician simply tells you to “lose weight,” as Bennett heard many times when seeking help. That’s like telling patients to “lose blood sugar.” Telling people to produce an outcome is not good quality clinical care. This is especially awful when weight is not related to the topic at hand — an ear infection, for example. Sometimes, clinicians do this as “opportunistic counselling.” It’s done assuming the benefits outweigh harms — except we know that doing this for weight reduces trust in health-care providers. And reduced trust can lead to avoidance, for obvious reasons — needs aren’t met. Unfortunately, some clinicians give very simplistic weight loss advice, such as “eat more salads,” without any assessment of what the patient already knows, does, has tried or can afford and fit into their lives. Simplistic advice is patronizing at best; it assumes patients are ignorant, as per the stereotype. This approach vastly underestimates the knowledge of a patient, gained in part through repeated past attempts to change body composition. One Canadian study found that half of those classified as overweight, and 71 per cent of those categorized as obese, had attempted to reduce their body weight in the last year. Simplistic messages — “lose weight” or “exercise more” — assume thinness is easy and simply involves some lifestyle tweaks. When such advice is given without assessment of health concerns — for instance, headaches — anti-fat biases can endanger lives.

Bias trumps science, sometimes

Clinicians should, at minimum, recommend actions that have a chance at producing an outcome. Lifestyle changes only produce modest effects for most, yet many clinicians assume much bigger impacts. Obesity Canada, an organization that uses evidence-based action to better prevent and manage obesity, reminds health-care providers that the typical body weight reduction from sustained lifestyle changes is five per cent of body weight. Dramatic life changes, such as those of participants on the TV show The Biggest Loser, can slow the body’s resting metabolic rate, triggering weight regain. Science also tells us that factors beyond lifestyle are influencing population shifts around body weight and fatness. But these scientific findings are still not routinely integrated into health-care professionals’ understandings of weight. As a result, many still emphasize poor willpower as the core problem. You shouldn’t have to advocate for yourself to get adequate health care. You should be able to trust your health-care professionals.

How to advocate for yourself

There are many people working to ensure access to good quality health care. But tackling discrimination is complex. You can help. When clinicians make one of these common mistakes or in some other way block you being diagnosed or treated, you are on good grounds to challenge them. Say something like: “What would you do if someone with a thin body had this problem?” Then encourage them to treat you in the same way. Send them this or other articles. Write your story and give it to them. Find a Health-At-Every-Size® practitioner, and check for local resources (such as the Good Fat Care website in Winnipeg). After receiving poor quality care, register a complaint with the provider’s professional licensing body. They may not investigate your individual complaint but do track trends. Patient advocates are also available in some hospitals to help you get the care you need. News stories come and go. But the issues Ellen Maud Bennett raised in her obituary should not disappear from our consciousness so quickly. You deserve good care, just as she did. This article is written in memory of Ellen Maud Bennett, with the permission of her sister.The Conversation Patty Thille, Assistant Professor in Physical Therapy, University of Manitoba This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dr Linda Calabresi
Clinical Articles iconClinical Articles

A decent eating program can keep you out of hospital, according to US research into the value of providing ready-to-consume meals to a select adult population. The retrospective cohort study involved just over 1000 participants, average age 53, almost 500 of whom were allocated to receive 10 meals a week, tailored to a recipient’s specific medical needs, for a period of just over two years. This group was then compared to a control group who had been matched for age and area of residence etc. Overall the study found the medically tailored meal delivery program was associated with approximately half the number of inpatient admissions over the duration of the study. Similarly, receiving the set meals was associated with significantly fewer admissions to skilled nursing facilities and a substantial reduction in health care costs. A pretty impressive result, yes? But before we go demanding an MBS item number for Meals on Wheels, even the researchers themselves advise caution in interpreting these results. Firstly, the study was not randomised. People who were allocated to receive the meal delivery intervention were generally more ill than the control patients – they were significantly more likely to have HIV, cancer and diabetes. “It is unlikely that similar results would be seen were the intervention applied to a healthier population, as the risk of admission or high health care costs, even in the absence of intervention would be substantially lower,” the study authors said in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine.  And we don’t know whether it was the actual healthy food that made the difference, or whether it was the fact that they were getting their food for free thereby enabling the recipients to have more money for other things such as medications (remembering we are talking about the US health system here). Nonetheless, the study raises some valuable points. It is well-recognised that ‘following an appropriate diet is a cornerstone of maintaining health and managing illness.’ But this is often difficult for patients with complex medical conditions, especially if they are socioeconomically disadvantaged. As an accompanying editorial points out, much of the more recent focus has been on diet-related diseases and the health and economic burden they increasingly represent. Diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity-related cancers have claimed much of the spotlight. But nutrition as a solution, and how we can use specific nutritional interventions to effectively manage a patient’s health care has been less well defined. “One obstacle has been demonstrating the efficacy and cost implications of specific nutritional interventions,” the editorial authors said. This JAMA study does that. Specifically, the researchers have shown that the provision of free, medically tailored meals at home is associated with reduced health care use and net cost savings. More importantly for Australians, the study supports the incorporation of nutrition into health care to improve patient health outcomes and keep vulnerable patients out of tertiary care. “Given their potential for significant health benefits and cost-savings, [medically tailored meals] may represent the tip of the spear for a national evolution toward such food-is-medicine approaches,” the editorial concludes.

Reference

Berkowitz SA, Terranova J, Randall L, Cranston K, Waters DB, Hsu J. Association Between Receipt of a Medically Tailored Meal Program and Health Care Use. JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 22, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0198 Mozaffarian D, Mande J, Micha R. Food Is Medicine—The Promise and Challenges of Integrating Food and Nutrition Into Health Care. JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 22, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0184
Emmanuel Stamatakis
Clinical Articles iconClinical Articles

As little as 20 minutes of exercise a day can offset a sedentary lifestyle. And that exercise can include walking the dog. People who spend much of their day sitting may need to move around less than we thought to counteract their sedentary lifestyle, new research shows. Our research, published today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, found about 20-40 minutes of physical activity a day seems to eliminate most health risks associated with sitting. That’s substantially lower than the one hour a day a previous study has found. We spend almost all our waking day sitting, standing, or moving. The health impact of each one of these can be complex. For example, too much standing can lead to lower back problems and even a higher risk of heart disease. But sitting for too long and not moving enough can harm our health. Then there are people who sit for many hours and also get in reasonable amounts of physical activity. For example, someone who has an office job but walks to and from work for 20 minutes each way and runs two to three times a week easily meets the recommended level of physical activity. While we know moving is better than sitting, what is far less clear is how much of a good thing (moving) can offset the harms of a bad thing (sitting). That’s what we wanted to find out in our study of almost 150,000 Australian middle-aged and older adults. We followed people enrolled in the 45 and Up Study for nearly nine years. We looked at links between sitting and physical activity with deaths from any cause, and deaths from cardiovascular disease such as heart disease and stroke, over that time. We then estimated what level of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity might offset the health risks of sitting. This kind of activity is strenuous enough to get you at least slightly out of breath if sustained for a few minutes. It includes brisk walking, cycling, playing sports or running.

What we found

People who did no physical activity and sat for more than eight hours a day had more than twice (107%) the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to people who did at least one hour of physical activity and sat less than four hours a day (the “optimal group”). But it wasn’t enough just to sit less. People who did less than 150 minutes of physical activity a week and sat less than four hours a day still had a 44-60% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease than the optimal group. We also calculated the effect of replacing one hour of sitting with standing, walking, and moderate and vigorous physical activity. Among people who sit a lot (more than six hours a day) replacing one hour of sitting with equal amounts of moderate physical activity like strenuous gardening and housework, but not standing, was associated with a 20% reduction in dying from cardiovascular disease. Replacing one hour of sitting with one hour of vigorous activity such as swimming, aerobics and tennis, the benefits were much greater, with a 64% reduction in the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

What does it all mean?

The great news for people who sit a lot, including sedentary office workers, is that the amount of physical activity needed to offset the health risks of sitting risks was substantially lower than the one hour a day a previous study found. Even around 20-40 minutes of physical activity a day - the equivalent of meeting the physical activity guidelines of 150 to 300 minutes a week – seemed to eliminate most risks associated with sitting. For people who sat a lot, replacing sitting with vigorous physical activity was better than replacing it with moderate activity; and replacing sitting with moderate activity or walking was better than replacing it with standing.

What’s the take-home message?

Our study supports the idea that sitting and exercise are two sides of the same health “coin”. In other words, enough physical activity can offset the health risks of sitting. Should we worry about sitting too much? Yes, because sitting takes up valuable time we could spend moving. So too much sitting is an important part of the physical inactivity problem. We also know only a minority of adults get enough physical activity to offset the risks of sitting. For those who sit a lot, finding ways to reduce sitting would be a good start but it is not enough. The most important lifestyle change would be to look for or create opportunities to include physical activity into our daily routine whenever possible.

How to widen our activity ‘menu’

Not everyone has a supportive environment and the capacity to create opportunities to be active. For example, lack of time and physical activity being low on people’s list of priorities are the main reasons why inactive adults don’t exercise. Also, many do not have the motivation to power through a strenuous workout when they are juggling many other life challenges. There are no known remedies to a lack of time or low motivation. So, perhaps we need to add new approaches, beyond exercising and playing sport for leisure, to the “menu” of physical activity options. Incidental physical activity like active transportation – think walking fast or cycling part or all of the way to work – or taking stairs are great ways to become or stay active without taking much extra time.The Conversation Emmanuel Stamatakis, Professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney; Joanne Gale, Research Fellow Biostatistician, University of Sydney, and Melody Ding, Senior Research Fellow of Public Health, University of Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.