Tag Archive for: CVD

Clock-Changing Solutions

/in /by

We’ve become so obsessed with sleep, even our watches can track the amount of quality sleep we get, so we can expect something unusual tonight. We go to bed at our usual time and for most of us in the U.S., we wake up one hour earlier than planned because the clocks have changed. As someone who adapts to sleep changes well, I empathize with those who don’t. Here are a couple of solutions I’ve found, one societal and one personal.

Don’t Change the Clocks

Researchers from Stanford undertook a very complicated theoretical study. By using county solar light patterns, time policy, and health data with circadian models, they calculated the relationship of those variable conditions and diseases. Let’s just say this would be impossible without the number crunching ability of today’s computers.

What they found was that a shift to Standard Time year-round would decrease the occurrence of stroke and obesity. A permanent shift to Daylight Savings Time would also decrease the occurrence of stroke and obesity as well, although not to the same extent. It should be noted that the impact was dependent on both latitude and longitude of people within the time zone.

How big of an impact? With Standard Time it could potentially reduce the risk of obesity by 0.78% and the risk of stroke by 0.09%. Not a big deal? Based on the current population, that could mean a reduction of the cases of obesity by 2.6 million cases and 300,000 cases of stroke per year in the U.S. While this is an emotional as well as political land mine for many proponents and opponents of time changes, this is one variable that deserves consideration.

Naps

Getting some additional sleep, even as little as a 20-minute nap, can be beneficial. Researchers in Greece found that people who took a nap in the afternoon had a lower rate of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD). How much lower? 37%!

This was confirmed by a study published last month suggesting that naps under 30 minutes reduced CVD outcomes—however, naps longer than 60 minutes increased the risk of CVD events. Speculation was that long naps interfered with nighttime sleep patterns.

The Bottom Line

We all look for an easy way to reduce our risk of heart attacks. Sometimes, the simplest solution is the correct one, and you can’t get much simpler than sleep. It can be challenging to fit in a nap during the day, but if you can do it, it may help you to be more effective in what you’re doing and lower your risk of cardiovascular disease and possibly other diseases as well. As for a permanent switch to Standard Time for more early sunlight? That will be open for debate, so we have to do what we can control.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2508293122
2. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb 12;167(3):296-301. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.296
3. Pub Health Rev. 2026. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2026.1609013.

Warning: Spring Ahead

/in /by

This coming weekend, the clocks are moved ahead one hour in most states here in the U.S. This seems to impact some people more than others; our bodies are more sensitive to the effects of changing sleep patterns than we think. I first wrote about this 10 years ago, and I wanted to check to see if anything has changed.

In a 2008 study, Swedish researchers found that when the clocks are turned ahead one hour in the spring, the number of heart attacks increase on the following Monday and stay elevated above the mean for the rest of that week. This was confirmed in a 2020 study that examined the same question in a larger population of Swedish and U.S. citizens.

What about the opposite situation? In the fall after the clocks are turned back, the number of heart attacks goes below the mean for the following week. One hour—that’s all we’re talking about, and it has a profound effect for about 1% of the population. Does one percent sound like no big deal? That’s over 3.3 million people who could be impacted over the next couple of weeks.

Is there a solution to this? I’ll let you know on Saturday. In the meantime, perhaps going to bed a few minutes earlier every night until then may help.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. NEJM. 2008. Oct 30;359: 1966-1968.
2 Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb 12;167(3):296-301.
3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007927

Melatonin: Stay the Course

/in /by

As we continue to examine the results that appeared to suggest that the chronic use of melatonin in people diagnosed with insomnia could result in an increased risk of a diagnosis of heart failure, heart failure hospitalizations, and death from all causes, let’s put the unreviewed abstract in perspective. One correction from Tuesday. The researchers did not track the subjects for five years; the gathered data from the past five years. That’s an important difference

The simplest way to is to convert the percentage of risk into real percentages. The study reported that the risk of developing heart failure was over 90%. That’s true, but it’s based on the percentage of insomniacs that didn’t use melatonin at 2.7% versus 4.6% in those that did use melatonin. The same logic was used for hospitalizations (19.0% vs. 6.6%), and mortality (7.8% vs. 4.3%). It still seems like a significant risk, but there’s one more number that’s important: the total number of subjects in the study.

Insomnia: The Numbers

In the United States, the average number of adults that are diagnosed with insomnia is 12%. With 268 million adults in the U.S., that means that 32.2 million people have chronic insomnia. The percentage diagnosed is about the same in all high-income countries around the world. The researchers used a database that claims to have 150 million de-identified electronic medical records in its database, so how did the number of subjects get to only 120,000? It should have been at least 15 million.

Yes, the subjects were matched for a variety of criteria including age, gender, medications, and other factors but still, that’s an awful lot of lost subjects. Even without the diagnosis of insomnia, other diagnoses such as depression and other mental health diagnoses result in insomnia. They can also predispose people to heart failure as well. Those subjects would also have been lost.

The most significant information that was not collected was any data on over-the-counter melatonin use. To their credit, they do cite that as an issue, but there are no data as to how much melatonin was actually used by the subjects who took melatonin. There’s no record of melatonin use by people in the non-melatonin group if they didn’t report it as a supplement they use to their physician. There are more questions, but that’s enough to call the results into question.

The Bottom Line

Perhaps after the peer-review process, the data collection will be more clear. But as for right now, the best thing that could be said is that they distributed a great press release that caused a lot of concern. But as for actual research evidence? There’s no reason to modify melatonin use at this point. However, it’s always a good idea for you to report any supplements you’re taking to your healthcare provider.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2025, Abstract MP2306

Melatonin: CVD Risk?

/in /by

Medical conferences are always a great source of controversy; studies are presented that haven’t been peer reviewed but have great press releases to advertise them. The American Heart Association met last week, and the Scientific Sessions didn’t disappoint. The abstract that caught my attention was based on an analysis of a large database of subjects from a variety of countries that demonstrated that melatonin used to treat insomnia could lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hospitalization.

Researchers chose subjects who were diagnosed with insomnia and took melatonin for at least a year based on their medical charts. They were matched with control subjects on a variety of characteristics including age, height, weight, and many more variables, who were also diagnosed insomniacs but did not report melatonin use. They were tracked for five years.

The abstract stated that there was a 90% greater risk of CVD diagnosis in the melatonin group. Further, there was a 350% increased risk of being hospitalized in the melatonin group and a 100% increased risk of dying from all causes as well.

Is it time to throw out the melatonin? I’ll give you some perspective on this study on Saturday.

Tomorrow night is the Insider conference call and, wow, there is a lot to talk about! If you become an Insider by 8 p.m. tomorrow night, you can join in on the call. Protein intake. Creatine. Bike paths and medical costs. And even more.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Are Heart Meds Forever?

/in /by

The prevailing thought on pharmacological treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is that once you’re on a class of medications, you’re on them for life—new meds may be developed to replace some, but treatment continues forever. That contributes to the conspiracies about big pharma and the greed of the medical community. I’m not going to say that never happens, but maybe a recent study can reveal a ray of hope.

Beta-Blocker Study

Researchers selected a very specific group of potential subjects from three countries. The subjects must have had a myocardial infarction (MI), also known as a heart attack; they must have had both angiography and an echocardiogram; they must have an ejection fraction equal to 50% or more; and they were tracked for 3.5 years.

This is the important part: On a randomized basis, half were given the typical treatment of beta-blockers while the other half were not. There were two intermediate analyses of the data to make sure the non-beta blocker group were not at greater risk for problems such as another MI, or worse yet, death.

The analyses demonstrated that there were no differences in outcomes related to any CVD condition between the groups. In other words, the beta-blocker did not provide any additional benefit. There are more trials underway to confirm these results, but we now have a first step on the path to determining whether medications are necessary for life or not.

The Bottom Line

Let me be clear: Do not stop any medication without discussing it with your physician! All physicians were aware that their patients were in the trial and who was and was not on beta-blockers. Also, the standard for ejection fractions (amount of blood pumped per beat) was relatively high. But it illustrates this point: Every visit to your physician or specialist should include a thorough discussion of your medications and whether you need to remain on each one.

There’s also another part to all this: What are you willing to do to help eliminate the need for the medication? Diet, exercise, reducing body weight? What will you do if it will help? In other words:

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:  N Engl J Med 2024;390:1372-81

Ice Cream, the Health Food

/in /by

Paula gave me an article to read from The Atlantic written last summer, in which author David Merritt Johns tackled the issue of outlandish results in nutrition-science studies. In this case, the issue was research demonstrating that eating ice cream regularly reduced the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. He interviewed the chairman of acclaimed nutrition research schools and departments. He interviewed the scientists who published the results of the studies—or not, in one case, because they wouldn’t talk about it. No one could explain it, it didn’t fit their model, so the results got buried.

I reviewed the studies in question, including the dissertation of the researchers who wouldn’t talk about the study. Any way you look at it, two servings per week of a half cup of high-fat ice cream reduced the risk of the aforementioned conditions between 12–54%. The researchers didn’t want to talk about it or acknowledge it, but the data is the data.

Five Reasons the Data Should Be Accepted

  • The assumption is that the Dietary Guidelines are correct for everyone. Maybe they aren’t.
  • The studies used a food frequency questionnaire. They’ve been used forever and are still no better than they were when developed, like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a 6-inch brush. For example, how many servings of carrots did you have in July? Few people could answer with any accuracy, so why are we still depending on these tools?
  • They could have assessed the data differently. Divide the subjects by caloric intake first, then by foods or macronutrients. They used the same approach as I’ve talked about before and statistically added a percentage of calories to see how it would impact the results.
  • Maybe the results are just the results. It really confirmed prior studies. Why would you ignore data just because it doesn’t agree with your view of how things should be?
  • Maybe it’s time to stop parsing the imparsible. When the data tell a different story, quit trying to make it fit your theory of nutrition.

Maybe what they should have done is find out what is found in full-fat ice cream but not in high-fat milk or cream, which do contribute to CVD and T2D. Maybe it’s a microbiome issue. Stop saying it’s an outlier and find out why it appears to work.

The Bottom Line

Nobody asked me, but I think it’s portion control. Two half-cup servings per week is very different from two pints a day. That may be the real reason behind the positive results. If you want to have a couple of half-cup servings of ice cream a week, I don’t think it will harm you and just may help. Just pay attention to the portion size.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37925665
2. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:997-1003
3. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2081-2089. doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2081
4. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/

Fish Oil: Reserve Judgment

/in /by

Let’s put the fish oil study from Tuesday in perspective. The most important thing is that observational studies such as these cannot demonstrate cause and effect. That’s not just a way to weasel out of making definitive statements; it’s because while fish oil supplements are associated in some way with atrial fibrillation in people who have no diagnosed heart disease, it may be something else that people who take fish oil supplements do that’s actually the culprit. Remember the hazard ratio (HR) was only 13%. What were the remaining 87% doing that was different?

The Problems

As I see it, these were the problems with this research paper.

Just as in the multivitamin study, researchers collected a whole host of dietary data and didn’t use much of it; they adjusted for those who ate oily and un-oily fish, but that was it. Fruit intake, vegetable intake, fiber intake, and a whole lot more dietary factors that have been shown to limit the development of cardiovascular disease were not considered. That may have impacted the HR.

The major problem was that they didn’t report the rate of AFib in those who did not take fish oil supplements. How can you not? What happens to those who do not take fish oil supplements could have provided comparison groups, which seems like a better analysis to conduct. No explanation. They just chose not to do it.

The final critique is that this study was conceived and executed by statisticians and epidemiologists. There were no nutrition experts on the team reported in the paper. I don’t know how that’s possible. If you’re considering a nutritional intervention, such as taking a fish oil supplement, there has to be someone who understands nutrition to consider other factors. It can’t be all statistics without thoughtful guidance.

The Big Question

How? How would fish oil supplements cause the development of AFib?

Research has shown that eating oily fish does not appear to cause AFib. Why would fish oil? The researchers cited a couple of possibilities having to do with an impact on channels that control electrical pathways but overall, no one has given any explanation.

This was not the first study that has examined fish oil supplements in large studies and found some relationship with AFib; there are also several that show no relationship at all. In this case, we have to reserve judgment because we can’t prove things either way.

The Bottom Line

What should you do? First, eat the healthiest diet you can and exercise regularly, because lifestyle is more important than supplements. Second, if you have already been diagnosed with CVD as I have—a stent more than 20 years ago—taking fish oil may be beneficial. If you’re under 60, it seems taking fish oil isn’t an issue and there’s no reason to stop. If you’re older than 60, should you begin to take fish oil supplements? It’s a matter of choice. I have to reserve judgment for now.

Next Tuesday is our primary election day in Michigan, and I’m taking the day off—I’m an election worker—but you’ll still get a Memo that goes into questions on this fish oil issue. There’s more to consider and I’ll let you know what those issues are.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: BMJMED 2024;3:e000451.doi:10.1136/ bmjmed-2022-000451

Fish Oil and Atrial Fibrillation

/in /by

Researchers recently published an observational study on over 415,000 subjects in the UK Biobank database who took a fish oil supplement. During a follow-up period of almost 12 years, they statistically demonstrated a 13% increased hazard ratio (a measure over time of how often a particular event happens in one group compared to another group) in the development of atrial fibrillation in subjects. Atrial fibrillation is a type of arrhythmia, or abnormal heartbeat, that can result in extremely fast and irregular beats from the upper chambers of the heart. In those subjcts, there was a 5% increased risk of stroke.

The resultant impact was an attack on dietary supplements for being too easily available, leading to overconsumption, and questionable because of the lack of purity in dietary supplements. The Medscape Cardiology online section put out a video by a reputable researcher explaining who should take fish oil supplements. But if they’re so bad, why would she recommend them at all?

The other part of the results showed that if someone already had cardiovascular disease (CVD), the hazard ratio of developing major cardiac events was reduced if they took fish oil supplements. That’s why the expert made the video, taking the good and trying to make sense of it. Still, it gave the appearance of being a pitch for a pharmaceutical solution.

That’s the set-up for this week’s Memos. I’ll give you at least one of the questions you might have: Yes, this study tested only supplement use (and dietary intake) upon entrance to the study and nothing the rest of the 11.9 years, just like the multivitamin study from last week. But there’s so much more that I’ll cover on Saturday about the problems with this study. Just so you know, I’m still taking my fish oil supplements.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: BMJMED 2024;3:e000451.doi:10.1136/ bmjmed-2022-000451

A Closer Look at Ultra-Processed Food Risk

/in /by

I think the results of the UK Biobank ultra-processed food (UPF) study were interesting, as I relayed on Tuesday, but the researchers went further. They estimated how substituting non-UPF plant-sourced foods for any of the other three sources of food resulted in a reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Further, and what got the headlines, substituting UPF plant-sourced foods for any of the other three increased the risk of CVD morbidity and mortality.

That led some experts to speculate about how processing destroyed fiber and phytonutrients and may even increase the amounts of negative chemicals that have been associated with disease in UPF plant-sourced foods. The problem is that there are no randomized-controlled trials to prove that. Here are a few things that stood out to me.

Theoretically…

The most important issue was this: The determination made about UPF increasing or decreasing the risk of CVD was theoretical and based on calculations. They used a 10% substitution for the non-UPF or UPF plant-sourced foods to calculate the expected raising or lowering of risk. What they could have done was divide the subjects into actual groups based on percentage of nutrients they actually ate instead of running theoretical statistical formulae. My impression is that so few people were diagnosed or died from CVD during the nine-year observational period that they wouldn’t have enough subjects for each group.

So few subjects were diagnosed or died? In the entire subject population—over 118,000 subjects followed for nine years—there were only 7,806 people diagnosed with CVD and only 529 deaths from CVD. Only? Most of the subjects were between 40 and 70, prime time for being diagnosed with some form of CVD.

When looking at the percentage of UPF-plant-sourced foods, the highest percentages were from industrialized packaged breads (9.9%),

pastries, buns, and cakes (6.9%) and biscuits (the kind called cookies in the U.S.) at 3.9%. That’s over half the amount of UPF-plant based foods on the list provided in the research paper. While wheat and other grains were certainly stripped of nutrients in the ultra-processing, that’s nothing new—that’s been happening to flour for over 100 years. What was missing were any fruits or vegetables processed in that manner.

The Bottom Line

Should you take the corn chips and vegan burgers out of your cart? Don’t get the impression that I think UPF plant-based foods should be eaten in mass quantities. I don’t. But I don’t think this study provided much direction in a reasonable response to the issue. On top of that, the analysis of the data may be just plain wrong. We’re not done yet, but we’ll get to that after the 4th of July. One more holiday challenge coming up on Tuesday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100948


Is Ultra-Processed Food Worthless?

/in /by

Ultra-processed food (UPF) has been in the news again: researchers have found a relationship between plant-based UPF and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Health news writers were brimming with opinions on what the study meant. The comment that got my attention was that UPF manufacturing destroyed good nutrients found in plant foods to the point that there was no benefit to eating them. For example, store-bought cereals and cookies are worthless no matter how much fruit or nuts are added.

Is that true?

Let’s begin by looking at the study. Researchers used data from the UK Biobank database. They selected only the participants who completed at least two 24-hour dietary recalls—118,397 subjects. All participants were part of the healthcare system in the UK, so the researchers were able to collect diagnostic and mortality data from electronic medical records.

Researchers divided the dietary data into four groups:

  • Non-UPF plant-sourced foods (fresh grapes or canned corn)
  • UPF plant-sourced foods (corn chips or vegan burgers)
  • Non-UPF animal-sourced foods (ground beef or canned tuna)
  • UPF animal-sourced foods (chicken nuggets or ice cream)

The two main findings were that the more UPF plant-sourced foods were eaten, the higher the risk of CVD and CVD mortality; second, the increase of non-UPF plant-sourced foods reduced the risk of CVD and mortality. I think those results were to be expected. In Saturday’s Memo, we’ll take a closer look at whether the expert diatribes about negating the benefits of UPF-plant-sourced foods were warranted.

Don’t forget that the Men’s Health Webinar is this Wednesday evening. If you want to participate, respond by tonight to get the login information. The live webinar is free.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100948