Use of Sports Supplements By Young Athletes

Are Sports Supplements Effective? Are They Safe?

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

plate-of-pills-200-300In recent years, the use of sports supplements by young athletes has increased dramatically. The most commonly used sports supplements among teenagers of all ages were vitamins and minerals, though “ergogenic aids” are used by some teen athletes specifically to enhance performance. Among these performance-enhancing supplements  are substances such as caffeine, creatine, ephedra and other stimulants, human growth hormone (HGH) and anabolic steroids.

Of the vitamin and mineral supplements, mutivitamins, vitamin C, calcium and iron were reported as being taken most often. While the risks of taking vitamin supplements is relatively low, there is some concern that young athletes may then progress to taking more dangerous substances under the impression that they are as harmless as vitamins and minerals. And while the risk of overdose with vitamins and minerals is low, it is not nonexistent, and some vitamins can be toxic when too much is taken (such as iron and vitamin A) or may interact with other vitamins or drugs.

Although many performance-enhancing supplements are advertised as being safe – especially those made from natural compounds –  a great number of them have not been tested by any regulatory agency, so their actual safety is not known. In addition, there are no formal guidelines for dosage in many cases, so there could be adverse side effects if too much is inadvertently taken.

The pressure to excel at sports is greater than ever, and there is increasing competition to get into elite sports programs where they have a better chance of being discovered by professional sports scouts looking for the next big star. The possibility of fame and fortune can be a strong enticement to young athletes to try performance-enhancing supplements to give them an edge over their competition. And often it is their coach that suggests or encourages this practice.

According to studies done on high school athletes, they report taking supplements to not only enhance performance, but also to encourage growth and muscle development, prevent illness and reduce fatigue. Supplement use was greatest among athletes who practiced two or more different sports and those who were required to “bulk up”, such as wrestlers and weight lifters.

While the opinions of friends, teammates and coaches were a big influence on the decision of young football players to take supplements (particularly creatine), it was their parents who had the greatest amount of influence on their decision. So it is incredibly important for parents to be educated as to the benefits and drawbacks of each of these supplements for young athletes.

The Bottom Line:

  • There is tremendous pressure on teenage athletes to qualify for elite programs that will increase their chances of being selected for the top college teams and eventually getting onto professional teams. Because of that, the use of sports supplements by teenage athletes is commonplace.
  • Vitamin and mineral supplements are generally harmless unless taken in excessive amounts.
  • Performance-enhancing sports supplements, on the other hand, are poorly regulated. Many are useless and others are potentially harmful. In next week’s “Health Tips From The Professor”, I’ll give you some examples of sports supplements you might want to avoid.
  • If you are the parent of a teen athlete, have a conversation with your child about supplements. Don’t lecture, but involve them in the process of doing research. You may be surprised what you both find.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Multivitamin Supplements May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality

Can A Multivitamin A Day Keep Breast Cancer At Bay?

 Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

3d rendered illustration - breast cancerA few weeks ago I wrote about soy and breast cancer survival. You’ve probably seen the latest headlines: “Multivitamin Supplements May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality” and are wondering if they could possibly be true. After all, wasn’t it just a short time ago that the headlines said “Multivitamin supplements have no effect on breast cancer mortality” or that “Multivitamins may increase your risk of death”?

With all the conflicting headlines, you have every right to be skeptical about the latest news. So perhaps we should start with looking at the previous studies and discussing why they disagree.

What do we know about multivitamin use and breast cancer survival?

 Three very large studies have reported no correlation between multivitamin use and breast cancer incidence. So it is pretty clear that multivitamins don’t prevent breast cancer.

However, breast cancer incidence and breast cancer survival are two different things. In the first case you are starting with healthy women and asking how many of them develop cancer. That is what we scientists call a primary prevention study. It is very difficult to prove the effectiveness of any intervention in a primary prevention study. In the second case you are starting with a sick population and asking if an intervention provides a benefit. It is much easier to prove whether or not an intervention is effective in this kind of study.

There, have been several small studies looking at the effect of vitamin supplementation in women who already had breast cancer. While the results have been mixed, the majority of the studies showed that vitamin supplementation did appear to reduce breast cancer recurrence and mortality.

What makes this study different?

The women in this study were part of 161,608 women enrolled the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study to investigate the effects of multivitamin use in post-menopausal women. In fact, this was one of the studies to report no effect of multivitamin use on the incidence of breast cancer (Neuhouser et al, Arch. Intern. Med., 169: 294-304, 2009).

What the present study did was to look at the those women in the WHI who did develop breast cancer during the previous study and followed them for an additional 7.9 years to see if multivitamin use affected breast cancer survival (Wasserthiel-Smoller et al, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 141: 495-505, 3013).

This is the largest study of its kind (7,728 women). It started with an older and sicker group of women than previous studies.  All of the women were 50-79 years old at the time the study began, and all of them had invasive breast cancer at the time of enrollment into the study.

The results were quite impressive. Multivitamin use improved survival by 30%, and the results were highly significant.

Strengths of the Study:

  • This was a large and very well controlled study. The authors did an excellent job of controlling for confounding variables that might have affected the outcome.
  • Multivitamin use was measured at multiple time points. It was assessed at enrollment into the original WHI study and at each subsequent doctor visit. The multivitamin usage for the purpose of data analysis was the usage at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, but the authors also corrected for any change in vitamin use post-diagnosis.
  • The study was in agreement with the majority of previous studies, further strengthening the conclusion that multivitamin use in women with breast cancer improves the likelihood of survival.

Weaknesses of the Study:

  • Because previous studies have been mixed with respect to the effect of multivitamins on breast cancer survival, further placebo controlled intervention studies will be required before multivitamin use becomes part of the standard of treatment for breast cancer patients.
  • Most of the women in the study were post-menopausal. It is unclear if multivitamins will provide the same benefit to pre-menopausal women with breast cancer.
  • This study measured consistent multivitamin use before and after the diagnosis of breast cancer. It did not look at women who began multivitamin use after diagnosis. So we have no idea whether starting multivitamin use after diagnosis would have also been beneficial.

The Bottom Line:

1)    This study strongly suggests that multivitamin use may help improve your chances of survival if you are unlucky enough to develop breast cancer.  While more studies are still needed, this study certainly strengthens the argument for multivitamin use.

2)    The rap on multivitamins has always been that they aren’t needed by healthy people who have a good diet. However, multivitamins are important for assuring good nutritional status if your diet is not optimal or if you have increased nutritional needs – either because of your genetic makeup or because of illness.

3)    The difficulty is that you usually don’t know if your genetics increases your vitamin needs, and once your disease has progressed far enough to be diagnosed it may be too late to improve disease outcome.  That’s why many experts consider a multivitamin supplement as an inexpensive form of nutritional and health insurance. I concur.

4)    As for the fear that multivitamins might just kill you, that hypothesis has been disproven by several subsequent studies including one published just a couple of weeks ago (Macpherson et al, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.o49304).

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Functional Fitness Training

Are You Doing Your Workouts Wrong?

Author: Kai Fusser, MS

man exercising weight training silhouetteWe’ve all heard about “functional exercises” by now, but what does functional fitness training really mean?

Playing a sport, doing yard work or even day to day activities, requires the whole body to move all at the same time. Do you know of any sport (with the possible exception of arm wrestling) where only part of the body is in action?

A good workout is the sum of all muscles in our body working together. Not only do they need to work together but also at the right time. This ensures great efficiency as the loads on the body are distributed throughout the whole system, every muscle does its part, and they all help each other. This requires the nervous system to be trained to give the command to each muscle to work at the right time and at the right “volume”. This can be learned and practiced.

Knowing this fact, it is hard to understand that anyone would want to work out on a machine. Most gyms are now stuffed with all those high tech, futuristic looking, color coordinated machines, some even come with a belt to buckle up. Seated or strapped in you immediately isolate part of your body, therefore that isolated part cannot help the part that has to perform the movement.

This teaches the nervous system the wrong pattern. Not only that, the guided motion in machines are mostly “one size fits all”, our joints all move in slightly different angles but the machine will keep them from moving freely so they are pressed into a motion different from your individual movement pattern. This can result in extra stress on the joints, the surrounding ligaments and tendons.

It will also neglect to strengthen the surrounding tissue and stabilizing muscles, as the guided motion will not require your body to stabilize that joint. This can result in injury latter on as the “machine strengthened” muscle will pull against the still weak surrounding stabilizing tissue.

So in order to get a fully functional body for our sport (or even yard work etc. for that matter) we need to exercise functionally. This means we need to be standing up and perform movements where our whole body is involved, using our own body weight, dumbbells, barbells, cables and balls, there are literally thousands of ways we can move our body functionally.

By the way, our body was designed to move freely since the beginning of time, so who ever came up with the idea of restricting our movement?

The Bottom Line:

Get up on your feet and either move an object or yourself, that’s what our ancestors did.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

Are Dietary Polyphenols Associated With Longevity?

Are Polyphenols The Fountain of Youth?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Merlot Grapes HDRYou’ve probably heard that resveratrol and other polyphenols in red wine can help mice live longer. But what about us? Are dietary polyphenols associated with longevity in humans?

Until recently nobody knew the answer to that question. However, a recent study (Zamora-Ros et al, J. Nutr. 143: 1445-1450, 2013) suggests that polyphenols may just help us live a bit longer.

Of course, the news headlines make it sound like a sure thing, and many of the manufacturers of polyphenol-containing supplements are already citing the study as “proof” that their products will make you live forever.

Polyphenols Are Everywhere:

So, let me give you some background information before I start diving into the study.

  • The term polyphenols includes some names you may recognize, such as flavonoids, isoflavones, anthrocyanidins and resveratrol, and many more that might look like the kind of names you might expect to find on a processed food label.
  • Polyphenols don’t just come from red wine. There are several hundred polyphenols in edible foods. Many fruits, vegetables (including beans like soybeans) and whole grains – the kinds of foods that every expert recommends for a healthy diet – are also great sources of polyphenols.
  • Most polyphenols are excellent antioxidants. Studies suggest that they may also exert antiinflammatory effects and may reduce the risk of heart disease, neurodegenerative disease and cancer. So it is not unreasonable to assume that they might enhance longevity.

An In-Depth Analysis Of The Study:

The study enrolled 807 men and women over the age of 65 (average age = 74, range = 67-81) from the Chianti region of Italy and followed them for 12 years. At the beginning of the study polyphenol intake of the participants was analyzed from a dietary recall form (polyphenol intake based on what they remembered eating) and from a 24 hour urine specimen (actual polyphenol intake).

During the 12 year follow-up, 34% of the participants died. Based on the dietary recall, there was no association between dietary polyphenol intake and mortality. However, based on urinary polyphenol content there was a 30% decrease in mortality for those with the highest dietary polyphenol intake (>650 mg/day) compared to those with the lowest polyphenol intake (<500 mg/day).

Strengths of the Study:

  • This is the very first study to actually investigate the relationship between dietary polyphenols and longevity in a meaningful way. The study was well designed and well executed.
  • The measurement of urinary polyphenol content is a strength of this study. Dietary recalls are often inaccurate. In fact, this study suggests that dietary recalls should probably not be used to estimate dietary polyphenol intake in future studies.

Weaknesses of the Study:

  • This was a first study of its kind, and like any other first study it needs to be confirmed by additional studies.
  • The study only measured associations, not cause and effect. Of course, it would be almost impossible to conduct a double blind, placebo controlled study of this duration – especially if one is using urinary excretion as a measure of polyphenol intake.
  • The study did not report the dietary sources of the polyphenols, although this information was presumably available from the dietary recalls. Because the study was conducted in the Chianti region of Italy it is probably pretty safe to assume that red wine contributed to the polyphenol intake. However, people in that region of Italy also tend to consume diets rich in fruits and vegetables. Hopefully, future studies will help determine whether some polyphenols are more important for longevity than others.

The Bottom Line:

1)     Eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. They’ll make you healthier, and you just may live longer.

2)     If you like red wine, drink it in moderation. Just don’t assume that it can substitute for a healthy diet. This study measured total polyphenols, not just red wine polyphenols.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Is There Really Such A Thing A Positive Stress?

Stress Can Be Your Friend

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

Motorbike racing on the track.Do you consider yourself an optimist or a pessimist? When the going gets tough, the optimists among you can take heart—new research that has found that viewing stress positively can be of benefit to both the mind and body.

When the brain perceives stress (either physical or psychological), it reacts by releasing cortisol, adrenaline and norepinephrine to prepare the body for a “fight or flight” response. Fortunately for us, this response is not triggered in most people today as frequently as it once was or for the same kinds of reasons.

After all, relatively few of us are in life-threatening situations on a regular basis. Today’s “modern” stresses are more likely to be caused by wrestling with the IRS, trying to escape a traffic jam or competing with a coworker for a promotion.

It is interesting to note that stress, in itself, is not necessarily a negative thing. It is how we perceive it that makes it either good or bad for us. This is a hopeful discovery, as most people have only limited control over how much stress they experience. The everyday stresses of modern life are difficult to escape. But if we can train our minds to view them as a challenge rather than a threat, it could actually help to bring about better health.

Scientists from a handful of universities, including Yale University and Columbia University, examined the effects of stress on 300 investment bankers who had just emerged from a round of layoffs (I know it’s difficult to feel bad for the stress of investment bankers, but stay with me here). In the study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, scientists divided the participants into two groups, and tried to alter the perception of half of them to view stress as debilitating and the other half to view it as an enhancement.

The first half of the participants were shown videos of people succumbing to stress. The other half were shown videos of people meeting challenges, such as sports figures accomplishing a difficult goal. The results showed that those who had a more optimistic view of stress had fewer health problems, including headaches and muscle pain, and performed better at work than the pessimistic group. In addition, levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) were lower in those who viewed stress as potentially enhancing.

There is actually a term for positive stress, called eustress, which was coined by endocrinologist Hans Selye in the 1970s. It has been proven that stress in moderation improves cognitive performance and improves memory.

Good stress involves the kind of challenges where we feel that we are in control and are accomplishing something. It boosts the immune system and can improve heart function. So eliminating all stress from our lives is probably not a good idea.

The stress to watch out for is the chronic, long-term emotional stress, which causes stress hormones to remain at persistently high levels, leading to many chronic ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure and depression.

However, viewing certain stressors as challenges rather than threats can be a positive thing and can help ensure that you have a healthy, satisfying and exciting life.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Soy And Breast Cancer Recurrence

The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

 Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

SoybeanYou’ve probably heard the warnings: “Soy may increase the risk of breast cancer!” “Women with breast cancer shouldn’t use soy!”

The first warning was never true. Numerous clinical studies have shown that consumption of soy protein is associated with a lower risk of developing breast cancer.

Furthermore, the science behind the second warning has never been very strong. The concerns that soy might stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells was based primarily on cell culture experiments and one experiment in mice – even though a second experiment in mice came to the exact opposite conclusion.

Was The Hypothesis That Soy Could Increase The Risk Of Breast Cancer Recurrence Plausible?

The possibility that soy isoflavones could stimulate the growth of estrogen- responsive breast cancer was biochemically plausible because soy isoflavones bind to the estrogen receptor and have a very weak stimulatory effect (much weaker than estrogen itself).

Even that evidence was not definitive because soy isoflavones also turn on several tumor suppressor pathways in breast cells and help strengthen the immune system – so they could just as easily inhibit the growth of breast cancer cells.

However, because the concerns were plausible and had not been definitively disproved, most experts, including me, recommended for several years that women with estrogen- responsive breast cancer might want to avoid soy protein.

Has The Hypothesis Been Rigorously Tested?

In fact, the definitive clinical studies have been performed, and it turns out for women who are breast cancer survivors, consumption of soy foods does not increase either the risk of breast cancer recurrence or of dying from breast cancer.

The first of these studies was reported in the December 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association by researchers at Vanderbilt University and Shanghai Institute of Preventive Medicine (Shu et al, JAMA, 302: 2437-2443, 2009).

It was a large, well designed, study that enrolled 5042 Chinese women aged 20 to 75 years old who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and followed them for an average period of 3.9 years.

The women were divided into four groups based on the soy content of their diet (ranging from 5 grams/day to 15 grams/day). The results were clear cut. Breast cancer survivors with the highest soy intake had 25% less chance of breast cancer recurrence and 25% less chance of dying from breast cancer than the women with the lowest soy intake.

The effect was equally strong for women with estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor negative cancers, for early stage and late stage breast cancer and for pre- and post-menopausal women. In short this was a very robust study.

The study also showed that soy protein intake did not interfere with tamoxifen, a drug that blocks the binding of estrogen to its receptor on cancer cells. Tamoxifen is used for both for treating estrogen-responsive breast cancer and preventing its recurrence. In this study, the reduction in the risk of breast cancer recurrence & death was just as great whether the breast cancer survivors were taking tamoxifen or not.

In fact, tamoxifen was protective only for women with low soy intake. It conferred no extra protection for the women at the highest level of soy intake because the soy isoflavones were also blocking the binding of estrogen to its receptor.

Other Clinical Studies

If that were the only published clinical study to test the soy-breast cancer hypothesis, I and other experts would be very cautious about making definitive statements. However, at least four more clinical studies have been published since then, both in Chinese and American populations. The studies have either shown no significant effect of soy on breast cancer recurrence or a protective effect. None of them have shown any detrimental effects of soy consumption by breast cancer survivors.

A meta-analysis of all 5 studies was published earlier this year (Chi et al, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev., 14: 2407-2412, 2013). This study combined the data from 11,206 breast cancer survivors in the US and China. Those with the highest soy consumption had a 23% decrease in recurrence and a 15% decrease in mortality from breast cancer.

The Bottom Line:

What does this mean for you if you are a breast cancer survivor?

1)     There are many reasons to include soy protein foods as part of a healthy diet. Soy foods are one of the highest quality vegetable protein sources and provide a great alternative to many of the high fat, high cholesterol animal proteins in the American diet.

2)     I personally feel that these studies are clear cut enough that breast cancer survivors no longer need to fear soy protein as part of a healthy diet.

3)     The responsible websites agree with this assessment. For example, WebMD and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) both say that breast cancer survivors need no longer worry about eating moderate amounts of soy foods.

4)     The irresponsible websites (I won’t name names, but you know who they are) are still warning breast cancer survivors to avoid soy completely. As a scientist I really have problem with people who are unwilling to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

5)     Of course, some of those bloggers have now shifted their arguments to say that it is unfermented or genetically modified soy that causes breast cancer. Those statements are equally bogus – but that’s another story for another time.

6)     Finally, I want to emphasize that the published studies merely show that soy does not increase the risk of breast cancer and is safe to use for breast cancer survivors. None of those studies suggest that soy is an effective treatment for breast cancer. The protective effects of soy are modest at best. If you have breast cancer, consult with your physician about the best treatment options for you.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

How to turn everyday activities into high calorie burning activities

Burn Lots Of Calories Without Going To The Gym

Author: Kai Fusser, MS

Mowing_LawnAny physical activity will burn calories. The question is “How can we maximize the amount of calories burned? How can we burn lots of calories from everyday activities –without ever going to the gym?

Let’s take some everyday activities like washing your car, mowing the lawn, yard work, going up stairs etc., these all burn a good amount of calories as you are using your whole body.

Now to maximize the amount of calories burned we need to understand a formula:

Power = Work / Time

This means that the less time you take to complete a certain activity the more power output you produce and the more calories you burn. So there is a big difference in power output if you wash your car in 45 min. or do the same job in 25 min. Or if you mow a ¼ acre yard in 60 min. verses in 40 min. (no riding mower please…).

With that in mind you can burn up to twice as many calories performing the same activity just by “speeding it up”.

Another factor is that our body reacts and changes much better to intensity rather than duration. It’s also better for our cardiovascular system as your heart rate has to adapt to the demand of the intensity of the activity.

So let’s get your chores done “faster” (while still maintaining quality and safety) and you not only burn more calories but also have time for other activities and score points with your significant other.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Decrease Risk Of Depression In Women?

Do Happy Fish Make Happy Women?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Woman playing with autumn leaves The days are getting shorter, and those shorter days can lead to depression. You may have seen the recent headlines saying “Omega-3 fatty acids may decrease the risk of depression in women”. If you suffer from seasonal depression, should you be stocking up on fish oil capsules? Let’s look at the study behind the headlines.

The Theory Behind The Study

Depression appears to be increasing in modern society. For example, between 1991 and 2002, the prevalence of major depression has more than doubled in the United States from 3.3% to 7.1%.

There are many causes of depression, but some experts blame the dramatic increase in omega-6 fatty acids in the diet.  For example, per capita consumption of soybean oil, much of it in processed foods, has increased 1000-fold during the past century. That’s a concern because omega-6 fatty acids interfere with the body’s ability to convert vegetable sources of omega-3 fatty acids into the longer chain omega-3 fatty acids thought to be effective in reducing depression.

This has lead to the hypothesis that omega-3 fatty acids in the diet may help prevent depression, and a number of clinical studies have supported that hypothesis.

How Was The Study Designed?

The study (M. A. Beydoun et al, J. Nutr., doi: 10.3945/jn.113.179119, 2013) looked at 1,746 adults age 30-64 living in Baltimore Maryland. The participants were a representative sample of African Americans and whites, men and women. Omega-3 fatty acid intake was based on two 24-hour dietary recalls. Depressive symptoms were based on something called CES-D, which is a 20 item, self-reporting symptom rating scale.

What Did The Study Actually Show?

The results were pretty dramatic for women:

  • Women with the highest intake of omega-3 fatty acids/day were 49% less likely to suffer from depression than women with the lowest intake.
  • No significant effect of omega-3 fatty acid intake on the prevalence of depression was seen for the men in this study. This was the first study to look at men and women separately, so it’s not yet clear whether this is a true sex-specific difference or simply due to the relatively small sample size and reduced incidence of depression in men.

Limitations Of The Study:

There were numerous limitations to this study, but the most important were:

  • It did not ask whether the participants were taking fish oil supplements, and it did not substantiate the dietary recalls by measuring actual levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood.
  • It just measured associations, not cause and effect.

The Bottom Line:

This is not a particularly strong study, but it is consistent with a least half a dozen other studies that have obtained similar results. So, based on the total body of published studies my recommendations are:

1)     If you are a woman and you’re suffering from mild depression you might want to talk with your doctor about increasing your omega-3 fatty acid intake before you start taking an anti-depressive medication. Omega-3 fatty acids may reduce heart disease risk, lower inflammation and provide other benefits. The drugs generally have side effects rather than side benefits.

2)    We don’t have any good data yet on what dose of omega-3 fatty acids are needed, but the 500-1,000 mg/day that the NIH recommends for heart health might be a good starting place.

3)     If you’re a guy, this paper suggests that the jury is out about whether omega-3s can help you with depression. More studies will be required. In the meantime, just remember that omega-3s have lots of other health benefits.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Calculating Your Target Heart Rate

Getting The Most Out Of Your Exercise

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

treadmill-heart-rate-200-300Finding the body’s target heart rate (THR) is essential for those interested in maximizing the effectiveness of their workouts and training programs and reducing the risk of overexertion.

The Simple Method For Calculating Your Target Heart Rate

There is an easy method for determining your THR: Start by subtracting your age from 220 (226 for women); this will provide your estimated maximum heart rate (MHR). Multiply your MHR by the percentages listed for the appropriate exercise zone from the list below.

  • Healthy Heart – For low-intensity exercises and warm ups. The THR for this zone is 50%-60% of the MHR.
  • Fitness – For more intense but generally low to moderate effort exercises. The THR for this zone is 60%-70% of the MHR.
  • Aerobic – This zone helps build endurance and increases the strength and size of your heart. It also improves your cardiovascular and respiratory system. The THR for this zone is 70%-80% of the MHR.
  • Anaerobic – For performance training. This zone increases the amount of oxygen you can consume during physical exertion. The THR for this zone is 80%-90% of the MHR.
  • Red Line – For maximum intensity exercises that burn the most calories. The THR for this zone is 90%-100% of the MHR. This level should only be attempted by those in excellent shape who have been cleared by a physician or qualified medical examiner.

So, for example, a 40-year-old woman who wishes to find her THR for a fitness zone program would use the following equation: (226 – 40) X 60% = 111 (low end) and (226 – 40) X 70% = 130 (high end). Therefore, as long as she maintains her heart rate between 111 beats per minute (bpm) and 130 bpm, the woman is at the proper target heart rate for maximum exercise efficiency and safety.

A More Accurate Method

A more accurate method for determining your THR is the Karvonen formula, but this requires that you determine your resting heart rate (RHR) and your heart rate reserve (HRR). Measure your resting pulse (your heart rate just as you wake up) three mornings in a row. Your RHR is the average of these three readings (add the readings and divide by three). Your HRR is your MHR minus your RHR. Once you have calculated your HRR, multiply it by the percentages for the zone you want to target for and add the RHR. The equations are as follows:

MHR = 220 (or 226 for women) – age (in years)
RHR = average resting heart rate (average of 3 readings)
HRR = MHR – RHR
THR = (HRR * target zone percentage) + RHR

So for our hypothetical 40-year-old woman targeting a fitness zone…

MHR = 226 – 40 = 186.
RHR = (64 + 62 + 63)/3 = 63
HRR = 186 – 63 = 123
THR = (123 * 60%) + 63 = 137 (for the low end) and (123 * 70%) + 63 = 149 (for the high end)

If you have any doubts or questions about the proper method for determining your THR, ask your chiropractor, physical therapist or doctor for help.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Do Statins Decrease Or Increase The Risk Of Parkinson’s Disease?

The Fine Print Behind The Misleading Headline

 Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 Human NeuronsI hadn’t paid much attention to the headlines saying “Statin Use May Decrease Parkinson’s Risk” until the other day when I happened to glance a couple of lines below the headline and spotted a statement saying “Study Shows That Discontinuation of Statin Therapy Increases Risk of Parkinson’s”.

 I immediately said to myself “That’s bizarre. There is a total disconnect between the headlines and the study.” If you really wanted to determine whether statin use reduced the risk of Parkinson’s, you would compare the incidence of Parkinson’s disease in a group of statin users and a matched group who did not use statins.

It turns out those studies have been done, and they were inconclusive – some studies showed a slight increase in Parkinson’s in statin users, some showed a slight decrease, and most showed no correlation between statin use and Parkinson’s.

In that context, this study could equally well have been interpreted as suggesting that statin use increased the risk of Parkinson’s, but somehow none of the headlines mentioned that possibility.

Are Both Possibilities Plausible?

 Let’s look at each possibility in detail. The reasoning is complex, but let me try to walk you through it.

 Could Statins Decrease The Risk Of Parkinson’s

 Parkinson’s is caused by the progressive degeneration of the brain neurons that produce a chemical messenger called dopamine that controls muscle movement. However, the causes of nerve degeneration in Parkinson’s patients are largely unknown.

Genetics may play a small role. Environmental toxins may play a role. But most experts feel that Parkinson’s patients produce an excess of free radicals, and it is the oxidative damage caused by those free radicals that results in the loss of the ability of neurons to produce dopamine.

But even that is not the whole answer. The brain is normally able to use coenzyme Q10, which is very abundant in brain, and other antioxidants to destroy free radicals before they damage brain neurons. Somehow in Parkinson’s patients free radical production and antioxidant production have gotten out of balance.

Advocates of the theory that statins may decrease the risk of Parkinson’s, point out that statins decrease oxidative damage. So if a person was predisposed to developing Parkinson’s and oxidative damage is a major cause of Parkinson’s, it is theoretically possible that statins could slow the progression to Parkinson’s while they were taking the drug. Of course, once they stopped taking the drug the oxidative damage to dopamine-producing neurons would resume and Parkinson’s would eventually develop.

In this model- Let’s call it Model A:

1)     Oxidative damage of dopamine-producing neurons was caused by some unspecified external agent.

2)     Statins protected the neurons from oxidative damage while they were being used.

3)     Once the statin drugs were discontinued oxidative damage resumed and the risk of developing Parkinson’s increased.

This is the model favored by the authors and repeated in all of the headlines you saw.

Could Statins Increase The Risk Of Parkinson’s?

Statins also interfere with the synthesis of cholesterol and coenzyme Q10, and these are both absolutely essential for brain function. Let’s start with cholesterol:

  •  20% of the body’s membrane cholesterol is found in the myelin sheath that coats the brain’s neurons (You can think of the myelin sheath as analogous to the plastic coating that insulates an electrical wire).
  • Cholesterol can’t cross the blood-brain barrier, which means that the brain cannot utilize cholesterol from the bloodstream . It has to make its own cholesterol.

As for coenzyme Q10:

  • It is not only a powerful antioxidant. It is also absolutely essential for cellular energy production.
  • The brain has tremendous energy requirements. The brain accounts for 20% of the energy utilization of our body. Neurons burn 2 times more energy than other cells in our body.

For both of these reasons, many experts have cautioned that statin drugs have the potential to cause neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.  In this model – Lets call it model B:

1)     The statin drugs themselves are damaging the dopamine-producing neurons by inhibiting cholesterol and coenzyme Q10 synthesis in the brain.

2)     The antioxidant effects of the statin drugs were masking the damage caused by the statins while the drugs were being used.

3)     Once the statin drugs were discontinued the underlying damage was unmasked and the patients quickly developed Parkinson’s.

What Did The Study Actually Show?

The study (Lee et al, Neurology, 81: 410-416, 2013) looked at 43,810 statin users on the island of Taiwan. The Taiwanese Health System keeps extensive records of prescription use and health conditions of everyone on the island. It also requires that statin use be discontinued as soon as the patient reach their target of < 100 mg/dL LDL cholesterol, so they had the perfect population base to study what happens when you discontinue statin therapy.

The results were:

  • The patients who discontinued statin therapy were 42% less likely to develop Parkinson’s that those who continued on statin therapy. That result is consistent with both models A & B.
  • The increased risk of developing Parkinson’s when the drug was discontinued was only seen for the statin drugs like simvastatin and atorvastatin that are able to cross the blood brain barrier. That result is actually a bit more consistent with model B (Remember that the brain has to be able to make its own cholesterol and statins block cholesterol production).
  • When the study compared people using statin drugs to those not using statin drugs there was no significant difference in the prevalence of Parkinson’s – even for those statin drugs that cross the blood brain barrier. That means that merely being on a statin drug did not influence the risk of developing Parkinson’s. It was only when patients were on statin drugs for a period of time and were subsequently taken off statins that the risk of developing Parkinson’s was affected – and the effect was to increase risk! In the context of the first two findings, that result is also a bit more consistent with model B.

The Bottom Line:

If I were writing one of those medical blogs, I would have probably have gone with the party line and told you that statins decrease your risk of developing Parkinson’s. And if I were one of those health bloggers who never let the facts get in the way of a good story, I’d probably be scaring you with headlines saying that statins increase your risk of Parkinson’s.

But, I’m a scientist. I actually read the article, and I tell it to you like it is. Here’s your bottom line.

1)     Ignore the headlines. The study they are talking about can’t distinguish between statins increasing or decreasing the risk of Parkinson’s. Don’t let anyone tell you that reducing the risk of Parkinson’s is a side benefit of statin therapy. That simply has not been proven.

2)     The study does clearly show that discontinuing the statin drugs simvastatin and atorvastatin is associated with increased risk of developing Parkinson’s. That’s a big red flag for me, because 53% of patients discontinue statin therapy because of side effects, cost or other reasons.

3)     However, statin drugs do save lives, especially for people who have already had a heart attack, so talk with your doctor about the benefits and risks of statin drugs, and which statin drugs are best for you.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.