Showing posts with label Disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disease. Show all posts

Thursday, July 4, 2013

RHR: Diagnosing and Treating Lyme Disease

the podcast logo

There are few subjects in medicine more controversial than Lyme disease. In this episode, I discuss the issues surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme with Dr. Sunjya Schweig, a functional medicine physician who specializes in tick-borne illness.

In this episode, we cover:

2:33 How Dr. Sunjya Schweig started treating Lyme Disease
5:29 What is Lyme Disease (and the Controversy Surrounding It)?
12:55 De-mystifying the Testing and Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
24:01 Promising New Lyme Disease Testing Solutions
34:37 What to do if You Think You Have Lyme Disease
38:58 Steps for Preventing Lyme Disease
44:07 What Are Effective Lyme Disease Treatment Options?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Steve Wright:  Hey, everyone.  Welcome to another episode of the Revolution Health Radio Show.  This show is brought to you by ChrisKresser.com, and I’m your host, Steve Wright from SCDLifestyle.com.  Now, with me is integrative medical practitioner and healthy skeptic Chris Kresser.  So Chris, how’s your day going?

Chris Kresser:  It’s great.  Another beautiful day here in California, and I’m really busy these days finishing up the book, which is exciting but time consuming.  And I’m really excited about our guest today.  His name is Dr. Sunjya Schweig, and he is a functional medicine physician out here in California that specializes in the treatment of Lyme disease, which we’ve talked about a few times but haven’t covered in depth.  Sunjya has become also a friend lately, and we’ve had a number of conversations about it personally, and so I thought it would be great to bring him on the show to get the perspective of someone who is kind of on the ground treating Lyme on a daily basis.  So yeah, we’re going to introduce him here in a second, just after the intro.

Steve Wright:  Yeah, I’m pretty excited because I have a number of really close friends who’ve been affected by Lyme disease, and so I’ve seen the devastation that it can cause firsthand.  So I’m excited for this show, and I also just want to let the listeners know that I’m coming to you live right now from Jordan’s closet in Montana, so I’m joining you, Chris, with recording in a closet for the first time.

Chris Kresser:  Awesome.

Steve Wright:  So if the sound quality’s a little off this week or if it’s a little better, I guess we’re going to learn something from this show.

OK, so before we bring on the doctor, I just want to tell everybody who’s listening to this show, if this is your first time listening to the Revolution Health Radio Show, you’re probably going to want to check out what over 30,000 other people have already signed up for.  It’s Chris’ 13-part, free email series called Beyond Paleo.  Now, this email series is Chris’ best tips and tricks for burning fat, boosting energy, and preventing and reversing disease without drugs.  So if this sounds cool, go over to ChrisKresser.com, look for the big red box, and go ahead and put your name and email in that box.  And when you sign up, Chris is going to start sending you those emails right away this week.

OK, Chris, are we ready to bring on our guest?

Chris Kresser:  Let’s do it.  OK, everyone, so I’d like to introduce Sunjya Schweig.  He’s a functional medicine physician here in Northern California, and we’re excited to have him on the show to talk to us a little bit about Lyme disease, which is, as we’ve discussed before, a very controversial topic.  But before we do that, Sunjya, maybe you could just introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your background, how you got interested in functional medicine, and in particular, how you got involved in treating Lyme disease.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Sure.  Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on the show.  It’s a pleasure to be here.  My journey into medicine, I was always pretty focused on practicing and learning complementary, alternative, integrative medicine, even from before I went to medical school.  And so when I did enter med school at UC Irvine, I went there specifically because they actually have a growing integrative medicine program and so I was pretty active during medical school with integrative medicine education and designing and leading courses, and I followed that through into residency when I went to UCSF Santa Rosa Family Practice Program.  And I knew the whole time that I really pretty much had to end up practicing integrative medicine, otherwise I wasn’t going to last.  Just from everything I had experienced growing up and prior life experience told me that that was the best way to do it, and combining the integrative alternative side with a good, solid Western science background really made sense, too.  And so through residency I continued to do that allopathic Western medicine route, but whenever I could, I would do electives in integrative medicine and go and precept or shadow integrative doctors in the area, go to conferences, do reading, whatever I could figure out to bring it all together.  And then as soon as I finished residency, I jumped right into working in an integrative medicine practice up on Sonoma County, which I’ve been doing ever since.

And originally, a big part of what got me into looking at and working with Lyme disease was when my wife was diagnosed with it.  In addition, about 6 or 8 months later, we also found out that my stepmother also had Lyme.  And watching them go through their treatment courses with this really pushed me to dive pretty deeply into the research and into the information behind all of it.

Chris Kresser:  So let’s just dive in and start talking about this crazy thing called Lyme disease.  As you and I have discussed, Sunjya, and as we’ve talked about on the show, there’s really a broad spectrum of perspectives on Lyme disease.  On the one end of the extreme, you have perhaps the CDC perspective that chronic Lyme is a myth and doesn’t exist, and there’s just an acute infection that happens with Lyme disease.  And they recognize that some people with acute Lyme may have chronic symptoms, but they don’t believe that it’s associated with a continuing Lyme infection.  And then on the other end of the spectrum you have some people, primarily you’ll find them on the Internet, claiming that nearly everyone has chronic Lyme or just about symptom that someone might experience is due to chronic Lyme, and it’s become a little bit of a fad diagnosis in a way.  So let’s maybe just start from the beginning and talk a little bit about what Lyme is and maybe explore it as an organism and just talk about some basics on Lyme, and then we can go into this controversy in a little bit more detail.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Sure.  Yeah, that’s sounds good.  And I think that’s a good frame.  The degree and depth of the controversy that exists in this country is fairly staggering on both sides, so I think that’s definitely a good topic of discussion.  But what is Lyme disease?  In the very specific sense, if we’re talking about Lyme disease, it refers specifically to a bacteria called Borrelia burgdorferi, which is a spirochete bacteria and is transmitted by tick bite, and if you go further into the controversial end of things, there is discussion about other modes of transmission, but the best documented, best known route of transmission is by a tick bite, and usually it’s the black-legged tick, whether it’s the Ixodes scapularis or the Ixodes pacificus.  Scapularis is on the East Coast more, and the pacificus is out here on the West Coast.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, literally right outside my door!

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  As we discovered the other day!

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  That’s right.  So technically Lyme disease refers to the infection with that one spirochete bacteria and its possible sequelae.  And what’s not controversial is that people can get bitten by a tick, they can have transmission of this bacteria, and they can become sick from it in the acute phase.  And it can cause fever, headaches, malaise, flu-like symptoms, migratory joint pain, pain that starts in one knee and then moves to one shoulder and then moves to an elbow and then to a hand or an ankle.  There are very few things that do that other than Lyme disease.  And we’ll talk more, I’m sure, but where the controversy sort of builds is as to whether this bacteria could potentially be passed to somebody and then not necessarily cause a big acute symptom picture but instead lay dormant and then at some time point in the future – and that time point, depending on who you talk to, could be anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, up to 10 or 15 years – it might sort of rear its head and start causing symptoms.

The name “Lyme disease” comes from Lyme, Connecticut, where this syndrome or this disease was first “discovered” really by the advocacy and insistence of parents back there who realized in the late ’70s and early ’80s that there were just way too many people and way too many kids who had this illness.  And so by their persistence and demanding and cajoling, they managed to get an investigation of that with the CDC and various rheumatologists, and this was sort of “discovered.”  I’m using that with quotes because there’s a lot of history behind that that actually contributes to the controversy that we see now, but we can get into that in a little bit.

So that’s specifically Lyme disease.  It is one bacteria.  But I think, in a broader sense, in a societal way, it’s used to kind of talk about something quite a bit broader, which is this general illness syndrome, which also can include what we call co-infections, which are other bacteria or parasites that could possibly have been passed along with that tick bite.  And unfortunately, there were many.  Ticks are pretty much laden with a bunch of different pathogens.  So there are those specific infections, which can be tricky to diagnose properly.  And then there’s sort of this more global decrease of function, like, does it contribute to illnesses like chronic fatigue or fibromyalgia.  When you have some of these infections, it can really take your immune system offline in a lot of significant ways.  And there are some pretty severe increases of autoimmune activation that can occur.  And there’s discussion as to whether it’s also contributing to some pretty major illnesses in our society, such as MS or ALS or maybe even Parkinson’s.  There’s a pretty well-known researcher who is highly reputable who has shown that in a fairly high percentage of Alzheimer’s patients you can isolate the Borrelia burgdorferi spirochete from the amyloid plaque lesions in their brains.  So it’s a pretty big web that this thing might be casting, and it gets really difficult to tease out, like you mentioned, what’s real, what’s going on, and what’s the actual scope of this issue.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.  Just to emphasize this again, there really is no part of this discussion that isn’t controversial, whether you’re talking about the diagnostic procedures, which we can get into in a little bit, whether you’re talking about the symptoms and then the co-infections and diagnosing them and what they’re capable of causing.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Right.

Chris Kresser:  And whether Lyme is increasing in prevalence.  I mean, it’s really just a remarkably polarized issue that gets incredibly heated and almost violent types of disagreement, which is unfortunate because patients or the general public are the people who really suffer from that, who are just trying to get some information and learn about a condition that they feel like they might be affected by.

Let’s maybe talk a little bit about diagnosis, and that will, I think, serve as a doorway into some of this controversy.  What are the tests as a clinician that you rely on to diagnose Lyme disease?  And then how does that differ from, say, the criteria that the CDC lays out for diagnosing Lyme?  And then maybe we can talk a little bit about some of the newer tests that are becoming available and what some of the issues with those are.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Sure.  That sounds good.  I’m actually going to turn that around.  I want to talk first about the mainstream CDC criteria and diagnostic recommendations as a starting point, and then I’ll kind of jump off into some of the ways that’s not ideal and then some of the stuff that we’re using.

Basically, if you go to your regular doctor and you have a documented tick bite, and let’s say you even have the bull’s-eye rash, which is stereotypical, which does not happen in all patients.  It probably only happens in about maybe 30% to 50%.  So if you go in and there’s a suspicion for Lyme and your doctor agrees to test you, the recommended testing is what’s called a two-tiered test, which means that they run what’s called an ELISA antibody test first, and then only if that’s positive does the test reflex over to do what’s called a Western blot test.

If you look at the research literature on this methodology, unfortunately the false negative rate is anywhere from 33% to 75% by that two-tiered testing criteria.  And there are a number of reasons for that.  On the one hand, a certain percentage of people are lucky enough to mount a robust antibody response and then that shows up on the blood test.  A significant amount of people are not.  And it also has been shown that the longer you’re sick with this and the longer it’s been since you were actually exposed, you’re actually less likely to show an antibody response because of the way the bacteria can evade the immune system.  These are what are called stealth pathogens, and they’re actually remarkably well designed to persist and to hide from the immune system.  So after a while, your body kind of gives up and stops making antibodies.  And the corollary of that is actually when you treat somebody and you test them after you’ve been treating them, frequently their tests will turn positive as the immune system sees the bacteria again.

So the two-tiered testing has a pretty high false-negative rate.  And if you do sort of make it through the first gate and you have a positive ELISA and then you do the Western blot, the CDC has set up this criteria wherein certain antibodies that you’re making are considered specific, and certain other ones are not, and they require that you have a certain pattern and a specific number of these different antibodies in order to qualify for a positive test.  And there’s a lot of controversy about which ones they chose and which ones they didn’t.  Back in the ’80s, they had developed a Lyme vaccine, which has been since taken off the market because of some fairly severe side effects that people were developing, but they changed the test once they did that, and they excluded certain bands which would have been positive as a result of the vaccine.

Chris Kresser:  And were highly specific to Lyme, those particular bands.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Right, very specific to Lyme.  And the other problem with the test is that there’s one kit that’s used that has been approved by the FDA and the CDC, and that kit has one strain of the bacteria, and it is the Lyme Connecticut strain.  Worldwide, there are probably 300 different strains of this bacteria, and some really interesting cutting-edge research is coming out of California as we’re seeing what were thought to be only European strains.  We’re seeing them showing up here.  So Borrelia bissettii, Borrelia miyamotoi, and all sorts of other Borrelia bacteria, like Borrelia hermsii, which causes more of a tick-borne relapsing fever picture, which we’re seeing if we know to look for them.  However, that one test kit is not going to pick those up because those antibodies are different.  So there are a number of reasons why the testing is problematic.

Chris Kresser:  Most of which the CDC does not acknowledge.  From their perspective, their testing is accurate.  From what I’ve seen, they don’t really admit to many of these deficiencies.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  They don’t admit to it publicly, but there is actually a fairly robust, behind-the-scenes discussion going on.  It’s pretty widely recognized that the testing is inadequate, and I think most scientists agree with that.  But what to do about it is controversial.  The data that’s coming out about these other forms of Borrelia is pretty good, hard science, and they’re not disputing that, and so I think what they’re trying to do is just figure out what to do about it.  Both myself and my wife Lia are fairly deeply involved with Lyme research and Lyme advocacy, and it’s just an actually very, very exciting movement going on in the field right now where we’re seeing a real big upsurge in the last year and a half or so in people who either have funding or have access to funding or have connections in the scientific world, and we’re starting this see this real push towards trying to build a better diagnostic and trying to build better treatment protocols, so it’s definitely an exciting movement, but we’re really playing catch-up, and it’s going to definitely be kind of a trickle-down situation.  The level of disinformation that exists in the mainstream medical community is fairly shocking, and I still get a lot of people who come to me and say:  Well, my doctor said we don’t have Lyme in California so I couldn’t have Lyme.

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  If you go the California Department of Public Health, the statistics are super, super clear on the prevalence with the Ixodes pacificus tick being found in 56 out of 58 of California counties and ticks testing positive for Borrelia burgdorferi in 42 out of 58 of the counties.  And when they do tick sweeps, they’re showing actual infection of those ticks at a rate of anywhere from 1% up to sometimes as high at 33% or even 41% in some areas of Mendocino County.

Chris Kresser:  That is truly frightening.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yes, I agree.

Chris Kresser:  I mean, it’s really a serious issue for people living in those places, and you know this better than I do since you treat people regularly who are suffering from Lyme disease.  Within the Lyme community, it’s something that’s talked about a lot, of course, but outside of the Lyme community, I don’t think very many people are aware that if they go on a walk in a place like Mendocino and they get bitten by a tick that there’s that level of risk that that tick could transmit Lyme disease.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah.  That’s absolutely accurate.  And there’s also some misinformation in terms of what it actually takes for a tick to transmit the bacteria.  The standard information that we get from the Department of Public Health or the CDC is that the tick has to be attached for, they say, usually greater than 48 or 72 hours in order for it to transmit the bacteria.  However, that data was off of some veterinary studies and doesn’t necessarily apply the same way to humans.  I think it’s kind of a bell curve.  I think on average it might take that long, especially if a tick hasn’t fed in a long time and all the bacteria is kind of hiding out in its hind gut, but if a tick has fed more recently or in circumstances we don’t quite understand yet, I’ve seen, for example, a patient of mine who came in.  He had gone kayaking.  He hiked in with his kayak at 9 in the morning, he hiked out at 6 p.m., and in the shower that night he found a tick and he removed it, and he developed a bulls-eye rash and Lyme symptoms.  So that’s a tick attached for about 8 hours.

Chris Kresser:  Wow.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  So yeah, there’s a lot of misinformation, but we’re working on that.

Chris Kresser:  So there’s the two-tiered criteria and all the issues with that, and particularly important, I think, is the message that you don’t necessarily need to have a bulls-eye rash and that in really at least 50% and possibly a majority of cases people won’t have that rash.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Right.

Chris Kresser:  So that’s something to be aware of if you get a tick bite.  You don’t necessarily need to have that rash to develop Lyme.

Let’s talk now about some of the other options for diagnosis outside of the two-tiered test and what you’re relying on these days in your practice.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, sure.  And then one last closing thought on the two-tiered test:  There’s some good legislation that’s coming out, particularly in the East Coast, like Virginia and Massachusetts.  And in Virginia, they’re actually in the process of passing a law – it might have already gone through – but they’re basically saying that every time someone’s tested for Lyme disease that they need to have on that piece of paper that the lab comes back on the piece of information that says that the testing is not perfect and that if you are symptomatic you could possibly have Lyme disease even with a negative test.  So that’s kind of a cool step forward.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  But what we’re looking at again is that if there are any antibodies on that test and the person has symptoms that it’s possible that that’s part of what’s going on for them.  So what we do in our practice is I always do my best to see if I can find laboratory evidence of these infections through the most mainstream and well-accepted lab possible so that there’s less of a chance that other doctors could say it’s not real.  So I’ll run the testing through the regular labs, and if something’s showing up and the person’s symptomatic, then we’ll talk about treatment options, and if we feel like we need other testing avenues, there are a number of different directions to go.  There are specialty laboratories, like IGeneX, which I will use; however, I do find myself using it less and less, given that there’s a fair amount of controversy and a lot of doctors, again, like to just say that IGeneX calls everything positive so we’re not going to believe it.  And there’s a test called a CD57 cell count, which is a white blood cell marker.  The CD stands for cluster of differentiation, and it’s basically just a flag on the surface of the cell where we can identify them and sort them.  And there’s been some discussion in the literature about this one subset being low in people who have persistent or chronic Lyme disease, and I’m finding that to be helpful but not totally diagnostic.  I think it can also be low with chronic viral infections.

Chris Kresser:  Right, like HIV and some others, huh?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, HIV, maybe HHV-6, maybe mycoplasma, so there are a number of possible causes.

Chris Kresser:  And perhaps others that we don’t know about yet.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Right, exactly.  Yeah, so I use it more like:  Does it put someone in this ballpark of this kind of illness cluster?  And the newest test that has been available is a blood culture, which I think we should definitely talk about.  It’s a blood culture for Borrelia species, and what they do basically is draw the patient’s blood sample, send it back to the lab, and they look at the result.  They put it in an incubator, they enrich it with a 12% rabbit serum, which has higher potential for growing the bacteria, and then they put it into a long-term culture for anywhere from 8 to 16 weeks because what has been shown is that the Borrelia bacteria are very, very slow growing, which is part of why the treatments take so long because they are best treated when they’re actively replicating.  On average, they probably replicate once a month, and this is totally different than “normal” bacterial infections.  So the Borrelia culture test has been really helpful.  It’s really new.  We’re still trying to figure out in my practice what are the chances we’re just getting false positives.  Or even more interestingly, what are the chances that many people, if not most people, have been exposed at some point and might have some of these bacteria in their system and yet it’s not either (A) causing them symptoms, it’s not (B) the main driver of their symptoms.

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  And so that goes into the whole “old friends” discussion and what can we handle and not handle.  But I think, on the face of it, we really should not have any Borrelia bacteria growing in our bloodstream.  And what we’re kind of looking for at this point with the lab is we’re waiting for independent verification for other universities and other laboratories to be able to repeat their initial studies and results as they are validating the test and to show that there’s no reason for us to be concerned about false positives that there could be some kind of cross contamination or other reasons.  But at this point, it has been a very helpful test for our practice because it has been able to show growth of these bacteria when the antibody tests are not picking it up.

Chris Kresser:  I’m just curious, have you had any situations where antibody tests have been positive and the culture has been negative?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  I have, yes.  And what we always have to do is this kind of dance of, well, what are the symptoms?  It becomes kind of an exchange of information between the patient’s picture or the symptom picture that they bring in, the lab testing, the results of the various tests we do, and then if we’re still not sure, what I will generally guide people into is some provocation treatments.  And initially I always prefer to do those with herbs because there are just generally less side effects.  We have these targeted herbs or even targeted formulas against either Lyme or Babesia or Bartonella, etc., some of the co-infections, and we’re looking for any aggravation responses or any flare-up reaction which could indicate that there is a hidden infection.  It’s kind of like working in smoke-and-mirrors land.  You have to really feel your way along.  One of my mentors said that it’s kind of like we’ve just been dropped into the jungle and we have no map and we have no sense of direction, and we get information from each step that we take in the response to that step.

Chris Kresser:  And complicating things further.  I mean, there are some symptoms that are typically a red flag for Lyme, but most of the symptoms of Lyme are nonspecific, which means they could be associated with any number of other things.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Exactly.

Chris Kresser:  And of course, that makes it really difficult for the patients and difficult for their clinicians.  I think the culture test is really promising, and it’s kind of a fascinating microcosm of the macrocosm of controversy that exists around Lyme because the research that’s been done so far has been done by scientists who actually work at the laboratory that does the test and the company that sells the test, and that in itself doesn’t invalidate the research at all, but at least in the scientific community, it raises some eyebrows and it makes us think:  OK, well, this is a promising result and now that they’ve published their methods in a recent paper in a peer-reviewed journal, not a very well-known journal, but their methods are now out there, and like you said, other scientists can try to reproduce those methods and see if they get the same results, and that’s how the scientific method works, and that’s really what we need to do in order to treat this as a reliable test.  But it’s exciting, I’m sure, for you and I’m only peripherally involved in Lyme.  I have patients with Lyme, I don’t specialize in treating it, but the difference with this test, of course, is all of the other tests are sort of indirect.  They’re looking for antibodies in the case of the ELISA and the Western blot, and it’s possible that someone could have been exposed to Lyme before and it’s not a current issue for them, or in the case of the CD57, it’s even less direct because it’s just looking at a marker of immune function, which could be impaired by some things that we do know and other things that we don’t know about.  But with the culture, they’re actually culturing the organism in the blood, so if it turns out to be a reliable test, it seems to me that that would be a game-changer in Lyme diagnosis.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, we’re very hopeful.  And in the meantime, there are a number of other efforts under way.  There are some researchers at Johns Hopkins.  There are some folks at Stanford and UCSF, and mind you, these are all on the research side, so if you go and talk to the clinical physicians, you’re going to still get the party line, but we’re starting to get these pockets of researchers who are willing to look at this thing.  For example, at Johns Hopkins, they’re building what’s called a biorepository, but right now they’re only using documented EM rash-positive Lyme disease patients.  So they take pictures of the rash, they measure the rash, and there’s no dispute that these people have Lyme.  And then what they’re doing is they’re doing a baseline and then serial blood samples, collecting these folks’ blood and going out in time, and what we’re hoping is that we can kind of develop biomarkers of this illness and the people with acute illness and then people who get better and then people who don’t get better, people who have residual symptoms, and try to figure out what’s different and how we can develop new tests.

Steve Wright:  Sunjya, we’ve talked about some really cool new testing that’s coming up, and we’ve also talked about the older and first forms of the ELISA testing and stuff for Lyme, so for someone who’s listening to this, it’s 2013 right now as we record this, what would you give them as far as what they should be asking or talking with their practitioner to cover all their bases to try to figure out if they did get infected?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  That’s a great question, and I would really recommend that if people are sick and they have these nondescript, chronic, fairly debilitating illnesses that, you know, the classic story is that people have gone from doctor to doctor to doctor over a number of years and haven’t been diagnosed with anything wrong other than maybe they should go see a psychiatrist, and in those cases, if they’ve never been tested for Lyme disease and co-infections, whatever they can do to get to a doctor who’s willing to test those would be really important.  And if they can get it through their regular primary care doctor, it’s definitely worth doing the Lyme ELISA and Western blot as well as antibody testing for some of the more common co-infections like Bartonella and Babesia and Ehrlichia as well as viruses like Epstein-Barr and HHV-6.  CD57 cell count, that’s another good one.  Some of these you can get done through your regular doctor if they’re sympathetic and willing to run them, and if not, then pretty much people have to find their way to a Lyme-literate practitioner who has the knowledge of how to interpret these tests and the willingness to order them.

Chris Kresser:  Right.  I just want to jump in and say there are some conditions we talk a lot about DIY, self-treatment options, and there are many that can be safely done, with some caveats, of course, but Lyme is so potentially serious and such a changing landscape and so controversial and there are so many things to consider that if it’s at all possible, I think finding a physician or other healthcare practitioner that is very current and specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme is a really important first step to take.  Personally, that’s always my recommendation to people, and it’s not something that I would really mess around much with because a lot of general care practitioners aren’t really current with this stuff.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, they’re not.

Chris Kresser:  They don’t know what tests to run.  They don’t know how to interpret the test even if you tell them what test to run.  It’s not always possible or easy to find a Lyme practitioner, but Sunjya, what resources are out there in terms of online directories, or how would you recommend that people go about doing that?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  There are a couple of good organizations that are working to build the science and improve education around this.  One of the first ones is called ILADS, and it stands for the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, and they have a directory of physicians.  There’s also in the Bay Area a group called the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, who are newer to the scene but really quite instrumental at this point in improving education, and they would have access to some physician information.  On the East Coast, there’s the Tick-Borne Disease Alliance.  They would also be a helpful group.  There are a number of good organizations who have lists of practitioners who can look at this thing.

Chris Kresser:  We could probably do about 40 podcasts on Lyme disease and still have a lot to talk about, right?  And I know there are some people out there who are maybe hoping for a much more in-depth discussion on certain points.  The idea here was to give a basic overview of the landscape, and in that spirit, since we’ve talked a little bit about the controversy and a little bit about diagnosis, I’d like to at least discuss a little bit of prevention and treatment.  Obviously, we’re not going to be able to go into great detail about treatment, but maybe we could just talk about the range of options, what you’ve found and what you’re focusing on now in your practice, and then the kind of strategies that you use with yourself and your family and what you recommend to patients in terms of prevention in areas where Lyme is endemic, like in our neighborhood, for example.  Right up here in Tilden Park there’s a fairly incidence of… I haven’t seen recent statistics, but I remember reading something that a fairly significant percentage of ticks in the Tilden area carry Lyme.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, I would say it’s probably in the 7% to 12% range.  And interestingly, and this is a little spooky, but the ticks really vary in size, so in terms of prevention, it can be actually kind of hard to spot them.  And the nymphs, the baby ones, are about the size of a poppy seed, and unfortunately, those are the ones that have the highest rate of carrying the bacteria.  On the West Coast out here, that’s due to the fact that we have the western fence lizard, and as ticks grow from baby to adult, they have spent more time feeding on these western fence lizards, and for some reason there’s a complement protein in the blood of these lizards that actually cleans out the Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria.  So adult ticks that we’re more likely to see have a decreased rate of carrying the bacteria and less risk of passing it.  It’s the little baby, poppy seed-size ones that we are actually fairly unlikely to find on ourselves that have the higher rates of carriage – again, depending on the geographic area – but as high as 30% or maybe even 40%.  And that lizard is actually part of why there’s less Lyme here than there is on the East Coast because they don’t have that lizard.

Chris Kresser:  You often hear of tick repellants, both the conventional types and then maybe we could call them the hippie versions with essential oils and coconut oil and things like that.  Do you have any thoughts about those and their effectiveness?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  There’s not a lot of data on them.  I think that anecdotally there might be some sense that they can help.  The pretty hardcore DEET is effective.  It’s just a question of who really wants to put that on themselves or their kids.

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  I still love hiking.  It’s important to be out in nature, and the thing that we try to do now is wear long pants, tuck your pants into your socks, and try not to sit under the oak trees in the leaf litter, the high area where ticks tend to hang out.  And when you get home, you take your clothes off, you put your clothes in the dryer for 30 minutes, and you take a shower.  And that’s probably one of the best ways to prevent tick attachment.  And be aware of the fact that the ticks tend to crawl up onto the grass blades and hang out along the edges of paths, so wider paths are definitely better.  The smaller, single-track paths will have a higher risk of ticks hitching a ride on you.

Chris Kresser:  How about time of year?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, absolutely.  It’s possible that you could be exposed and bitten by a tick carrying Lyme disease any time of the year, particularly out here in California.  It takes a pretty long and deep freeze for them to go into hibernation.  Now, that being said, there’s definitely a higher risk in the early spring through early summer months, and that sort of plateaus by the middle of summer and starts to taper through the fall.  So it’s a higher risk during those months, but it is possible any time of year.

Chris Kresser:  OK, so treatment.  There obviously are a number of options here, and of course, the controversy doesn’t stop here either.  We have everything from high-dose, multiple oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics to things like the Buhner protocol and various herbal treatments to Rife to any number of things.  So given that we can’t discuss all of them, maybe we should just focus on the ones that you are using most in your practice now and you think are the most effective and promising.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah.  I divide the field into a couple of major compartments, and on one side there’s most of mainstream medicine that does not think that these chronic infections exist, and on the other side are practitioners like myself, which fortunately there are more and more of these days.  There are more folks being trained and there’s more awareness, so it’s slowly growing.  There’s this group of people who do think that this thing exists and that we have to try to find it and understand whether or not people are sick with this, and then if they are, we have to find a way to treat it.  And within that group, which is the most interesting group to me, there’s a wide range of thoughts on how to do it.  On the more extreme end, there are the practitioners who think that you have to treat with three to four, sometimes five different antibiotics at a time, and there are science-based reasons why some folks believe this, which is that the bacteria can exist in different compartments and it can kind of respond to the pressure of the antibiotic treatment and go from being in the bloodstream to hiding inside of the cells or kind of hunkered down into a cyst form and that no one antibiotic covers all of those forms, and so you have to use multiple antibiotics and try to catch it as it shifts from one form to the other.  And then there are the folks on the other end of the treatment spectrum who think that antibiotics don’t really work, that we should be doing infrared sauna, salt and vitamin C protocols, Rife machine, energetic medicine, etc.  And I’m somewhere in the middle.  I use a lot of antibiotics.  I try to use them judiciously, but I’ve done them enough now that I have seen a significant group of people who really, really are helped by it and who get better and stay better.  And at the same time, there’s a group of people who either can’t tolerate them or who just seem to be getting sicker when we’re doing those kinds of treatments and, to me, it feels like there’s something else going on.

Chris Kresser:  Sunjya, when you say “antibiotics,” are you referring to oral or intravenous or both?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Mostly I’m using Western medicine antibiotics – because there are also herbal antibiotics, but when I’m using Western medicine antibiotics, I’m usually using oral.  I also actually found that intramuscular shots, like something like Bicillin is actually really helpful because it bypasses the gut.  And in some cases, I will use IV, although it brings up a new set of risks.

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  And to be honest with you, getting into this world has always been a little bit a struggle because I came at it from a really integrative, complementary, alternative medicine point of view, which is that I wanted to get away from antibiotics.  I wanted to really do my best to respect the gut and the gut immune system and the gut ecology and the microbiome, so I frequently find myself kind of caught where I see these treatments helping, but on the other hand, I’m always concerned and aware of the risks to the human organism as a whole.  So I will also be rotating in a variety of different herbal protocols, whether it’s some of the Stephen Buhner herbs – He has a couple of really good books out, very, very well-researched scientific works on the actions of some of these herbal antibiotics.  I’ll also use a lot of Byron White Formulas, some really great herbal protocols and products, as well as there’s a woman named Susan McCamish who has a group of products that are really helpful.

And the thing that I think I would also recommend to folks is that if they find themselves in this world that it really helps to work with a functional medicine or integrative medicine doctor because it’s so complicated and some of the symptoms that people experience are due to direct infections, but a big group of the symptoms are just due to various body systems kind of going offline as a result of the infections, and so hormone balancing, adrenal balancing, healing and testing the gut, organic acids, all these aspects from dietary manipulation, gluten-free, dairy-free, grain-free, paleo, Body Ecology – These are things that I discuss with people on a daily basis, trying to balance some of the more aggressive treatments that we’re doing.  Chris and I, we’ve had some discussions about this in the last few weeks, but things as basic as stress management and optimizing exercise and sleep patterns and doing qigong or acupuncture or biofeedback – It kind of gets to the point where in order to get through this, you have to really dial in every aspect of your life and get everything kind of playing together like a symphony.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.  I treat a lot of patients with chronic illness.  Some have Lyme, but most don’t, but even that is, as you know, Sunjya, the real trick, in that kind of treatment is figuring out what to focus on, how to prioritize, what to prioritize, and how to get all the systems of the body communicating well with each other and working in harmony.  That’s not always an easy process, and I imagine, and in the few patients I have with Lyme, it can get extremely convoluted because it’s never easy to tell what’s directly being caused by the infectious process and what’s being caused by an immune reaction that is sort of secondary to that infection, and it can get really messy, so I completely agree.  Finding someone who’s well versed in functional medicine and, in particular, who has experience dealing with these really complex conditions is important.  And I know that that is easier said than done.  Some people live in areas where there aren’t practitioners like this nearby, or if there are, they have a long wait list or what have you, but it definitely pays off to do a little bit of research and try to find someone that’s compatible, even if you have to travel a little bit to see that person initially.

Let’s close by talking a little bit about resources.  You mentioned ILADS and some of the other websites before where people could find a practitioner.  There are lots of books out there on Lyme.  One of my favorites that I read in the past few years is Cure Unknown by Pamela Weintraub.  I’m curious to know what books you have found to be helpful for your patients.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, sure.  Cure Unknown is definitely very high on my list, and Pamela Weintraub… I’m not sure if she still is, but she was a science journalist for Discover Magazine, and that book is just impeccably researched and has a really, really strong notes and bibliography section.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, a very well-written and fascinating read, too.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, it’s a super interesting, fast, engaging read.  Another book I like a lot is a book called The Lyme Disease Solution by a doctor named Kenneth Singleton.  He has a really nice compilation of just explaining the illness, the co-infections, all the symptoms associated with each, and he has some good sections on supplements and on diet – he calls it the Lyme Inflammation Diet – as well as stress management, so that’s a good read.  That’s kind of a handbook on sort of how to do this.  There’s a doctor back East whose name is Richard Horowitz, and I’m anxiously awaiting his book.  He’s coming out with a book pretty shortly, and he’s a really, really, really smart guy who’s been doing this for probably 20 years or so, so that would be a really good one.

There’s a movie called Under Our Skin, which is pretty well done.  It’s fairly dramatic.  It’s a documentary, so it has some pretty severe cases in it, but I think it’s a good representation of the controversy and the science.  There’s also a short, 30-minute film that you can find online by the LymeLight Foundation about a professional skier back East and her journey with Lyme.  It’s a little lighter and easier, more accessible.  With the Under Our Skin movie, I generally don’t like my patients to see it until they’re a lot better just because I don’t like people having scary, negative images.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, the nocebo effect.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Right.

Chris Kresser:  So, Sunjya, how can people who are here in the Bay Area and California who perhaps those who might be willing to travel to see you find out more about your practice?

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  I have a website.  It’s www.DrSchweig.com.  And I’m currently practicing up in Sonoma County, and I’m probably going to move part of that practice down to the East Bay, so stay tuned for information on a possible new office.  And then you can also get in touch with Chris.  He’ll have my information is people want to find me.

Chris Kresser:  Great.  Well, thank you so much, Sunjya, for coming back on the show.  I have a strong suspicion that we’re going to get some requests for a repeat visit because we just kind of scratched the surface of this topic, and it’s a big one on a lot of people’s minds, so hopefully we can get you back to do another show in the future.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, it would be my pleasure.  It would be fun to do a show on the gut and the whole microbiome when related to these illnesses.  I think that would be an interesting conversation.

Chris Kresser:  Oh, yeah, that’s right up our alley, for sure!  And maybe a little more on the discussion of “old friends” and how it might relate to Lyme, because as you and I have talked about, I think that’s a really fascinating potential avenue of exploration and something that’s been on my mind and that I’m speaking about at the Ancestral Health Symposium this year, provided I can finish my book in time and prepare the presentation.  That’s another story!  So thanks again, Sunjya, for coming on, and hopefully we’ll have you back on soon.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  Yeah, you’re welcome.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

Steve Wright:  Yeah, I kind of hear a series beginning here.  That was pretty awesome, Sunjya.

Dr. Sunjya Schweig:  OK, yeah, thank you.

Steve Wright:  Thanks, everyone, for listening to this podcast.  In between our Q&A episodes, we like to bring on great experts like you heard today, but we will be doing more Q&A episodes in the future, so if you’d like to submit your questions, please go over to ChrisKresser.com and use the podcast submission link.  And if you loved this podcast, if you want to hear more from Sunjya and more from Chris, please go over to iTunes and leave us a review.  Let us know in the comments section below in this post what you thought and what you’d like to hear on further shows.  Thanks for listening.

Note: I earn a small commission if you use the links in this article to purchase the products I mentioned. I only recommend products I would use myself or that I use with patients in my practice. Your purchase helps support this site and my ongoing research.

Tagged as: Lyme Disease

Chris Kresser I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Follow Chris Online:

Personal Paleo Code icon

Discover your own ideal diet & end confusion about what to eat forever.

Learn More healthy Baby Code icon

Boost fertility naturally & promote lifelong health for you & your baby.

Learn More Personal Paleo Launchpad icon

Personalized online portal with easy-to-use tools, expert advice, and the support of a passionate, intelligent community.

Learn More Paleologix icon

Break through the energy swings, digestive upset, and obstacles of adopting a Paleo diet.

Learn More

View the original article here

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, & Coronary Heart Disease

by Alysia
(APO, AE, Afghanistan)

Q Hello, I’m currently deployed to Afghanistan and I have been inspired by the documentary Fat Sick & Nearly Dead to do the raw food detox for 20 days now and I lost 22 pounds upon completion. I’m really interested in spreading the word starting with my mother. She isn’t the easiest person to influence and there is always an excuse for her not to do something.

So, before I present her with this idea, I want to be able to have a rebuttal to any excuse she might be ready to use in dissagreeance. Starting with her health problems, she has diabetes, high blood pressure and coronary heart disease. She always says something about having too much fluid around her heart and lungs. How will this detox affect her physically? the next excuse would be "it costs too much to be healthy" I’m still calculating how much she spends a month on over processed foods then I’m going to compare that to the fruits and veggies she could be buying instead. She already has a juicer which is anywhere from 5 to 10 years old so I’ll buy her a new one if need be.

I just really want to hit her with all of the facts an why it’s such a great idea to follow thru on such a thing. She is 64 and has had 3 heart attacks so far and is a victim/prisoner to fad diets. I’ve got two books for her, 'fit for life' and 'raw food detox diet' I’m willing to spend as much money, time and effort in order to see my mom live past the age of her mother who is 83 and still kicking. Thank you for your response and time reading this; hope to hear from you soon.

A Congratulations on your weight loss and starting a new chapter in your life by improving your health Alysia. Sometimes trying to help others can be difficult, particularly if they happen to be family members. We can share our experience and support them in their actions, but ultimately they have to want it for themselves.

Your personal experience should have a positive impact on your mother and hopefully that along with your loving support will be enough to get her enthused. I think it’s important that you share with her how much you love her and that you want her around for many more years. Perhaps share former presidents Bill Clinton’s move to a vegan diet and what it’s done for him.

As far as her current health issues go, it’s been my experience that all these issues can be healed or reversed at least to some degree with a healthy raw food diet. Basically all of her issues are caused by the same two things, primarily detoxification, and second deficiency, both of which the raw diet will take care of over time. You may want to find a natural health care provider to monitor your mother as far as vitals and any medications she is currently taking.

Take a look at this question sent to me by a man with Diabetes to see the DVD I recommended for him. It might be very helpful for your mother to watch it and see what great results people are receiving from the raw food diet.

When you return home from your tour of duty you might consider spending a few weeks at a raw foods healing center with your mom. Hippocrates Health institute in Florida, Optimal Health Institute in California, and the Living Foods Institute in Georgia are just a few of the hundreds of raw food healing centers located throughout the USA. These healing centers have great education programs, they lend so much credibility to the diet, and it’s a chance to see real life miracles in the lives of those ahead of you in the program.

Please keep me posted as to you and your mothers progress.

Thanks for serving your country Alysia, you’re a true patriot.

Be Well and Wonderful, Hugh


View the original article here

Sunday, May 26, 2013

8 Natural Ways to Manage Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s Disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system resulting from the death of dopamine-containing cells. It’s believed to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Characteristics include tremors, muscle stiffness, poor balance and difficulty walking. Simple tasks like getting dressed in the morning can become a chore. While there is no cure, there are medications available to boost dopamine in the brain and help manage symptoms. Over time though, symptoms will stop responding to traditional drugs. It’s important to take extra measures to slow down the progression. Below are eight of the top ways to manage parkinson’s disease naturally.

Eat Healthy

It’s important to eat a whole food diet that includes fresh fruit, vegetables and organic meats and remove processed foods and grains completely (for more, check out my Healing Foods Diet). Constipation is common among Parkinson’s patients, so be sure to eat plenty of fiber and stay adequately hydrated. Increasing omega-3 intake can help elevate dopamine levels and reduce inflammation.

Drink Green Tea

Green tea contains polyphenol antioxidants that help fight free radicals. It also contains theanine, which elevates dopamine levels in the brain. Try drinking three cups a day to reap the most benefits.

Move With Caution

Parkinson’s can throw off your sense of balance and make it difficult to walk with a normal gait. Try not to move too quickly. When you’re walking, try to make sure your heel hits the floor first. If you find yourself shuffling, stop and adjust your posture. Look straight ahead as you walk, not down at the ground. When turning around, resist the tendency to pivot at your feet. Instead, make a U-turn. Try to avoid leaning or reaching and keep your center of gravity over your feet.

Prevent Stiff Muscles

Gentle exercise and stretching make everyday tasks easier. Here’s a simple four-step sequence you can do daily to keep your muscles loose:

1. Stand eight inches away from a wall and reach your arms upward. Place your hands on the wall for balance and stretch out the arms and back.

2. Next, turn around and place your back against the wall for balance. Gently march in place, lifting your knees as high as possible.

3. Sitting in a chair, reach your arms behind the chair, bringing your shoulders back as far as possible. Lift your head toward the ceiling as you stretch.

4. From the chair, stomp your feet up and down while pumping your arms back and forth at your sides.

Tai Chi

Tai Chi is the Chinese martial art of slow, rhythmic movement. It’s great for maintaining strength and balance. Long recommended as a way for seniors to stay active and fit, research is now suggesting it can help manage Parkinson’s symptoms. An hour of Tai Chi twice a week is enough to help with stability and walking.

Water Aerobics

Balance problems and stiffness can make traditional exercises difficult. Water aerobics can have the same benefits as conventional exercise without the risk of falling. Be sure to use the shallow end of the pool. Joining a group class might be beneficial for emotional support and additional motivation.

Acupuncture

Eastern medicine can often be looked down upon in the West, but some scientists argue it’s worth a closer look. Research has shown acupuncture can relieve symptoms by generating a neural response in areas of the brain that are particularly affected by Parkinson’s such as the putamen and the thalamus.

Coenzyme Q10

Mitochondria are responsible for the production of energy for our cells. During production, a by-product of spare electrons is created. When these electrons escape the cell, they are known as free radicals. They are responsible for oxidative damage to the brain. To combat the damage, every cell of the body contains a powerful antioxidant called Coenzyme Q10. Studies have show very low levels of Coenzyme Q10 in the brain and blood of Parkinson’s patients, which is why a supplement might be helpful. I recommend Coenzyme Q10 by Garden of Life.

Let me hear from you:

Do you have a loved one with Parkinsons? What have you found most beneficial in helping managing the disease naturally?

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above may be “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”


View the original article here

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The Diet-Heart Myth: How to Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease Naturally

Senior couple on cycle rideThis is the final article in the Diet-Heart Myth series I’ve been writing over the past several weeks. If you missed the previous articles, you can find them on the special report page for heart disease.

Ben Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Heart disease is no exception. According to the INTERHEART study, which examined cardiovascular risk factors in 51 countries, 9 out of the 10 strongest risk factors for heart disease are modifiable by changes in diet and lifestyle. (1)

While taking action now does not guarantee that you’ll never get heart disease (as age is perhaps the strongest risk factor), it does vastly improve your chances of avoiding it or at least delaying it significantly. In this article, I’ll teach you how to do that in three simple steps: Eat a Heart-Healthy Diet, Live a Heart-Healthy Lifestyle, and Boost Your Heart-Healthy Nutrients.

3 simple steps to living a heart healthy lifestyle that your doctor has never told you about.Tweet This

When most people hear the phrase “heart-healthy diet”, they think of egg-white omelettes, a salad with no dressing or similar low-fat, low-cholesterol fare. But if you’ve been reading this series, or my blog in general, you know better. The “Paleo Template” approach I’ve written about here is an excellent starting place. It includes all of the necessary micronutrients in their most bioavailable form, emphasizes an optimal balance of fats, eliminates highly processed and refined foods, and reduces other food toxins that interfere with nutrient absorption. On the other hand, the American Heart Association’s “heart healthy” diet emphasizes nutrient-poor foods such as whole grains and vegetable oil, and unnecessarily restricts nutrient-dense foods like red meat, animal fat and cholesterol.

But which version of the “Paleo Template” is best for preventing heart disease? In this series we’ve been focusing on LDL particle number as one of the primary drivers of atherosclerosis. We also discussed the five main causes of elevated LDL-P, including insulin/leptin resistance, genetics, poor thyroid function, infections and leaky gut. If you have elevated LDL-P while on a Paleo diet, the key is to first discover what’s causing it and then tailor your diet accordingly. In this article, I’m going to focus on insulin/leptin resistance and genetics, since those are the two most common causes of elevated LDL-P that I see in my practice.

In this case, the best approach is often a low-carb Paleo diet. When I say low carb, I generally mean between 50–100 grams of carbohydrate per day in the form of fruit and starchy vegetables like sweet potatoes, potatoes, plantain, yuca and taro. I do not count non-starchy vegetables toward the carbohydrate intake, because I don’t believe they make a significant enough contribution to matter. The purpose of this approach is to improve insulin and leptin sensitivity and promote weight loss, which will in turn decrease LDL-P.

If you have high LDL-P, but normal triglycerides, HDL, small LDL-P and your lipoprotein insulin resistance (LP-IR) score on the NMR LipoProfile is normal, and you’ve ruled out thyroid problems, infections and leaky gut, than it’s very likely that you have one of the many genetic variants that can lead to increased LDL particle number. In this case, a low-carb Paleo diet will often increase—rather than decrease—LDL-P. In my practice I will often recommend what I call a “Mediterranean Paleo diet” in these cases. This means following the basic Paleo approach, but reducing intake of fat and increasing intake of fruit and starchy vegetables. You can still eat fat as it naturally occurs in food, but try not adding as much additional fat to meals, and using more monounsaturated fat than saturated fat. In many cases this will decrease LDL-P quite significantly.

The trickiest situation is when someone has both insulin and leptin resistance and a genetic issue. A low-carb diet will usually drive up LDL-P in that situation, but it will improve many other markers that are also risk factors for heart disease, including triglycerides, HDL, fasting insulin, fasting glucose, etc. So I will usually recommend a low-carb diet for these patients, and if their LDL-P goes up, try to use natural therapies to bring it down.

Exercise has been shown to reduce LDL particle concentration even independently of diet. (1) Regular exercise prevents the development and progression of atherosclerosis, improves lipids, and reduces vascular symptoms in patients that already have heart disease. The benefits of exercise are related to maintenance of body weight or weight loss, blood pressure control, return of insulin sensitivity, and beneficial changes in lipids, all of which in turn promote endothelial stabilization and vascular health.

In addition to distinct periods of exercise, it’s also important to sit less and stand and walk more. In fact, some research suggests that this “non-exercise” physical activity may have a greater impact on our cardiovascular health than exercise. Dan’s Plan has some fantastic recommendations for physical activity, as well as a great software and hardware-based tracking system.

I have come to believe that chronic sleep deprivation is one of the most pernicious—yet under-recognized—contributors to the modern disease epidemic. Sleep deprivation has been associated with weight gain, insulin resistance, increased appetite and caloric intake, overconsumption of highly palatable and rewarding food, decreased energy expenditure and a reduced likelihood of sticking with healthy lifestyle behaviors. Sleep duration and quality are inversely associated with blood pressure in epidemiological studies, and high blood pressure is one of the strongest independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). (2) Finally, the Nurses Health Study found that those who reported fewer than 5 hours of sleep at night had a 38% greater risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) than those reporting 8 hours of sleep. (3)

For tips on how to improve your sleep, see my article “Sleep More Deeply“.

Stress increases the risk of cardiovascular disease in numerous ways. It increases intestinal permeability, impairs blood sugar control, depresses immunity (which increases the risk of infection), contributes to fat storage in the liver, and promotes consumption of comfort and junk foods. But perhaps the most significant contribution stress makes to CVD is that it promotes inflammation. Stress has been shown to increase circulating inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), both of which are associated with heart disease (4). On the other hand, stress management can have a profound impact on heart disease risk. One recent randomized trial showed that regular meditation decreased the risk of death from heart attack, stroke and all causes by 48%—a much greater reduction than what is observed with statins even in the highest risk population. (5)

In addition to the basic heart-healthy versions of the Paleo template I mentioned above, there are several specific foods/nutrients that have been shown to improve cardiovascular health.

Cold-water, fatty fish are an excellent source of EPA and DHA, long-chain omega-3 fats with several cardiovascular benefits. An analysis of randomized trials since 2003 suggests that regular fish consumption or consumption of fish oil would reduce total mortality or deaths from all cause by 17%. (6) This is remarkable when you consider the fact that statin drugs only reduce total mortality by 15%, and even then, only in certain populations.

Monounsaturated fats have been shown to reduce LDL and triglycerides and increase HDL. They also decrease oxidized LDL, reduce oxidation and inflammation in general, lower blood pressure, decrease thrombosis, and they may reduce the incidence of heart disease. (7) The best sources of monounsaturated fat are olives, olive oil, macadamia nuts, and avocados.

Antioxidant-rich foods protect against heart disease in a number of important ways. Our antioxidant defense system is what protects us from oxidative damage, which as you now know is a major risk factor for heart disease. Strengthening this system has two sides: reducing our exposure to oxidative stress and increasing our intake of antioxidant-rich foods. When most people think of antioxidants, they think of fruits and vegetables like dark, leafy greens and fruits like berries. But while it’s true that these foods are rich in antioxidants, what a lot of people don’t know is that red meat and organ meats are also very rich in important antioxidants that aren’t found in significant amounts in plant foods, like CoQ10 and retinol, which is preformed vitamin A. A good rule of thumb is to eat the rainbow, choosing a variety of colors of fruits and vegetables, as well as organ meats, meats, eggs, and grass-fed dairy.

Polyphenols are a diverse class of molecules made by plants, certain fungi, and a few animals. They serve a lot of purposes including defense against predators and infections, defense against sunlight damage, chemical oxidation, and coloration. The color, in fact, of many fruits and vegetables like blueberries, eggplants, red potatoes, and apples comes from polyphenols. Some of the best studied polyphenol-rich foods are tea, especially green tea; blueberries; extra-virgin olive oil; red wine; citrus fruits; hibiscus tea; dark chocolate; coffee; turmeric; and other herbs and spices. Polyphenol-rich foods have been shown to have a number of beneficial health effects. For example, dark chocolate has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol and improve insulin sensitivity, red wine has been shown to prevent the increase in oxidized fats that occur after consuming a meal high in oxidized and potentially oxidizable fats, several studies have shown that hibiscus tea lowers blood pressure in people with hypertension, and blueberries have been shown to lower blood pressure and oxidized LDL in men and women with metabolic syndrome. (8)

Some studies have shown that nut consumption may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. In a recent analysis of NHANES data from 1999 to 2004, investigators found that nut consumption was associated with a decrease in a wide range of cardiovascular disease risk markers, including body mass index, waist circumference, and systolic blood pressure, compared to non-consumers of nuts. (9) This is observational data so we can’t be sure that it was the nuts, rather than some other factor that wasn’t adequately controlled for, that led to the improvements. That said, a review of five large prospective studies (including NHANES) as well as clinical trials examining the effects of nut consumption on lipid parameters found similar results. (10) I favor macadamia nuts, almonds and hazelnuts because they are lower in omega-6 linoleic acid, which research suggests may contribute to CVD when consumed in excess.

In the NHANES study, subjects followed for more than 19 years with the highest quartile of dietary soluble fiber intake had a 15% lower risk of heart disease and had a 10% lower risk of cardiovascular events. (11) Soluble fiber binds bile acids or cholesterol; upregulates LDL receptors in the liver; increases clearance of LDL; inhibits fatty acid synthesis by producing short-chain fatty acids like acetate, butyrate, and propionate; improves insulin sensitivity; and increases satiety with lower overall energy intake. (12)

I hope you’ve enjoyed the Diet-Heart Myth series, and that the information I’ve presented will help protect you and those you love against heart disease. I’ve done my best to cover the most important steps you can take, both in terms of diagnosis and treatment. That said, cardiovascular disease is a complex, multifactorial process and it’s difficult to give it the attention it deserves in a blog series. That’s why I created the High Cholesterol Action Plan. It’s a 9-week, digital course that goes into much more depth on these topics than I was able to go into here, including additional tests that help determine your risk, natural alternatives to statins, and a step-by-step framework that helps you determine your own, customized “action plan”. Click here to learn more about it and sign up.

Chris Kresser I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Follow Chris Online:

Personal Paleo Code icon

Discover your own ideal diet & end confusion about what to eat forever.

Learn More healthy Baby Code icon

Boost fertility naturally & promote lifelong health for you & your baby.

Learn More Personal Paleo Launchpad icon

Personalized online portal with easy-to-use tools, expert advice, and the support of a passionate, intelligent community.

Learn More Paleologix icon

Break through the energy swings, digestive upset, and obstacles of adopting a Paleo diet.

Learn More

View the original article here

Monday, May 20, 2013

The Diet-Heart Myth: Statins Don’t Save Lives in People Without Heart Disease

statins

To read more about heart disease and cholesterol, check out the special report page.

Cardiovascular disease is one of the most misdiagnosed and mistreated conditions in medicine. In the first article in this series, I explained the evidence suggesting that eating cholesterol and saturated fat does not increase the risk of heart disease. In the second article, I explained it’s not the amount of cholesterol in your blood that drives heart disease risk, but the number of LDL particles. In the third article, I discussed the five primary causes of elevated LDL particle number.

In this article, I will debunk the myth that statin drugs save lives in healthy people without heart disease, and discuss some of the little known side effects and risks associated with these drugs.

Statins have been hailed by many in the conventional medical establishment as wonder drugs, with some physicians going as far as suggesting they should be added to the water supply. (The doctor that made that particular suggestion is named John Reckless – I kid you not.) But are statins really the wonder drugs they’ve been made out to be?

Are statins really the wonder drugs they’ve been made out to be?Tweet This

Before we dive into the statistics on statins, I need to briefly explain the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction. Researchers and pharmaceutical companies often use relative risk statistics to report the results of drug studies. For example, they might say “in this trial, statins reduced the risk of a heart attack by 30%”. But what they may not tell you is that the actual risk of having a heart attack went from 0.5% to 0.35%. In other words, before you took the drug you had a 1 in 200 chance of having a heart attack; after taking the drug you have a 1 in 285 chance of having a heart attack. That’s not nearly as impressive as using the 30% relative risk number, but it provides a more accurate picture of what the actual, or “absolute” risk reduction is.

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the efficacy of statins in two broad groups of people: those with pre-existing heart disease, and those without pre-existing heart disease. In the medical literature, these groups are referred to as “secondary prevention” and “primary prevention”, respectively.

There’s little doubt that statins are effective in reducing heart attacks and deaths from heart disease in people who already have heart disease. Several large controlled trials including 4S, CARE, LIPID, HPS, TNT, MIRACL, PROV-IT and A to Z have shown relative risk reductions between 7% on the low end in MIRACL and 32% on the high end in 4S, with an average risk reduction of about 20%.

However, absolute risk reductions are much more modest. They range from 0.8% in MIRACL on the low end to 9% in 4S on the high end, with an average of 3%.

An analysis by Dr. David Newman in 2010 which drew on large meta-analyses of statins found that among those with pre-existing heart disease that took statins for 5 years (1):

96% saw no benefit at all1.2% (1 in 83) had their lifespan extended (were saved from a fatal heart attack)2.6% (1 in 39) were helped by preventing a repeat heart attack0.8% (1 in 125) were helped by preventing a stroke0.6% (1 in 167) were harmed by developing diabetes10% (1 in 10) were harmed by muscle damage

A heart attack or stroke can have a significant negative impact on quality of life, so any intervention that can decrease the risk of such an event should be given serious consideration. But even in the population for which statins are most effective—those with pre-existing heart disease—83 people have to be treated to extend one life, and 39 people have to be treated to prevent a repeat heart attack.

Moreover, these results do not apply to all populations across the board. Most studies have shown that while statins do reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and deaths from CVD in women, they do not reduce the risk of death from all causes (“total mortality”). (2)

Nor do these results apply to men or women over the age of 80. Statins do reduce the risk of heart attack and other CVD events in men over the age of 80, and especially at this age, these events can have a significant negative impact on quality of life. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that statins don’t extend life in people over 80 years of age, regardless of whether they have heart disease, and the highest death rates in people over 80 are associated with the lowest cholesterol levels. (3), (4)

Statins do reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in people without pre-existing heart disease. However, this effect is more modest than most people assume. Dr. Newman also analyzed the effect of statins given to people with no known heart disease for 5 years (5):

98% saw no benefit at all1.6% (1 in 60) were helped by preventing a heart attack0.4% (1 in 268) were helped by preventing a stroke1.5% (1 in 67) were harmed by developing diabetes10% (1 in 10) were harmed by muscle damage

These statistics present a more sobering view on the efficacy of statins in people without pre-existing heart disease. They suggest that you’d need to treat 60 people for 5 years to prevent a single heart attack, or 268 people for 5 years to prevent a single stroke. These somewhat unimpressive benefits must also be weighed against the downsides of therapy, such as side effects and cost. During that hypothetical 5 year period, 1 in 67 patients would have developed diabetes and 1 in 10 patients would have developed muscle damage (which can be permanent in some cases, as we’ll see later in this section).

In addition, while statins do moderately reduce cardiovascular events such as heart attack in people without heart disease, they’ve never been shown to extend lifespan in this population. This is true even when the risk of heart disease is high. In a large meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials by Kausik Ray, MD and colleagues published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, statins were not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death from all causes. (6)

This trial included 65,000 people without pre-existing heart disease but with intermediate to high risk of heart disease. It was important because it was the first review that only included participants without known heart disease. Previous studies suggesting that statins are effective in reducing death in people without pre-existing heart disease included some people that did have heart disease, which would have skewed the results.

The lack of significant effect on mortality is even more interesting in light of the fact that LDL cholesterol levels did decrease significantly in the statin group; the average LDL level in those taking placebo was 134 mg/dL and the average in the statin-treated patients was 94 mg/dL—roughly 30% lower. Yet in spite of this marked reduction in LDL cholesterol in the statin group, there was no difference in lifespan between the two groups. This is yet another line of evidence suggesting that the amount of cholesterol in LDL particles is not the driving factor in heart disease.

A meta-analysis of statin trials in people without heart disease by the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration came to a similar conclusion. (7) They also observed that all but one of the clinical trials providing evidence on this issue were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. This is significant because research clearly indicates that industry-sponsored trials are more likely than non-industry-sponsored trials to report favorable results for drugs because of biased reporting, biased interpretation, or both. (8)

If statins were harmless and free, then it wouldn’t matter how many people need to be treated to prevent a heart attack or extend someone’s lifespan. But statins are not free, nor are they harmless. Statin use has been associated with a wide range of side effects, including myopathy (muscle pain), liver damage, cataracts, kidney failure, cognitive impairment, impotence and diabetes.

Unfortunately, studies show that physicians are more likely to deny than affirm the possibility of statin side effects, even for symptoms with strong evidence in the scientific literature. (9) Assuming that physicians would likely not report the adverse reaction in these circumstances, it’s probable that the incidence of statin side effects is much higher than the reported rates.

One of the most troubling side effects of statins that has only recently become apparent is their potential to increase the risk of diabetes, especially in women. A study by Dr. Naveed Sattar and colleagues published in The Lancet in 2010 examined 13 randomized clinical trials involving over 90,000 patients taking statins. They found that statin use was associated with a 9% increased risk in developing diabetes. Note that this is a relative risk, so the absolute risk of developing diabetes while taking a statin is very low. That said, observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative found a 48% increased risk of diabetes in healthy women taking statins after adjusting for other risk factors. (10)

To summarize:

The only population that statins extend life in are men under 80 years of age with pre-existing heart disease.In men under 80 without pre-existing heart disease, men over 80 with or without heart disease, and women of any age with or without heart disease, statins have not been shown to extend lifespan.Statins do reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in all populations. A heart attack or stroke can have a significant, negative impact on quality of life—particularly in the elderly—so this benefit should not be discounted.However, the reductions in cardiovascular events are often more modest than most assume; 60 people with high cholesterol but no heart disease would need to be treated for 5 years to prevent a single heart attack, and 268 people would need to be treated for 5 years to prevent a single stroke.Statins have been shown to cause a number of side effects, such as muscle pain and cognitive problems, and they are probably more common than currently estimated due to under-reporting.

My intention here is not to suggest that statins have no place in the treatment of heart disease, but rather to give you the objective information you need to decide (along with your doctor) whether they are appropriate for you. The decision whether to take them should be based on whether you have pre-existing heart disease, what your overall risk of a heart attack is, how healthy your diet and lifestyle is, what other treatments you’ve already tried, and your own risk tolerance and worldview. It’s clear that statins reduce heart disease as well as the risk of death in those that have already had a heart attack, so if you’re in this group and you’ve already tried diet and lifestyle interventions without much impact on your lipid or inflammatory markers, you are more likely to benefit.

In the next and final article of this series, I’ll discuss three steps to preventing and reversing heart disease naturally, without drugs.

Tagged as: cardiovascular, cholesterol, drugs, Heart Disease, myths, statins, treatment

Chris Kresser I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Follow Chris Online:

Personal Paleo Code icon

Discover your own ideal diet & end confusion about what to eat forever.

Learn More healthy Baby Code icon

Boost fertility naturally & promote lifelong health for you & your baby.

Learn More Personal Paleo Launchpad icon

Personalized online portal with easy-to-use tools, expert advice, and the support of a passionate, intelligent community.

Learn More Paleologix icon

Break through the energy swings, digestive upset, and obstacles of adopting a Paleo diet.

Learn More

View the original article here

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Choline and TMAO: Eggs Still Don’t Cause Heart Disease

57305080A recent study by published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has proposed a new link between eggs and coronary heart disease (CHD) that doesn’t involve cholesterol. A team of researchers, led by Dr. Stanley Hazen, showed that dietary choline—a nutrient found largely in eggs, beef liver and other animal foods—is metabolized by bacteria in our gut and then converted by the liver into TMAO.

They demonstrated this with a “choline challenge”: feeding volunteers two large hard-boiled eggs (with approximately 250 mg of choline each) along with 250 mg of supplemental choline that was tagged with a heavy isotope. The isotope acts like a chemical “label” that allowed the researchers to track what happened to the choline after it was ingested. Their data did indeed show an increase in both labeled TMAO and total TMAO (in urine and blood) in the volunteers after they consumed the eggs and supplemental choline.

In a second study, Dr. Hazen’s group showed that increased levels of TMAO in the blood are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers followed roughly 4,000 adults for three years. At the end of the study period, those with the highest levels of TMAO had a 2.5-fold increased risk of heart attack, stroke and death.

On the surface this sounds like very bad news for omnivores. But let’s take a closer look at the studies to see if it’s really time to swap your morning eggs for a tofu scramble.

Dr. Hazen’s team did show a temporary increase in total TMAO after eating eggs. However, as Dr. Chris Masterjohn pointed out to me in an email dialog, the researchers’ own data show that there’s no way that the “choline challenge” could have contributed to this increase in total TMAO. If it had, we would expect to see an initial increase in labeled TMAO followed by an increase in labeled TMAO. This would indicate that the labeled choline supplement (that participants ate with the eggs) had been metabolized by the gut bacteria and then converted into TMAO in the liver.

But that’s not what happened. I re-created Figure 1C and 1D from the study. Figure 1C (below) shows an increase in total serum TMAO at one hour after the choline challenge. But by hour four, total TMAO is back to baseline and by hour 8 it’s even below baseline (i.e. the participants had lower TMAO at 8 hours than they did before they ate the eggs/choline).

Figure 1C

However, Figure 1D (below) shows that labeled TMAO did not increase at all until hour four, and it didn’t increase significantly until hour six! This shows that the eggs and supplemental choline the participants ate had nothing to do with the increase in total TMAO that occurred one hour after the challenge.

figure 1D

What’s more, the researchers didn’t mention that other commonly eaten foods have a much more significant impact on TMAO than eggs. A 1999 study tested the effects of 46 different foods on the urinary excretion of TMAO in 6 human volunteers. (1) Eggs had no effect on TMAO excretion compared to a light control breakfast, yet 19 out of 21 types of seafood tested did. In fact, halibut generated over 53 times as much TMAO as eggs! This is not surprising, because although all species of seafood contain lower amounts of choline than eggs, they do contain trimethylamine and TMAO. Dr. Hazen’s team was aware of this study, because they referenced it briefly in the discussion section of the NEJM paper. They acknowledged that “TMAO has been identified in fish” and “the ingestion of fish raises urinary TMAO levels.” But remarkably, they did not explain how much greater fish’s impact on TMAO was when compared to eggs.

Finally, this paper did not prove that eating choline-rich foods (or any other foods) increases TMAO levels over time. In fact, the researchers themselves seem to suggest this is unlikely in the discussion section of the paper. They said: “the high correlation between urine and plasma levels of TMAO argues for effective urinary clearance of TMAO.” In other words, even if eating food does increase total TMAO levels, most people are able to quickly and efficiently clear that TMAO from their blood by excreting it in the urine. This makes it doubtful that dietary factors alone explain chronic elevations in TMAO.

Instead, there are several other factors that are more likely to explain such an increase, including:

Impaired urinary clearance of TMAO due to impaired kidney function. This is at least partially supported by data in the NEJM paper. Those with the highest levels of TMAO had an average glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 69 mL/min. According to National Kidney Foundation guidelines, a GFR between 60–89 ml/min is indicative of a reduced capacity to filter blood through the kidneys. (2)Differences in the gut microbiota that predispose toward increase TMAO production. Previous work by Dr. Hazen’s group has shown that people with higher levels of Prevotella bacteria in their gut produce higher levels of TMAO. (3) (Interestingly enough, other research has shown that consumption of whole grains—not animal products—is associated with higher levels of Prevotella bacteria.) (4)Enhanced conversion of trimethylamine to TMAO in the liver. An enzyme called Fmo3 carries out this conversion, and its activity is affected by genetic factors, iron or salt overload, and a number of common pharmaceutical drugs used to treat arthritis, GERD and infections. (5)Diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Fmo3 activity is upregulated in cases of insulin resistance and insulin deficiency. (6)

If food really did make a significant contribution to TMAO levels, and high TMAO levels cause heart disease, then we’d expect to see much higher rates of CHD among people who eat more fish—since fish has a much greater effect on TMAO than eggs. Yet this is the opposite of what studies indicate: Eating more fish (especially cold-water, fatty fish) has consistently been shown in both observational and randomized controlled trials to reduce the risk of death from heart disease. (7, 8)

Do choline-rich food cause heart disease?

At the end of their paper, Dr. Hazen’s group cautions against “excessive consumption of dietary phosphatidylcholine and choline” and recommends a high-fiber, vegetarian diet as a means of protecting against heart disease.

Yet as I’ve argued above, they failed to present convincing evidence that eating eggs significantly increases TMAO over time—especially when compared to other foods like fish. Moreover, if eating choline-rich foods did increase the risk of heart disease (via TMAO or any other mechanism), we’d expect to see higher rates of CHD in those that eat more eggs. Yet numerous studies have failed to find any such association. For example, a meta-analysis of prospective studies involving a total of 474,000 participants followed from 8 to 22 years published in the British Medical Journal found no association between higher egg consumption (up to one per day) and CHD or stroke. (9) An analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study found an inverse association between egg consumption and stroke, and a cohort study from Japan found that consumption of animal products including eggs was associated with reduced risk of death from stroke. (10, 11) The lack of association—or inverse association—between egg consumption and CVD is even more impressive when you consider that those who eat more eggs are also more likely to smoke and be physically inactive. (12)

Some studies suggest that eggs may even prevent heart disease. Egg consumption leads to the formation of larger, less dense LDL and HDL particles, which may be protective against atherosclerosis. (13) Eating eggs frequently may even lead to lower cholesterol; one study found that those eating four or more eggs per week had lower total serum cholesterol than those eating one or fewer per week.  (14) This same study found that egg consumers had diets higher in nutrients that have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease compared to non consumers, including vitamins E, B12 and folate.

Finally, as I pointed out above, some research suggests that consuming large amounts of whole grain increase Prevotella bacteria in the gut, which were associated with the highest levels of TMAO in Dr. Hazen’s previous study on TMAO. If this is the case, consuming large amounts of fiber from whole grains may actually increase the risk of heart disease.

The hypothesis that increased serum TMAO is associated with heart disease is interesting and should be investigated further. But the data presented by Dr. Hazen’s group doesn’t support the conclusion that dietary choline is a major cause of increased TMAO, nor does it support their advice to avoid choline-rich foods like eggs, liver, beef and pork.

Tagged as: choline, eggs, Heart Disease, myth, research, TMAO

Chris Kresser I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Follow Chris Online:

Personal Paleo Code icon

Discover your own ideal diet & end confusion about what to eat forever.

Learn More healthy Baby Code icon

Boost fertility naturally & promote lifelong health for you & your baby.

Learn More Personal Paleo Launchpad icon

Personalized online portal with easy-to-use tools, expert advice, and the support of a passionate, intelligent community.

Learn More Paleologix icon

Break through the energy swings, digestive upset, and obstacles of adopting a Paleo diet.

Learn More

View the original article here