Could Coffee Protect Your Liver?

Despite being one of the most commonly consumed beverages worldwide, the effects of coffee on our metabolism is surprisingly poorly understood.  (You can read about the controversial effects of coffee on blood sugars on my previous blog post here.)

Recently, there has been interest in understanding the effects of coffee on the liver.  Several studies have shown that liver enzyme tests are lower (which is good) with increasing coffee consumption ('inversely associated' in statistical terminology).  Some studies have suggested that coffee consumers have a decreased risk of having a fatty liver, liver cirrhosis (scarring), and even liver cancer.  An article from the American NHANES study has even suggested that people who drink 2 or more cups of coffee per day have half the risk of developing chronic liver disease, compared to those who drink less than 1 cup per day.

If coffee really is protective to the liver, an important question arises: is it caffeine that is protective, or something else in coffee?  This question was addressed in a recent study published in Hepatology, again utilizing the NHANES database.  They found that higher intake of coffee, regardless of whether it was caffeinated or decaffeinated, was associated with lower liver enzyme levels.  Components of coffee such as polyphenols, cafestol, and kahweol may be the protective elements, but no one really knows for sure.

While the findings of this study were consistent regardless of body weight or presence of diabetes, I would be interested to know what the non-coffee drinkers were drinking instead.  For example, if non coffee drinkers were consumers of Coca-Cola instead, could the soda be having a negative impact on the liver, rather than coffee having a positive impact?    More research is needed on many fronts before we will have a good understanding of exactly what is happening here.

Enjoying my java..... :)

Follow me on Twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...

Myths and Misconceptions About Obesity

Some of the biggest barriers to successful management of obesity in our society are the myths and, frankly, garbage, that pervade popular culture, media, and even medical publications. Recently, Dr Chaput and colleagues reviewed both popular media and scientific journals to bring to light the Top 7 Misconceptions about obesity: 

1.  Obesity is primarily caused by a lack of physical activity or by unhealthy dietary habits. 

Clear scientific evidence has shown us repeatedly that the picture is FAR more complex than this.  Factors such as insufficient sleep, stress, environmental chemicals, and exposures during fetal life have evidence that is as compelling, if not more compelling, than the traditional concepts of eating the wrong foods and not exercising enough. 

2.  Obese individuals are less active than their normal weight counterparts. 

This is a particularly harmful myth, as it paints the picture that people with obesity are lazy, and creates a harsh platform for weight discrimination and bias.  Recent data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey, which used accelerometers to document physical activity, shows that youth with obesity have similar levels of physical activity as youth without obesity.  Canadians in general do not exercise enough, and we as a society would benefit from increased physical activity, regardless of body size. (read about Canada's physical activity guidelines here)

3.  Diets work in the long term. 

Studies have shown that almost all people who lose weight on a diet will regain it within the next 5 years, with the majority regaining it within the first year.  The harmful follow up myth from there is that people who regain weight do so because they lack willpower.  NOT. TRUE.  The truth of the matter is that our genetics have been developed evolutionarily to very powerfully defend body weight, as a survival strategy built over thousands of years of regular famine.  The problem is that now, in our society, there is only feast. 

4.  Weight loss does not have significant adverse effects. 

While weight loss certainly has a long list of health benefits, there are potential downsides as well.  Weight loss that is too fast increases the risk of gall stones.  Weight loss reduces energy expenditure, meaning that less calories are burned by basic metabolic functions in a day, thereby defending body weight and promoting weight regain.  Weight loss in some people can increase psychological stress and depressive symptoms.  Failed weight loss attempts or weight regain can also lead to issues with self esteem as well as body image issues.  

The message is still that weight loss in people with obesity is still most definitely a good thing for health, but these weight loss efforts need to be gradual, sustainable, and partnered with the support that each individual needs to make these efforts a long term success!


5.  Exercising is better than dieting to lose weight. 

Exercise alone has generally not been found to result in significant weight loss.  Think about it this way: if you exercised as hard as you could for 1 minute, you might burn 15 calories.  If you ate as fast as you could for 1 minute (picture a big milkshake), you can down 2,000 calories or more.  The reality is that because it takes so little food intake to make up for a long period of exercise, exercise alone doesn't usually work.  As I say to my patients: focus 90% on the food side of the equation, and 10% on the exercise. 

6.  Everyone can lose weight with enough willpower. 

Untrue.  Remember that each of is built differently, with very different genetics either working with us, or in most cases against us, to maintain a healthy body weight.  There are also many medical issues and medications that can make it exceptionally difficult to lose weight. 


7.  A successful obesity management program is measured by the amount of weight lost. 

Rather than focusing on the numbers on the scale, a successful obesity treatment program should be focused on the improvement in health.  With a permanent lifestyle change, did that person's quality of life improve?  Did their diabetes get better? Do their joints hurt less? Did their sleep apnea improve?  Does the individual just feel better? These are the bars by which a successful treatment program should be judged.  

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...

Is Eating Organic Really Better?

Aggressive marketing campaigns have many of us convinced that eating organic is healthier than conventional fare – to the point where sales of organic food in USA increased by over 7-fold between 1997 and 2010.  With organic food costing around twice as much as conventional food, we must ask – is there truly a health benefit to eating organic? 

First of all, let’s talk about what is meant by ‘organic’.  Organic certification requirements vary worldwide (a potential limitation in itself), but in general, organic foods are produced without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, without irradiation or chemical food additives, and without the routine use of growth hormones or antibiotics.  Organic animals are fed organically produced food and are raised in an outdoor environment where they are free to move around. Also, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not used in organic food production. 

The question as to whether eating organic is healthier was addressed in a systematic review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.  From 240 identified studies, the following key findings were noted:

1.  The differences in terms of nutrients in organic compared to standard fare are minimal. 

There is a slightly higher level of phosphorous in organic food, but this is not thought to make a difference in overall health, as phosphorous deficiency is only seen in states of near-total starvation.  There are also higher levels of beneficial fatty acids in organic milk and chicken, and a couple of other small nutrient differences of questionable significance.

2. There was no difference in allergic symptoms or outcomes (eczema, wheezing, etc). 

3. There was a 30% higher risk for pesticide contamination in conventional produce compared to organic, but the differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small.  Two studies showed lower urine pesticide levels in children who ate organically. 

4. Overall, E coli contamination risk was no different in organic produce, but the results of individual studies was conflicting and the authors noted that more research needs to be done in this area.

5. In chicken and pork, the risk of exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria was higher in conventional meat compared to organic meat.  However, it’s not clear if this is of importance to human health, because it is inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans (not in the meat we eat) that is the major cause of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. 

6. There are no long term studies on the effect of eating organically on human health. 

The authors conclude that eating organically does not seem to have a great health benefit… But who really knows?   Long term studies on human health would need to be done to know this answer for sure.  I agree that there is not convincing evidence at this time to say that eating organically has big health benefits – but this possibility has not been ruled out.  The definition of ‘organic’ is variable worldwide, and the first step to understanding the benefits of organic food would be to at least standardize how we define it. 

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...

Does Weight Loss Improve Fertility Treatment Outcomes?

Obesity is a known, and common, risk factor for infertility. Most studies have shown that women with obesity have markedly reduced success with fertility treatments (also called assisted reproductive technology, with examples include artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization).  The next natural question, then, is: does weight loss in these women before assisted reproduction improve pregnancy rates?

This question was addressed in a review article recently published in Obesity Reviews.  Overall, they found that the quality of the available data is weak, with few patients studied and few studies done.  They did find that the majority of the studies, which looked at a variety of means to achieve weight loss before assisted fertility techniques were undertaken, showed improved pregnancy and/or live birth rates.

It is sometimes asked whether a more drastic means of weight loss, such as the very low calorie diet (VLCD) or bariatric surgery is appropriate to improve fertility.   With regards to the VLCD, they found conflicting data the two studies that looked at it, with one study showing improved pregnancy rates, and the other showing particularly poor fertility outcomes.  This may be related to the fact that the successful study had a follow up (less stringent) diet after the VLCD was complete, whereas the other study gave no guidance after the very low calorie phase was complete. (my editorial comment – VLCDs are not recommended in any case – read more here).

They located two studies of women having bariatric surgery before assisted reproduction (note: only 6 patients total), with excellent results for improving pregnancy rates.  (Note that after bariatric surgery, it is important to wait 1-2 years before conceiving for safety reasons.)

Perhaps the most important findings that came from this review is that of six studies that evaluated whether anyone became spontaneously pregnant, five of the studies reported that pregnancies did occur without needing any reproductive treatments, in women who had previously been unable to conceive at a higher body weight.

So, based on current knowledge, it seems that weight loss is of benefit in women who struggle with excess body weight, both for improving spontaneous conception, and also for conception by assisted reproduction.

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...

Intestinal 'Condom' For Weight Loss?

Another interesting approach to less invasive obesity/metabolic surgery that is currently being studied is the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner.  This is a temporary 60-cm liner that is delivered into the upper part of the small intestine endoscopically (ie, by putting a camera and insertion equipment down through the mouth).  It is left in place for a number of months, and then removed.  It's sometimes referred to as the 'duodenal condom' in that... well, you can see the resemblance... but both ends are open to allow food to pass through.

The idea behind this is to mimic (in a shorter version) the intestinal component of the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, where the intestines are surgically rerouted to bypass about the first 150cm of small intestine.  We think (based on studies) that one of the major reasons why type 2 diabetes often improves dramatically after gastric bypass surgery is the hormone changes that happen when the intestine is rerouted in this fashion; therefore, there is a lot of interest in seeing whether the liner would have an effect not only on weight loss, but also on type 2 diabetes.

                                Gastric Bypass Surgery


A clinical trial was recently done on the liner, where 77 patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity were randomized to receive either the liner, or dietary counselling (control group).  After 6 months, patients who had the liner had greater weight loss, better diabetes control, and required less diabetes medication than the control group.

Patients then had the liners removed, and both groups were followed up for an additional 6 months after liner removal, with 66 patients completing the full study. There was some weight regain in the group who had previously had the liner, though at 1 year they still had greater weight loss than the control group.  At 1 year, there was no longer a difference in diabetes control between the groups.

In the short term, it appears that the liner is quite effective to help people lose weight and improve their type 2 diabetes control.  However, removal of the liner has to happen at some point, because the longer the liner is left in, the higher the risk that it can lose its hold and migrate further down the intestine, or cause bleeding or perforation (a hole in the intestinal wall), which are all serious complications.  So far, the liner has been shown to have a low risk of these complications after 6 months, and a few studies have now been published suggesting the risk is also low after 1 year.

The liner's current temporary nature is reminiscent of many of the 'diets' out there - they do nothing to help make permanent lifestyle changes, so after the diet (or the liner) is gone, the likelihood is that weight will be regained, along with its metabolic complications.  It would be interesting if the liner could be left in safely for a longer period of time - I'll be watching this area with interest, as the duration of study is growing.  In the meantime, while the liner's results look good in the short term, I'm not overly enthusiastic about an intervention if it is only temporary.

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...

Vagal Nerve Blockade for Weight Loss?

As severe obesity has proven so difficult to treat, much study is underway to try to find innovative treatment options.

The vagus nerve is thought to play an important role in the feeling of fullness (called 'satiety') and metabolism, so the question has arisen as to whether blocking this nerve could help to treat obesity.
An interesting study recently reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was published, evaluating whether intermittent blockade of the vagus nerve would be effective to induce weight loss.

This study was a randomized, controlled trial of 239 patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) between 35-45, where an electrical device was implanted to intermittently block the vagal nerve in half of the patients, and the other half had a 'sham' surgery (meaning they went through the implantation procedure, but the device was not hooked up to the vagus nerve).  All patients received lifestyle counseling.

They found that at 1 year, the vagal blockade patients lost a little more weight (3.2%) than the control group, but the vagal blockade group also had a higher risk of serious adverse events (8.6% vs none in the control group). Interestingly, the control group, with lifestyle counseling only, lost 6% of their body weight (compared to 9.2% in the vagal blockade group), showing that lifestyle counseling alone (plus a possible placebo effect of the sham surgery) can result in substantial weight loss.

So, based on this study, intermittent vagal nerve blockade doesn't seem like a promising option - weight loss benefits are minimal, and the rate of serious adverse events is concerning.

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...

Bariatric Surgery - More Long Term, High Quality Data Needed

Based on the available evidence, bariatric (obesity) surgery is effective to improve upon complications medical conditions related to obesity (such as type 2 diabetes and sleep apnea) and helpful for weight loss.  However, most of this data is based on shorter term results, and there is a concern regarding gaps in high-quality knowledge as to the benefits and risks of bariatric surgery over the long term.

In a recent literature review by Puzziferri and colleagues in Journal of the American Medical Association,  the current status of long term high quality data in bariatric surgery research was assessed.  They examined the literature to see just how much high quality longer term data is out there (defined as studies of 2 years or more, with follow up data on at least 80% of patients by the 2 year mark).

They found that only 29 studies total (less than 3% of studies identified) had 80% or more of patients followed up past the 2 year mark (7,971 patients total).  On analysis of available data in these studies, they found that the average excess weight loss was 66% for gastric bypass surgery, vs 45% for gastric band.  Type 2 diabetes remission rates (based on 6 studies) were 67% for gastric bypass, vs 29% for gastric band.  Remission of hypertension (high blood pressure, based on 3 studies) was 38% for gastric bypass and 17% for gastric banding. There wasn't enough data to analyze these parameters for sleeve gastrectomy.  No study had data past 5 years.  Concerningly, only half of the studies reported on complications at least 2 years after surgery.

So, while the existing high quality long term data is encouraging, we are still lacking in quantity of good quality data (clinical trials with low long term dropout rates) to have a thorough understanding of long term effects of bariatric surgery.  While we do have encouraging observational studies to guide us on longer term benefits vs risks of bariatric surgery (encouraging particularly for gastric bypass surgery and sleeve gastrectomy), randomized controlled clinical trials ideally need to be done and patients followed long term (with less dropouts) to have a more comprehensive understanding of long term effects.

The above being said - as discussed in a recent study by Courcoulas and colleagues, and as I can certainly attest to from my own research experiences - this is a tall order to fill.

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2014

Read more...