A new study discovered some very unexpected and consequently extremely interesting findings. Examining the hearts of runners who had completed 25 or more marathons in the past 25 years, investigators found that the marathon runners’ coronary arteries were much more calcified than other people. This was the opposite of what was expected. Also, the people in the comparison group were not all healthy, some having the test to evaluate symptoms suggestive of heart disease. That fact would imply that the runners’ hearts should be WAY better then the comparison group. What’s the deal? Maybe too much stress on the heart? Other studies have shown that competitive endurance athletes are more prone to long term electrical disturbances of the heart. Some have shown chemical changes as we see with heart attacks following triathlons. While those chemical changes appear to not indicate meaningful heart damage, maybe this is an indication that pushing ourselves too much can be harmful. Seems common sense but then common sense is far from common.
Archive for the ‘Your Heart’ Category
Marathon weirdness
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010Fish Oil Addendun
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010The testing results used on the fish oil lawsuit I mentioned are posted on fishoilsaety.com. Interestingly, the oils they tested are not the usual fish oils. One problematic oil was, as I anticipated, a salmon oil. Shark liver oil was a problem and several cod liver oils were also a problem.
My apologies to those of you who love cod liver oil but, adding to the concerns about adverse effects from the vitamin A in cod liver oil, now we have this.
Fish Oil Facts
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010There are some articles appearing just now about a lawsuit claiming some big chains are selling PCB contaminated fish oil. This is interesting. Years ago I strongly urged patients to make sure that any fish oil they purchased had been tested for purity.
My rationale was concern over mercury, PCBs and other toxins. As we had evidence of growing mercury levels in people, particularly in San Francisco and New York City with both dioxins and PCBs were showing up in farm raised salmon, this seemed to be a likely problem. Then a couple of reliable independent labs (most notably ConsumerLabs.com in 2008) tested almost 70 different fish oils sold in stores and published the results.
What did they find? They found that none of the oils, including some sold by companies accused in this current lawsuit, had detectable levels of any toxins. They did find that a few did not have as much omega-3 oils as they claimed or that the capsules fell apart too easily.
There were a couple of reasons why my expectations were wrong. First, although farm-raised salmon had shown evidence of contamination, salmon was not being used for oils. Second, mercury is not very fat soluble and so is not concentrated in oil.
What is up now? Is something different? Are the fish different? As salmon oil has become a popular form of fish oil maybe my old concerns are becoming reality? Are the same fish being used (typically sardines, anchovies and mackerel) but now more laden with toxins? Was there something odd about the testing, either now or then? If it has to do with the testing, it would most likely be an issue with the current batch as the prior testing was performed by two different labs not a single lab as now.
We will all have to stay tuned to learn the answers.
Best
Michael Carlston, MD
Researching The Heart, They Lost Their Minds
Saturday, February 27th, 2010A classic study was recently released warning heart patients to avoid essentially all herbal medicines. One commentator recommended that instead of buying herbs patients should save their money and “buy a pair of shoes”. As this publication walks all over herbal medicine with callous regard, the shoes seem to be on the other pair of feet. As the “study” is at best extremely poor, a better use of the shoes might be to deliver a kick to the backsides of the authors of the report and the editorial board of the journal that published it.
Having read several articles about the study, I have yet to find any data contained in the study. That is bizarre. Reviewing the complexities of the data obtained, especially how they were obtained, almost always tells me if the study is decent, in this case the absence of data in the commentary articles is even more revealing. The articles simply gush warning phrases and lists of “dangerous” herbs.
Reading between the lines, this “study” is apparently really just a warning that many patients with heart disease use herbs and take prescription medication at the same time and they can interact with one another. Okay, go on.
Of course prescription medications and herbs can interact. Research has shown that for decades and common sense told us the same right from the beginning. How can two things directly effect the same organ and not interact in some way? At the same time, the authors regurgitate conventional hype about interactions, overlooking considerable research evidence that contradicts those “old doctors tales” as for example, garlic and blood thinning medication.
Instead of this Chicken Little overreaction, a better use of medical journal pages would have been to urge physicians to learn about common herbs and ask patients about their use of herbs. You should be reminded that using prescription medication means you have to be careful about other things you might take and that you should purchase herbs that have been tested for purity, potency and identity.
