Currently viewing the category: "obese"

Choose Wisely: More on Vit D

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), breast cancer, high density lipoprotein (HDL), obese, vitamin D, vitamin D deficiency
Two more reports out today showing a further necessity for improving vitamin D levels in North Americans–specifically women and children.  The first, a study showing that women with breast cancer and low vitamin D levels have more aggressive tumors and poorer outcomes, while the second showed vitamin D deficiency is common in American children and linked with obesity.

The first study conducted at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) tracked 155 women who had surgery for breast cancer between January 2009 and September 2010.  Researchers looked at blood vitamin D levels of the women one year before and one year after the surgery.  They found an association between low vitamin D levels (less than 32 milligrams per milliliter of blood) and poor scores on every major biological marker used to predict a breast cancer patient’s outcome.

This is the first study to look at the link between vitamin D levels and breast cancer progression. Previous studies have concentrated on vitamin D deficiency and the risk of cancer development only.

The second study looked at vitamin D levels in 237 healthy obese and non-obese white and black children, aged 8 to 18; they found most to be vitamin D deficient.  But equally interesting is that they found low D levels in these children to be associated  with higher body mass index (BMI) and fat levels, and lower levels of “good” high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.

You know, both of these studies really bring up only one thought in my mind–how are there still ‘experts’ claiming that supplementing with vitamin D is unnecessary?  A story published last year in the New York Times (which shockingly, some people still take as gospel) declared just that–that recommendations for vitamin D supplementation were primarily fueled by the vitamin industry.  I’m aghast that so-called respected media outlets (?) and health authorities are passing this advice.  They paint vitamin D proponents as dangerous…really?  I guess the old adage ‘for non-believers, no proof is sufficient’ really rings true.


I hope that people are wise enough to see the evidence before us.  Simple: most North Americans are not getting enough vitamin D; vitamin D insufficiency can lead to a plethora of health problems; children are at serious risk; and we don’t even know to what extent low vitamin D levels are affecting human health.

Choose your authorities wisely, people.  Hold onto the old guard experts and expect much of the ‘same-old, same-old’ for your health future.

Obesity and Natural Selection: Some Thoughts

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), disease, genes, genetic theory of obesity, high frequency mutation, human evolution, human genome, illness, natural selection, obese, Scientific American
Just read a great article on human evolution and how advantageous traits are likely selected for over time.  It got me thinking again about the genetic theory of obesity.  Now you all know how I feel about this subject–I pretty much find it a convenient excuse to absolve obese people from their personal responsibility.  Put another way: Gene or no gene, you’ve still got to eat well, exercise, and practice discipline.  Hey, we all have to that.

But reading this article in the September issue of Scientific American (I know I’m behind…cut me a break…I’ve got kids) titled, How We Are Evolving, got me thinking that obesity very well may have a genetic link.  According to recent research, most traits that provide genetic advantage or disadvantage likely take tens of thousands of years to disseminate throughout a population, not the thousands of years a high frequency mutation was once thought to dominate natural selection.  I won’t get into the science here; read the article to get the details–it is excellent.  Suffice it to say that the data shows evolution to be a long, drawn-out process, as natural selection takes time.

Okay, so what about obesity?  Well, let’s just say there is a gene, or genes, that increase one’s susceptibility to becoming obese; we might just find that that genetic makeup actually does lead to enough of a disadvantage that it eventually gets selected out of the human genome.

Think about it like this: obesity offers a disadvantage by making a person more susceptible to illness and disease–like many cancers, heart disease, stroke, and the list goes on and on.  Up until now it hasn’t conferred enough disadvantage to be selected out of the population–that is, obese people can still pass on their genes.

However, as more of the population gets obese–34% of all adults in the U.S. and 300 million worldwide–less and less may find the opportunity to reproduce.  What do you mean, Campos?  Just a thought, but when approximately 20% of our children here in the U.S. are obese…that’s a BMI over 30!…there may come a time when these people are just not considered reproduction material.

Biologically speaking, organisms seek out the most fit individuals with which to mate so that the possibility of passing on one’s genes increases.  That’s the idea anyway.  As the numbers of obese individuals increases, as well as society’s disdain (just read the news!) for obesity, you might just see more of these people ostracized sexually.  Not large numbers right away, mind you–this is where the article got me thinking–but over time.  Could be tens of thousands of years.  Remember, natural selection works slowly.  I mean, things would really have to change societally for this to be considered no big deal.

And yes, obese mating with obese is always a possibility, but that will simply raise the risk, in my opinion, for the genes to become selected out.  This, of course, all predicates on whether a genetic cause (susceptibility?) of obesity actually exists.

My advice to everyone is, once again, gene or no gene, you can prevent obesity by doing the right things.  If my thoughts are correct–and sorry, you and I will never get to know–then you’ll be assuring your genes get passed on to future generations by removing and preventing obesity in your life.  Just a thought, anyway.

Steroids Cause Kidney Damage

By On · Add Comment · In American Society of Nephrology, anabolic steroids, bodybuilders, cancer, dialysis, exercise, kidney disease, muscular, obese, recovery time, workout

I know you think it can’t happen to you, cuz I’ve heard you say it. You’ve said that as long as you do them responsibly, steroids are totally safe. I heard you, muscle man–you told me so. And further, you’ve backed it up by telling me to prove it. Prove it that steroids cause physical problems–purely speculation, you said. Prove it.

OK, now I can: According to the most recent reports, anabolic steroids used by athletes and amateur bodybuilders can cause lasting kidney damage. New research presented at Friday’s American Society of Nephrology‘s 42nd Annual Meeting in San Diego, shows that men taking steroids for more than a decade had more severe kidney disease than men who were obese and not muscular.

Anabolic steroids are used by both men and women to increase muscle mass. They work by decreasing recovery time. So that 24 hours you and I need to recover from a workout aren’t needed by steroid users; these guys and gals only need a couple of hours, if that. They can hit it hard at the gym every day, several times a day. That’s how they get big. And the truth is that there has been no conclusive evidence linking steroid use to cancer, or any other disease for that matter. But now, unfortunately for steroid users, there is some proof.

How steroids damage the kidney is unclear, but damage them they do. Long-term steroid use can eventually lead to end-stage kidney disease, which requires dialysis or a kidney transplant. I have a client in my Beverly Hills chiropractic practice that is on dialysis. Think it doesn’t hamper his life? Guess again. Dialysis is every day, several hours of the day, forever. I don’t think it’s worth it, but you decide.

The good news is that the kidney damage caused by steroid use is reversible. In the study men who stopped using steroids, reduced their exercise and lost weight saw their kidney function improve. Nice. And for a few men, early medical treatment (medication) proved helpful. But researchers wanted to point out that steroid users in the later stages of kidney disease may improve some, but are left with chronic and irreversible kidney damage.

Something to think about.

Soda and Weight Loss

By On · Add Comment · In diet soda, Eddie Pence, gastric bypass, obese, obesity, soda, The Biggest Loser, weight loss

My wife was reading my earlier blog on government funded gastric bypass surgery, and while looking at The Biggest Loser before and after pictures, noted that many of the people submitting photos had cut out soda.

Ah, soda–the lowest common denominator in obesity. If someone is obese, I’ll bet the farm they drink soda. And diet soda is no healthy alternative, yet I’m sure many people think it is.

Without a doubt, my lovely wife was astute in picking out that common act–quitting soda–that leads to dramatic weight loss. I’ve said it again and again and again: Cut the soda or you’ll never lose weight. And if you do kick the habit, you’ll see the pounds shed quickly and permanently–that is, as long as you remain permanently abstinent. Read the interview I conducted with comedian Eddie Pence. He lost 15 lbs like that (finger snap), just by kicking Diet Coke.

It’s up to you: Lose the soda and lose the pounds, or keep drinking that crap and settle for a stomach staple.

Oprah’s Weight Woes

By On · Add Comment · In Bob Greene, diets, ectomorph, endomorph, healthy, mesomorph, O Magazine, obese, Oprah Winfrey, skinny, thin, weight

Oh Oprah, stop being so hard on yourself! Don’t beat yourself up for not being a waif. Waifdom is highly overrated–and not very healthy either.

According to her own words published in the January issue of O Magazine, Oprah Winfrey has ballooned up to 200 pounds. The 54-year-old television talk show personality says that she is “embarrassed” that she has “fallen off the wagon” of healthy living, and that a thyroid condition has led her to develop a “fear of working out”. She states she has put on 40 lbs. since being 160 in 2006, and that she is “mad” at herself for allowing this to happen. She says, “I look at my thinner self and think, `How did I let this happen again?'”

Chill out, Oprah! Yours is not a problem of the rind, but a problem of the mind. It’s not what you can and cannot do, it’s your self-perception that’s the problem. First, you are not of a thin body type. Body types are usually ectomorphic, mesomorphic, and endomorphic. Oprah, I think you are a endomorph. Endomorphs tend to be stocky with wider hips and a tendency to put on weight. These are the people who no matter what they try never get skinny. Notice I say, “never get skinny”, not “never lose weight,” because endomorphs can lose weight. But if these people succumb to the illusion that “thin is in,” then they are setting themselves up for a massive let down. That’s because endomorhs ain’t ever going to be thin–not for long, anyway.

Second, Oprah, the weight you’ve actually lost has been done by faulty, and dangerous, methods. In 1988 you lost 67 lbs on a liquid protein diet. Special and crash diets don’t work, babe. Sorry. Eating well and working out is the only thing that works. But I feel grateful that the world has you, especially since your weight-battle is on display for everyone to see. You see, this should help many, many people–especially readers of this blog–because you are living proof of what I’m trying to push here, and in my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health: Accept who you are with regard to your body type, eat well and exercise regularly. You’ll have no alternative but to approach the healthiest and most attractive shape and size for your body type. Swear.

Your weight has also yo-yoed over the years. Not healthy, babe. It’s much better to lose weight slowly and steadily than too quickly. One pound per week (on average) is healthy–nothing more. Then you did the Marine Corp marathon in ’94, and hired super-trainer Bob Greene to help you lose weight (hate to be him right now–even with the Oprah-effect in play). Good thing you didn’t jump on your old pal Dr. Phil’s weight loss program too. You’d probably be suing him as a result.

But never fear, Oprah, my dear–you look great livin’ large. Who the heck are you trying to impress, anyway? You haven’t lost any viewers because of your weight. I think you’re attractive, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that feeling. You are supposed to be above the cultural pressures that our teens, young women, and mature women all seem to be victims of these days; the one that says beauty is in thinness; I mean, you’re Oprah, dammit. Why would you be under that pressure. I’d think you’d be better leading our women out of that self-esteem quagmire than being a part of it.

Finally, you can still be as healthy as you can be, no matter what your weight, Oprah. Eat well, exercise, practice discipline, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, and don’t obsess about obesity. I feel that the obesity crucifixion is a lot more media and medical hype than anything else. It’s the new smoking, you know? True, taking a little off ain’t gonna hurt–it’ll help. But better to be fat and happy than thin and miserable, I always say. And I mean it.

Now This is Getting Sick!

By On · Add Comment · In child abuse, childhood obesity, children, cholesterol, diets, magic bullet, obese, parenting, pediatric, statins
Okay, now I’ve heard it ALL! Check this out: the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued guidelines stating that children as young as two should be screened for high cholesterol. And even better, get this: they are recommending that children as young as eight should be started on statins. Whoa, ho, ho…hold on, Nellie…isn’t that the sickest thing you’ve ever heard? Our nation’s pediatric association–the professionals taking care of our children–is recommending statins, cholesterol lowering drugs, for our youngsters? I don’t know about you, but I’ve effin’ heard it all now.

Let me get this straight: the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending that American children should be screened for high cholesterol and given statins to combat any risk of future heart disease, instead of getting their asses up and moving and exercising like normal kids? Holy crapoly!

Now to be fair, I understand where this idiocy stems from; I mean, let’s face it, Americans are blowing up to gargantuan proportions. Recent reports disclose that the number of obese Americans has grown significantly, yet again, over the last two years, making the current numbers 25% of the general population. I spend a great deal of ink on this tragic situation in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, and, yes, it’s a many-faceted problem for the obese adult.

But childhood obesity? Excuse my language, but…that’s effin’ child neglect and abuse by lazy, undisciplined, ignorant parents. There, I’ve said it, and you all know it’s true. Letting your kid drink more than one Coke a week is child abuse. Feeding your kid Frosted Flakes is asinine and inexcusably ignorant or neglectful, or both. Letting your kid sit his or her fat ass in front of the T.V. for hours watching the Kardashians’ fat asses is equally ignorant and neglectful, and is also child abuse. According to a recent Canadian study on childhood obesity, kids who watch television while eating lunch take in 228 more calories than those who ate without the television on. Duh! Wake the eff up, parents! Sitting on your ass all day watching the boob tube and stuffing your face makes you fat. It does the same to your kids who–guess what?–learn from you! Duh!

And another study points out that parenting styles are what have the greatest effect on children’s eating habits. Duh! We need a study to know that? Wake the eff up, parents! Being too permissive in what you let your children eat will eventually lead to obesity. Yes, Junior wants PopTarts. Too bad…you’re getting an apple…now put down that WiiFii and go out and play.

And being too strict isn’t any good, either. You know exactly who I’m talking about, Food Nazis. Let the kid have an ice cream every now and again. Being authoritarian when it comes to food practices can also lead to obesity…the closet kind. I don’t know why Junior is blowing up, he only gets radishes at home. Duh!

According to nutritional experts conducting the study, the best thing parents can do to influence healthy eating habits in their children is to “set a good example with their own diets.” Duh! Both strict and permissive parents typically fail to serve as good dietary role models for their children, according to the researchers.

But here is my biggest beef: What the hell is wrong with the parent who sees their kid blowing up and doesn’t make him run his fat ass around the block every damn day till he gets back in kid shape? But he doesn’t want to…Yeah, no kidding. Get up and run, Engelberg! You mean, you’d rather give your kid statins than make him exercise or send him to military school? WTF?!?! And the American American Academy of Pediatrics recommends this???

According to one idiot doctor: “If we are more aggressive about this in childhood, I think we can have an impact on what happens later in life…and avoid some of these heart attacks and strokes in adulthood, says Dr. Stephen Daniels, of the academy’s nutrition committee. You know, this is what’s so pathetic about our current health system and it’s downright brain-dead paradigm: drugs like statins have been developed for lazy, undisciplined individuals who know better but just can’t get themselves to do what’s right because they have zero willpower. Doctors know this, and many will rightly say, “Patients don’t comply.” Yeah, that’s why they recommend statins and other meds, because they know the average lazy American (or busy, or challenged, or depressed, or underprivileged, or whatever convenient BS excuse is needed to not work hard) won’t do what it takes, so give ’em the ol’ magic bullet. Kids, however, are under the guidance, and yes, control of their parents. In no way should non-compliance be allowed–not by doctors, not by P.E. teachers, not by parents, nobody. Period!

So now you know how I feel. If you want to eat whatever you want to, at whichever quantity you want, if you don’t want to exercise, if you would rather be obese than do the work to bring it down, I’ll be the first to say, “That’s your choice, killer…do as you please.” But when it comes to your kids, if you are not teaching them the right dietary habits, if you are not acting as proper role models for their health and future well being, if you are not insisting that they go outdoors and play and exercise like normal kids should be doing, and you are thinking about giving them statins, then you are a child abuser plain and simple. Don’t do that to your kid. Shape up!

Chalk One Up for the Magic Bullet

By On · Add Comment · In magic bullet, obese, surgically induced weight loss, weight loss

Guess that ol’ magic bullet gets another notch up on the pedestal today. Current research shows that surgically induced weight loss significantly reduces death as long as 10 years following the operation. Not only that, but this procedure also reduces diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, as well as improves the quality of life for the former obese patient.

All right, I’ve got nothing against this concept. I think it’s wonderful that people can get their lives back after becoming morbidly obese, but I’m afraid that news like this might do more harm then good. Any time a new magic bullet comes around, human health suffers.

A magic bullet is any drug, therapy, or procedure that is considered a miracle solution or cure. As I’ve discussed on the Dr. Nick Show (Episode 2), the concept of a cure is a fallacy. The body heals, plain and simple. It might have help, but it’s the innate healing ability of the body that gives and preserves life. Whenever, medical science seems to find a magic bullet, it gives society a false sense of security, and practical wisdom goes out the window.

“Well, I know I’d be better off not drinking this 12-pack of Bud, but…well…aw shoot, what the heck, I’ll try to exercise tomorrow, and if I can’t, heck, I’ll just get a stomach reduction.” If it’s good enough for Star Jones, dammit, then it’s good enough for Al Roker.

Oh, by the way, I saw an incredible interview with Al Roker urging people not to get this surgery unless it’s the most-absolute-gonna-drop-dead-tomorrow-last-resort they have (Read this icredible interview here). I gained a lot of respect for the man for that, and I couldn’t agree more.

Once again, it’s truly a blessing that we have a surgery like this to give people a second chance. But be careful not to rely on it as a magic bullet. The magic bullet fantasy is one of the major factors leading to our poor health status in this country today, and if we don’t let it go, things will only get worse.

What The Heck’s Going On Here?

By On · Add Comment · In conventional wisdom, health, heart bypass surgery, obese, obesity, Parkinson's disease, preventative, smokers, smoking
Am I seeing this right? Are studies now showing that smoking and obesity might have some benefits after all? Researchers are reporting that smokers are at a lower risk for developing Parkinson’s disease, while obese people who have heart disease live longer than their non-obese counterparts. What!?!? Now let me get this straight, two pillars of conventional health wisdom might be partial truths? Whaddaya know.

Check this out: 11 studies conducted between 1960 and 2004, looking at over 11,000 people, showed that current smokers had the lowest risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, while former smokers, some having quit as long as 25 years earlier, showed the next lowest risk. Scientists are not quite sure what provides the preventative effects, but they extend to cigar smoking, pipe smoking and chewing tobacco as well.

Regarding obesity: among 6,900 men with symptoms of heart disease, researchers found that those who were obese were less likely to die over the next seven-and-a-half years compared with normal-weight men. Some studies also hint that obese people may survive heart bypass surgery better.

Now this doesn’t mean that we should all pick up a pizza, beer and Marlboro lifestyle habit, but it does bring up a very important point. We still know very little about the workings of the human body. According to one of my former professors, we probably know about 40%, and I think this might be a generous estimate.

What’s the significance? Nothing we know today is 100% definite, so proceed with caution. Don’t just accept health information as it comes; think about it, be discriminating. As I like to say: today’s conventional wisdom is tomorrow’s obsolescence. You’ll be the safest if you practice the basics – The Six Keys To Optimal Health. These are tried and true principles, which haven’t changed for thousands of years – they’re timeless. So, instead of banking on Viagra, Lasix or Botox, how about caring for your health as your most important asset? You simply can’t go wrong that way.

Obesity and Malnutrition

By On · Add Comment · In calories, energy, malnourished, malnutrition, nutrients, nutrition, obese, vitamins

Some people mistakenly believe that malnutrition is a condition restricted to the underfed and starving. The truth is that anyone can be malnourished regardless of body shape and size. Malnourishment means simply–lack of adequate nutrition. Case in point: Experts in Britain have disclosed that 2 million obese people in that country are also malnourished.

Total calories is not the definitive factor in the amount of nourishment – energy, nutrients and sustenance – a body receives. To be healthy, and to function adequately, the human body needs calories (for energy), vitamins and minerals (for metabolic processes), and enzymes and antioxidants. If one takes in a large amount of nutrient poor foods – like most processed fast foods – then malnutrition, and obesity, will result.

As I point out in my upcoming book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, obesity can actually be countered by adopting a diet high in nutrient rich foods. By making sure the body is getting adequate nutrients, one can actually stave off the hunger response, which, along with other things, can then lead to a decrease in weight.

WARNING: OVERUSE OF SPORTS CREAMS CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

On another note, many chiropractors, including me, use sports muscle cream to massage sore, stiff and spasmed muscles before administering a chiropractic adjustment. They are very useful in working out those tense, tight areas and they feel good, giving the client a warm soothing feeling for about a half an hour following treatment.

A story has just broke of 17-year-old girl in New York who has died following the overuse of such creams. It seems that the girl, a cross country runner, was using the creams “to excess” according to the medical examiner, which included spreading the cream on her legs, wearing adhesive pads, and also using an unspecified third product. These products contain methyl-salicylate, an anti-inflammatory and pain reliever (or analgesic).

As this story gets more attention, please don’t be afraid to have this product used occasionally. As with any medication, it’s overuse that causes problems – addictions, toxicity, death – and not moderate use. Having this lotion used as an adjunct to massage is totally safe, as was pointed out by the medical examiner in the case, this was “the first time that her office had reported a death from using a sports cream”. And another important aspect to the story is just because a medication, spray, salve or ointment is sold over the counter doesn’t mean it is safe to be used indiscriminately. Read labels and use medical products MODERATELY. Nuff said.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.