Blog

Potassium: The Little Element that Could (significantly reduce the cost of the global medical crisis)

Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

Spring has sprung, the flowers are out, and if you’re not planning and planting your garden, stake out your local farmers’ markets. Of the myriad reasons to do so, chances are extremely high that you need some potassium. 93% of us do, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). No better way to get it than lots of fresh fruits and veggies. (Or avocado and coconut water -- my two favorite sources.)

For you skimmers, I’ll skip to the punchline of this ENL: If we had to pick one single, easy fix for the impending 47,000,000,000,000 US dollar global health care crisis it would be INCREASE FOOD SOURCE POTASSIUM. That’s it. We’d shave 20-30% right off the top of that debt. Done. And there would be a trickle-down effect of a healthy diet beyond that immediate savings, too. 


Potassium giveth
...


Sodium taketh away...

Tell Me More….

Most famously, potassium works with its little brother sodium in a delicate ratio, getting pumped in and out of cells. It’s a part of the behind-the-scenes battery using energy (ATP) to generate the pulse of life. Thinking, feeling, heart beating, moving, tasting, breathing and on and on. Potassium is one of the most fundamental players in the game. Any activity requires the action potential that potassium generates as it is being pumped around.

For sake of simplicity, I’ll call the sodium/potassium/ATPase pump The Battery of Life.

See the movie: How the Sodium Potassium Pump Works

Historically, potassium was so ubiquitous in the food supply, deficiency through diet was rare. In fact, look at a Daily Recommended Intake (DRI) table for minerals and you won’t see potassium listed! (You don’t see your DRI for oxygen, either.)

But humans have a way of messing with the most fundamental rules of life, don’t we?

If you’re eating processed foods with any regularity, you’re ingesting too much salt and too little potassium. You’re messing with the Battery of Life. Here’s how bad it is: In the US, according to NHANES, we’re ingesting almost 250% of the DRI of sodium (men: 280%, women: 208%) and only 7% of the recommended amount of potassium.

Way too much, way too little, and way too imbalanced.

Humans are the only mammals to negatively flip the intake of sodium and potassium.

What are the ramifications of this flip?

When we were writing the Elements chapter from Laboratory Evaluations in Integrative and Functional Medicine, we came up with a novel idea: Let’s create a table of the association between essential element deficiencies and top causes of death in the US. We found that potassium deficiency was associated with heart disease, cerebrovascular disease (stroke) and essential hypertension. (What we feel as symptoms of deficiency are vague and widespread but could include muscle cramps, fatigue, slower reflexes.) 

Potassium deficiency is associated with the top causes of death worldwide, including hypertension, stroke and heart disease.

About 25% of deaths globally are from heart disease and stroke alone, almost 14 million deaths annually. If we were potassium-replete, especially via fruits and veggies, how much could this number be reduced? How much money could be saved? I remember researching the global cost of hypertension and it alone was pegged at 10,000,000,000,000 US dollars annually. Hence my thesis from second paragraph above that potassium repletion through dietary intake could shave 20-30% off the impending 47 trillion US dollar global medical bill.

A note to a small subset of readers: Yeah, I know, correlation isn’t causation.  It seems a pretty tight relationship to me, though. Better still: If we get our potassium from foods, that shift alone will improve morbidity and mortality.

So, in summary, increase potassium-containing foods. A lot. Reduce processed foods. A lot. It’s an easy fix to a longer and healthier life and ultimately will save a lot of money.

Part Two: Assessing potassium and sodium status

This April I was honored to be invited to lecture on allergic disease at the annual Orthomolecular Conference in Toronto, Canada (photos below). As with most good conferences, there are usually a couple “practice changers”; that is, ideas so relevant that they move one beyond just intellectual stimulation and into immediate action and change. For me, one of this year’s came from a lecture delivered by Saul Pilar, MD, a clinician from Vancouver, BC.

Dr Pilar’s simple but powerful take-home message? Measure 24-hour urine sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) levels in yourself and your patients.

Ruling out confounding factors like Na+/K+-altering diseases and medication effects, urine Na+ and K+ reflect what we eat. Your ratio should be in the vicinity of 1:4 sodium to potassium (1500mg/day Na+ and 4700mg/day K+). And if it’s not? Too many processed foods, too little whole foods. Easy measure, easy fix. (Note: Depending on the reference, there is some disagreement around optimal Na+ and K+ intake, but generally speaking, ballpark is 1:3 to 1:5.)

If you’re wincing at the idea of an onerous 24-hour urine collection, a cursory search of the literature reveals that we can probably get away with this “gold standard” measurement in a 12-hour collection. This suggests that an overnight collection is adequate, too.  And this test is routinely insurance-covered.

Generally speaking with regard to minerals, we want to see what’s going on inside the cell. This is usually accomplished by a red blood cell mineral assessment. Looking at intracellular potassium is a good thing, no doubt. However, given the gross imbalance in dietary intake in the case of sodium and potassium, the urine test is best.

Serum sodium and potassium are also routinely assessed; but these levels are so tightly regulated by the body, that you’ll rarely see a nutrient-induced abnormality. If K+ is abnormal in serum, evaluation for causes beyond the diet is essential.


91-year-old Prince Phillip is in the house!

And you can get a blurry glimpse of the proof in this photo. (Arrow provided for your viewing convenience.) Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth’s hubby, showed up at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto, home of this year’s Orthomolecular Conference. Was he secretly hoping to catch some of the Conference? Maybe... he was in the room right next door!


Prince Phillip’s possee in the Royal York.

For all you Royal-ophiles, his full name is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, KG (Knight of the Garter), KT (Knight of the Thistle), OM (Order of Merit), GBE (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire), AC (Companion of the Order of Australia), QSO (Companion of The Queen’s Service Order), PC (Privy Counsellor). And we thought some integrative physicians have lengthy professional designations….

Also at the conference was Dr. Nicolas Gonzalez talking about Dr. John Beard, pictured on the screen. Dr Beard developed the trophoblastic theory of cancer and pioneered the use of pancreatic enzyme therapy. Very interesting.

Dr Lustig presented on sugar toxicity. Great lecture. See his video, “Sugar, the Bitter Truth,” on YouTube.

Nutra India Summit

by Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

I had the privilege of presenting an overview of Functional Medicine at the 8th annual Nutra India Summit in Mumbai, India, a few weeks ago, some of which is available on YouTube.


Dr. Kara Fitzgerald attended the Nutra India Summit in March.

It was an amazing experience. I was impressed with the level of scholarship and scientific inquiry. Very compelling research was presented on oligosaccharides (prebiotics), probiotics and fermented foods. There were meetings on integrating pharma and nutra. And it all took place against this wonderful backdrop that is Ayurveda, India’s 5000 year old system of medicine.


Dr. Fitzgerald speaks at summit.

Dr. V. Prakash, chairman of Nutra Summit, reminded the audience that the safety studies of today are sorely inadequate when compared to the rules of Ayurveda, where safety and efficacy of a compound require no less than a century of proof before it may enter circulation. Seems hard to believe; but if the system itself is 5K years old, those substances both safe and efficacious will indeed reveal themselves.


Jain temple seen on Dr. Fitzgerald's visit.

Unfortunately, along with India’s meteoric economic development comes the dark shadow of rising chronic disease, which has supplanted infectious disease as the top cause of mortality in India.


Dr. Fitzgerald with panel at summit.

India has one of the highest rates of diabetes world-wide (and it cuts across economic lines). In fact, data from Mumbai showed that a full 95% of its inhabitants had a least one metabolic syndrome biomarker, and about 80% of Mumbaikars are overweight. Food is more plentiful now, especially the fast, fried, simple carbohydrate variety….


An ox pulls a cart through the local streets.

I was pleased to see the same calling towards wellness, however, in my colleagues at the Nutra Summit. Everyone,it seems, is deeply committed to shifting the medical paradigm.


Bombay University.

I will return to India in June to present a day-long Introduction to Functional Medicine: Focus on Case Studies.


Dr. Fitzgerald plans to return to India in June.

Viva la Commensal Biofilm

By Dr. Kara Fitzgerald


Gastrointestinal biofilms are an important topic, and those comprised of pathogenic microbes are getting much well-deserved attention in the integrative medical community. However, in keeping with the sIgA topic, I want to give a shout-out to commensal biofilms, which are vital to GI health and deserve similar attention. 

Biofilms are everywhere, allowing bacteria to survive -- good or bad. They are found at the solid-liquid interface in most environments. Indeed, dental plaque is a biofilm, as is the slime on an icky bathtub. Biofilms are comprised of bacteria (and/or other microbes) and an extracellular matrix of excreted polymeric polysaccharides. 

Simply put: bugs + goo = slime (biofilm). 

Slime is nothing to joke about! Biofilms allow pathogenic organisms to be antibiotic resistant, up to 1000-fold by one estimate. But biofilms comprised of commensals can be our friends, modulating our immune response, supporting GI integrity and reducing inflammation. 

Research on commensal GI biofilm shows that E. coli , bifidobacteria and L. reuteri are apparently efficient producers, with the former mediated by sIgA and mucin. Research suggests commensal biofilms may be anti-inflammatory, modulate cytokine production and crowd out pathogenic biofilms. 

One study in rats with human-type flora showed improved bifidobacteria biofilm, mucus thickness, villous height, crypt depth, and mucin-producing goblet cell numbers when supplemented with inulin-type fructans. How cool is that? 

How can we tell if our GI commensal biofilm is healthy? 

On a stool test, I would be concerned if I didn’t see enough bifidobacteria, lactobacillus, commensal E. coli or sIgA. Glutamine, vitamin A and S. boulardii support sIgA production; whereas the inulin mentioned above, plus probiotic supplementation, will help facilitate commensal bacterial growth. Finally, treating inflammation and minimizing unwarranted antibiotic use should also benefit biofilm status. 

I think we can say that biofilms are little ecosystems unto themselves, where "the sum is greater than the parts.” And when we’re thinking about protection of our all-important GI microbiota, the commensal biofilm is once slimy surface we don’t want to slip away!

Metabolic Syndrome: The Deadly Quartet

By Dr. Kara Fitzgerald
metabolic syndrome
The four horsemen of the apocalypse, AKA the deadly quartet

In a moment, I’m going to throw out a few rather depressing statistics about metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the state of health in the U.S. These stats need articulating. Over and over and over, until we get it.

We also need to be very clear on the driving forces behind our rapid descent into a disease culture. I’ll mention a couple in this blog. If we understand the root problems, chances are much higher we’ll be motivated and empowered to embrace solutions. (Perhaps only because we’re angered by the extent to which -- yet again -- health is a distant runner up to profit.)

But there are do-able solutions, which I’ll also mention shortly. And what’s particularly wonderful about the solutions is that they help not just you, your family, your neighbors, your community, but also the planet.

metabolic syndrome
metabolic syndrome
Doable solutions for all!
 
Once called “The Deadly Quartet,” MetS is comprised of elevated blood sugar, blood fat (triglycerides), blood pressure and weight (abdominal adiposity).  We’re not talking that elevated, though.  Take blood sugar, for instance. For a fasting blood sugar to be in the MetS range, it need only hit 100 mg/dL. But 100 mg/dL is actually considered a normal result by many laboratories! (Laboratory reference ranges are based on the population as a whole. So if everyone goes up, the reference range for normal will generally go up, too. An interested future blog: Understanding Reference Ranges.  I tussled with the reference range conundrum in the B12 blog, also.) The point is this: You won’t always see fasting blood sugar flagged “high” on your lab report to draw attention to the number. And unfortunately, a level of 100 mg/dL doesn’t alert many doctors either.

Do you know your fasting blood sugar number? To be sure, it’s not the whole story, but it’s arguably more important than the vaunted “total cholesterol” number that gets far more P.R. High blood sugar is the third leading cause of death in the world!1

Dig into the research a little bit further -- scientists in Texas looked at blood sugar and heart disease and found that levels above 86 mg/dL were associated with increased risk for heart disease. That’s quite a bit below 100.2

Note to self: A really good fasting blood sugar is around 86 mg/dL (or lower). Not a whole lot of folks actually clock in at 86.

We’re a culture whose “normal” promotes disease.

How about weight? 70% of us are overweight. Along with elevated blood sugar, it’s part of the deadly quartet. And obesity is the number one risk factor for Type II diabetes.3,4  Obesity is the first leading cause of death in the world, and hypertension is the fifth leading cause of death in the world. Along with elevated blood sugar, that means three of the deadly quartet are leading causes of death.

With these stats, we can’t possibly be surprised that the incidence of type II diabetes increased in the U.S by a whopping 83% between 1995 and 2010, can we? (At 226%, Oklahoma is the state with the dubious honor of highest increase in diabetes.)3,4

I’ll say it again: We’re a culture whose “normal” promotes disease.

While MetS is under-addressed by doctors, it’s well understood to be the “gateway disease,” leading to increased risk of type II diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancers, dementia, autoimmune disease.  Pretty much every chronic disease to confront us is promoted by the inflammation-driven effects of MetS. A look at top causes of death in the U.S. -- most of them can be traced to the Deadly Quartet. Here’s the Center for Disease Control’s 2010 list.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
1              *Heart disease: 597,689
2              *Cancer: 574,743
3              *Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
4              *Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
5              Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
6              *Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
7              *Diabetes: 69,071
8              *Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
9              *Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
10            Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364  
* Diseases directly or indirectly influenced by MetS. Even suicide, which is often associated with depression, could be driven by MetS via inflammation.5

A couple of driving forces behind our descent into a disease-centered culture.

Junk food.  Michael Moss’s brilliant article from Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, called: “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food” says it better and with greater depth than anything I could say.

“The public and the food companies have known for decades now — or at the very least since this meeting — that sugary, salty, fatty foods are not good for us in the quantities that we consume them. So why are the diabetes and obesity and hypertension numbers still spiraling out of control? It’s not just a matter of poor willpower on the part of the consumer and a give-the-people-what-they-want attitude on the part of the food manufacturers. What I found, over four years of research and reporting, was a conscious effort — taking place in labs and marketing meetings and grocery-store aisles — to get people hooked on foods that are convenient and inexpensive.”

metabolic syndrom
Pesticides.  Other potent and often overlooked drivers of MetS and obesity are the pesticides on our foods.  

A little-acknowledged study by Lee that was released in 2006 (using National Institute of Health data) noted that exposure to six pesticides (called POPs -- persistent organic pollutants) resulted in up to a 38-fold risk for developing type II diabetes in certain individuals!6 (Where’s the publicity on this study?)  By comparison, a study looking at women smokers with a 40-year history found “a mere” 27-fold increased risk for developing lung cancer.7

Obese people were particularly vulnerable to the effects of POPs. POPs are known to accumulate in adipose and cause massive, metabolic disruption.
It’s not just about eating JUNK. It’s the TOXIC JUNK that’s particularly horrific.
 
The do-able solutions? Here’s a few. Pick a couple:

●     Plant a garden and don’t use pesticides. (even a little garden pot on the porch with a few basils and tomatoes- you’ll love it!)
●     Buy local food. Where is your farmers market?
●     Exercise. (My goal: Commuting by bike to work 3 days a week).
●     Stop most sugar, and especially the processed stuff
●     Buy food from the perimeter of the grocery store- fresh veggies and fruits; lean, clean proteins
●     Don’t buy food with chemical names in the ingredient list
●     Eat more greens, beans, lean poultry.
●     Read Mark Hyman’s “Blood Sugar Solution.”
 
When I was in medical school, a professor told us that sugar was a drug, and should be regulated as such. Her statement was an awakening for me. It was a radical idea at the time, but the time has come, hasn’t it?    
 
1.            Gray LJ, Khunti K, Williams S, et al. Let's prevent diabetes: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention in a multi-ethnic UK population with screen detected impaired glucose regulation. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012;11:56.
2.            Hoogwerf BJ, Sprecher DL, Pearce GL, et al. Blood glucose concentrations < or = 125 mg/dl and coronary heart disease risk. Am J Cardiol. Mar 1 2002;89(5):596-599.
3.            Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Atlanta GUSDoHaHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. 2011.
4.            MMWR. Increasing Prevalence of Diagnosed Diabetes - United States and Puerto Rico, 1995-2010. November 16, 2012 / 61(45);918-921.
5.            Silic A, Karlovic D, Serretti A. Increased inflammation and lower platelet 5-HT in depression with metabolic syndrome. J Affect Disord. Dec 1 2012;141(1):72-78.
6.            Lee DH, Lee IK, Song K, et al. A strong dose-response relation between serum concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and diabetes: results from the National Health and Examination Survey 1999-2002. Diabetes Care. Jul 2006;29(7):1638-1644.
7.            Kligerman S, White C. Epidemiology of lung cancer in women: risk factors, survival, and screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Feb 2011;196(2):287-295.
 

 
Photo credits: flickr.com

 

OMG, I have the flu!!

By Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

man sniffling

I had the flu last week. Here’s the e-lament I managed to tap out on my phone in a shameless plea for sympathy:
 
“I am so sick it hurts to pee or breathe or think or move my eyes. Whaaaaa whaaaaa whaaaaaa!”
 
The sage advice I received from my BFF in response?  Swing a chicken over your head. 
 
I decided against taking her suggestion; I was too achy to swing a chicken over my head. But the worst of the flu moved through in about five days. Yes, I’m still blowing my nose and I’m tired but otherwise okay. 
 
And no, I didn’t get vaccinated. I’ve never gotten vaccinated for the flu. And I don’t recommend it to my patients, but I don’t tell them not to get it, either. Personally, I tend to lean toward the conservative side for vaccines, erring on the side of less-is-more. (There may be reason for concern around excess vaccination in terms of increased risk for allergies, autoimmunity and other complex, chronic conditions.1,2) But should I get it? Should I recommend it? Will it benefit? 
 
In 2010 the CDC, but not the World Health Organization, decided healthy adults needed to be vaccinated. And by 2020, the CDC will want the lot of us (except those six months or younger) getting our annual jab.3
 
No other country is recommending influenza vaccination to healthy adults.
 
But here in the US, the urgency to be vaccinated for seasonal influenza has reached such a fevered pitch that some health care workers who choose against vaccination risk being fired or laid off. No longer will wearing a mask and washing hands — both of which effectively interrupt transmission --  suffice in some settings.
 
SO, armed with the experience of being a full-on participant in the 2012-2013 influenza epidemic, I dived into the research on the state-of-the-state of influenza vaccines. Yup. As I lay in bed, achy and chilled, I tapped out little search queries between cool sips of water....
 
 Here’s what I found: 
 
If we all believe the CDC regarding the influenza vaccine, will it become true?“The flu vaccine is the best way to protect against flu.” Nancy Cox, PhD, Center for Disease Control Influenza Division chief.5 
 
“Results for the 2012–13 season indicate that vaccination has reduced the risk for influenza-associated medical visits by approximately 60%, demonstrating the benefits of influenza vaccination during the current season.”6
 
But, “In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms…. The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1%.... These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”7
 
Commentary: We’re promoting the vaccine as our main-line intervention, and the early data coming out for the 2012-2013 flu season suggest there is a 60% reduction in medical visits.  (This doesn’t mean you won’t get the flu, it just might be less virulent. And the jury is still out on who will benefit from this reduction, healthy adults like myself who would otherwise whiz through the flu without issue, or people with chronic disease who won’t whiz though.) 
 
However, in 2010 a massive meta-analysis by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration that I quoted above (looking at vaccine efficacy between the years 1966 and 2010 in 70,000 people), suggested that overall, the vaccine was woefully ineffective. At best, it reduced flu symptoms by 4%, and most likely it was more like 2%. They concluded that with the vaccine, you might get back to work a little bit sooner, but it wouldn’t reduce the risk for hospitalizations or developing complications like pneumonia. Thus, it seems healthy adults do better with the vaccine, rather than those who need it.7
 
Further, The Cochrane Collaboration included a warning label on the abstract. (I have NEVER seen a warning label on a research abstract. What’s next, the black box?) 
 
WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry. (Four had no funding declaration.) An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin, but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”7
 
Commentary: Cochrane thinks their relatively puny, but statistically significant findings, might actually be inflated! This is because some of the studies Cochrane used were completed by the same folks who make the vaccines, who obviously have a financial investment in their studies being favorable.
 
But could Cochrane be biased? Some people think so. Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), also released an exhaustive 160 page mega-meta-analysis just last year.8,9 (Download the full text free.
 
He thinks The Cochrane Collaboration’s meta-analysis eliminated some studies from their analysis that should have been included. Apparently, Cochrane’s results would be more favorable toward the vaccine with these additions. Dr. Osterholm’s group’s research was supported by grants rather than industry, so their work should be relatively non-biased. 
 
So, what then did Dr. O’s analysis have to say about the state-of-the-state of the influenza vaccine? CDC Megaphone
 
“The perception that current vaccines are already highly effective in preventing influenza is a major barrier to game-changing alternatives. Indeed, hundreds of influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies have been conducted since the 1940s, and vaccine efficacy in healthy adults of 70% to 90% is frequently cited. However, the preponderance of the available influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness data is from studies with suboptimal methodology, poorly defined end points, or end points not proven to be associated with influenza infection.”9
 
Ouch! So even though he challenges Cochrane, Dr. O obviously has some HUGE concerns around the current vaccines. Here’s what he had to say to the New York Times in November, 2012:
 
“We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. “It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.” 5
 
Zing! 
 
Why can’t you swing a chicken without hitting an advertisement for the flu vaccine? They’re on every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse (and medical practice).
 
Well, for starters, there is some fear here. The flu could become serious business. In the 2009 influenza pandemic, the average age of death was 40 -- comparable to the 1918 pandemic. In all other pandemics, with the exception of 1918, the mean age of death was in the 60s and 70s, close to the life expectancy. In 2009 there were about 12,500 fatalities in the US -- much lower than all previous pandemics. The most vulnerable were obese individuals, children, pregnant women and those with asthma. (Attention integrative clinicians: we can assist these populations, can we not?). 
 
Scientists expect, for a number of reasons, that there will be another serious pandemic. If we’re not ready, we’ll likely see very high death rates.  Dr. O is pro-vaccine. When he mentions “game-changing alternatives,” as he does in the above quote, he’s talking about the current vaccine being insufficient, and wanting a new “universal” vaccine.  
 
But something more insidious is going on: a highly intractable refusal to acknowledge the limitations of our current interventions. I turn to two quotes included in Dr. O’s paper:9
 
“The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents, and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.”
- Daniel Boorstin, 12th Librarian of the United States Congress from 1975 until 1987.
 
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature
cannot be fooled.”
- Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize laureate in physics.
 
Science, like the truth, is a delicate thing:  To the significant detriment of humanity, it can be squashed by fear, politics, policy, opinion and greed.
 
- Dr. Kara Fitzgerald, 01-22-2013
 
Epilogue:  I would be remiss in my duty as an integrative physician if I didn’t mention there are a plethora of tools to support the immune system before, during and after influenza. In fact, the integrative approach is urgently needed, given the likelihood of a major pandemic. In 2007 with the H5N1 scare, I published an in-house document for Metametrix Laboratory, addressing interventions for the bird flu that are generally useful, which I will link here. Also, for clinicians: The Institute for Functional Medicine’s 2011 annual Symposium was devoted to emerging infectious disease. Access The Challenge of Emerging Infections in the 21st Century. For everyone else, as I always say, talk to your neighborhood integrative doctor. They’ll help you! As you can imagine from this blog, my position on the vaccine hasn't really shifted...
 
1. Kondrashova A, Seiskari T, Ilonen J, Knip M, Hyoty H. The 'Hygiene hypothesis' and the sharp gradient in the incidence of autoimmune and allergic diseases between Russian Karelia and Finland. Apmis. Nov 6 2012.
 
2. Okada H, Kuhn C, Feillet H, Bach JF. The 'hygiene hypothesis' for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update. Clin Exp Immunol. Apr 2010;160(1):1-9.
 
3. Control CfD. 2020 Topics and objectives: immunization and infectious diseases. Accessed 01-23-13, 2013.
 
4. Daniels TL, Talbot TR. Unmasking the confusion of respiratory protection to prevent influenza-like illness in crowded community settings. J Infect Dis. Feb 15 2010;201(4):483-485.
 
5. Pope. Reassessing the flu shot as the season draws near. 2012; http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-se..., 2013.
 
6. Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness - United States, january 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Jan 18 2013;62:32-35.
 
7. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(7):CD001269.
 
8. Osterholm ea. Influenza Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness: A Comprehensive Review. 2009; http://www.preventinfluenza.org/newsletters/101512_osterholm.pdf.
 
9. Osterholm ea. The Compelling Need for Game Changing Influenza Vaccines. 2012; http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/files/80/ccivi%20report.pdf.
 
Photo credits: flickr.com, William Brawley, kazamatsuri
 
 

For the Twelve Days of Christmas My True Love Challenged the Conclusion of the 2012 JAMA Meta-Analysis, Which Implied That Omega 3 Fish Oil was Basically Useless

By Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

On the first day of Christmas, my true love pondered...

Of all the supplements out there, fish oils are one of the best accepted and most widely used because the research on it is so plentiful and compelling. Modern man has flipped the intake of “good” anti-inflammatory omega 3 fatty acids with “bad” pro-inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids, not unlike how we’ve negatively flipped intake of potassium and sodium. (We’re the only mammals to accomplish this feat!) In 2009 Harvard School of Public Health estimated that omega 3 deficiency contributed to 84,000 US deaths per year!1 And interestingly, according to CDC/NHANES data, those most likely to be severely deficient are heart failure patients! 

But on the second day of Christmas, my true love exclaimed: The Rizos, et al., meta-analysis concluded that, “Overall, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association.” 2 Whaaaa?
 
So, on the third day of Christmas, my true love asked: What is wrong with that Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) omega 3 fish oil meta-analysis? 
 
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love noted that the dosage of fish oil used in at least 20% of the trials was LESS than 900mg EPA/DHA per day. I mean, seriously. This is not a sufficient amount to achieve good therapeutic benefit.
 
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love also noted that the placebo used in at least 30% of the trials was OLIVE OIL, which has been demonstrated to be anti-inflammatory and cardio-protective. Olive oil is rich in polyphenols, among other heart-healthy compounds.3 (If the placebo shows benefit -- it’s supposed to be totally neutral -- that will make the fish oil appear to be less beneficial than we know it to be.) 
 
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love commented that the Rizos, et al., meta-analysis includes only those individuals who have already sustained a major cardiovascular event and are on medications. It’s not a clean investigation in that regard, as drug/nutrient interaction possibilities must be taken into consideration. Additionally, limited nutrient interventions -- such as only using fish oil -- as an attempt to influence late-stage cardiovascular disease, is likely to be insufficient to turn around the course of the disease. This brings to mind the SEARCH trial which looked at B12 and folate in those having sustained a myocardial infarction.4 The outcome was similarly underwhelming. One criticism levied against SEARCH was that the vitamin intervention, although it did modestly reduce homocysteine levels, was “too little too late.” 
 
And on the seventh day of Christmas, my true love mentioned that it is also interesting that the P value used in the meta-analysis was set at an inexplicably low 0.0063. (This basically means it’s needle-in-the-haystack hard for this study to have achieved significance. Generally, p-values are 0.05, which is a whole order of magnitude higher!) As the National Lipid Association pointed out, “There really isn’t a good discussion as to why the authors made this choice, which makes accepting the conclusions difficult.” 
 
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love exclaimed: Why on God’s earth was the Alpha Omega Trial (AOT) included in this meta-analysis? Honestly, people! The AOT used different combinations of polyunsaturated margarines, analyzed collectively and shown to be ineffective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events. Some of the margarines had very, very low amounts of EPA/DHA, and ALL of the margarines contained heart-toxic trans fatty acids!5 
 
And on the ninth day of Christmas, my true love was like, HEY! Why do supplement trials with negative results get such publicity? There is a well-documented historical bias towards supplements and integrative medicine in general from the greater medical community, but many of the researchers conducting these massive government-sponsored supplement trials speak of their disappointment with outcome. The researchers are hoping to demonstrate the benefits of the nutrients we eat in food. However, the study designs are usually pretty simplistic in an effort to control variables (for example, only one or two supplements are used), which means these trials are more likely destined for poor outcome. The need to control variables is the cornerstone of the scientific method, but it’s just not a great model for studying nutrients. The emerging Systems research models are better suited for multi-variable, high complexity investigations. 
 
On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love mentioned to me that information about the quality of the fatty acids used in the trials isn’t readily available. Quality can make a significant difference in outcome. These delicate fats can become oxidized. And there is the potential for problem contaminants (PCBs, toxic metals) if the product is of lower quality. Additionally, there is a big difference in the bioavailability of EPA + DHA as ethyl esters versus re-esterified triglycerides, where the former is far less efficiently absorbed and utilized than the latter; and such a difference must be compensated for by using a higher total dose of ethyl esters. (Which I never see happen, do you?)
 
On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love revealed: One of my favorite papers looking at EPA+DHA was in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It was a meta-analysis that demonstrated that pain reduction with as little as 2.5 grams of EPA + DHA per day was as effective as Humira! They also showed that up to 4.5 g/day was associated with a high rate of remission. The take-home of this meta-analysis is clear: Get all your RA patients on 2.5 grams now!6 (With adequate antioxidants, of course.) 
 
On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love waxed theoretical: Omega 3 fatty acids are needed by most of us, and generally in much higher quantity than we are getting. New research on the mechanisms of their efficacy is always emerging and very fascinating. For instance, there are new classes of “atypical” eicosanoids and decosanoids being discovered that actually resolve the inflammatory process; that is, they clean up after the inflammatory event. Newer thinking is that “inflammation is a failure of resolution.” 7 Because bioavailability of PUFA can vary widely from person to person, evaluating appropriate biomarkers, such as RBC fatty acids, can be very useful to gauge status both pre- and post-supplementation. 
 
In conclusion, my true love has convinced me... fish oil for all this Holiday season! 
 
 
1. Danaei G, Ding EL, Mozaffarian D, et al. The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors. PLoS Med. Apr 28 2009;6(4):e1000058.
2. Rizos EC, Ntzani EE, Bika E, Kostapanos MS, Elisaf MS. Association between omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and risk of major cardiovascular disease events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. Sep 12 2012;308(10):1024-1033.
3. Stark AH, Madar Z. Olive oil as a functional food: epidemiology and nutritional approaches. Nutr Rev. Jun 2002;60(6):170-176.
4. Armitage JM, Bowman L, Clarke RJ, et al. Effects of homocysteine-lowering with folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs placebo on mortality and major morbidity in myocardial infarction survivors: a randomized trial. Jama. Jun 23 2010;303(24):2486-2494.
5. Kromhout D, Giltay EJ, Geleijnse JM. n-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. Nov 18 2010;363(21):2015-2026.
6. James M, Proudman S, Cleland L. Fish oil and rheumatoid arthritis: past, present and future. Proc Nutr Soc. Aug 2010;69(3):316-323.
7. Serhan CN, Chiang N, Van Dyke TE. Resolving inflammation: dual anti-inflammatory and pro-resolution lipid mediators. Nat Rev Immunol. May 2008;8(5):349-361.
 
Photo credit: Flickr.com, MoToMo
 

The Weight Loss Miracle?

By Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

I was reading an enewsletter on weight loss recently. They were recommending a very sexy-sounding supplement that suggested the pounds would melt away like bacon fat in a hot skillet. I looked at the ingredients -- most were old favorites that are found in most weight loss blends from time immemorial. In general, we know these products have very limited efficacy (unless appropriately prescribed, more on that in a second); but sales are huge for them, given the promise of rapid weight loss. 

My enewsletter prompted me to think about weight loss among patients in my own practice.
 
When we launched our website last year, I was reviewing the testimonials that people had offered who came to my clinic.
 
I remember thinking that every single person in the testimonial group who needed to lose weight did so. And the weight loss wasn’t a central focus of our work together for any of them, rather it was a byproduct of the restoration of health.
 
It was like an afterthought. In fact, I remember adding parenthetical statements to some of the testimonials to note total weight lost, as some of the individuals who offered the testimonials had forgotten about the issue!
 
And no one counted calories. 
 
And everyone ate as they needed to.
 
Amazing, isn’t it?
 
I wish I could tell you I have some fabulous secret program, but I really don’t. It’s Systems Medicine -- individualized medicine -- the type any good integrative clinician practices. 
 
And it’s pretty darn straightforward:  First, we look for food allergies, intolerances and sensitivities. We can do this though laboratory testing and/or an elimination diet. Next, I “cast a wide net” of laboratory investigation for most of my patients, looking for nutrient insufficiencies, gut issues, hormone imbalances (including insulin, thyroid and sex hormones) and toxin exposures (like mercury or PCBs) as needed. supplements
 
With this body of information, I can design an individualized diet -- exactly what that person needs to be healthy. And I also can see, through the testing, exactly what nutrients they need. So, that sexy supplement I mention above? Well, if a person actually demonstrates on laboratory testing that they NEED carnitine -- one of the darling nutrients of the weight loss industry — then they are far more likely to respond to a sufficient dose of carnitine (which is generally a lot higher than one finds in a combination supplement). Tyrosine, the amino acid precursor to thyroid hormone (and another diet supplement superstar)? Well, if they actually have lower levels of tyrosine, or lower thyroid function, then it could be very helpful, as well. But if you don’t have a NEED for all the various weight loss nutrients piled into these products, ingesting them likely will yield only really expensive urine and no weight loss. 
 

Photo credits: Flickr.com: Noodles and Beef, jackiebese

Cesium: Coming to a fish near you?

By Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

Cesium

I am not at all interested in being an alarmist. We’ve got enough real-life drama already: storm Sandy last week with its massive devastation (and clear climate change influence), and the never-ending reams of high quality research emerging that illustrate the contribution of everyday chemicals to most diseases. Seriously. It can feel quite overwhelming sometimes. That said, did you catch that New York Times article on 10-26-12 talking about contamination from the Fukushima nuclear disaster? 
 
“The fact that many fish [in the ocean around Fukushima, Japan] are just as contaminated today with cesium 134 and cesium 137 as they were more than one year ago implies that cesium is still being released into the food chain,” Mr. Buesseler wrote.** This kind of cesium has a half-life of 30 years, meaning that it falls off by half in radioactive intensity every 30 years. 
 
As I read that NYT article, the light of recognition prompted me to recall a patient who had a slightly elevated cesium level. She’s a lovely 30 year old woman living in NYC. I’ll call her JT. JT came to see me for a second opinion regarding a complete thyroidectomy for multinodular goiter. The pathology report results didn’t indicate the need for removing the gland, although there were suspicious findings. I recommended a second biopsy, the results of which determined the nodules were benign. She didn’t need to have her thyroid removed after all.  Thank God for second opinion.
 
With the thyroidectomy drama out of the way, we took a systems approach to identifying the underlying cause of the nodules. (Here’s a case example of what I mean by “systems approach” using the IFM Matrix.) JT responded well to treatment, the nodules appear stable, and she feels good today. Eventually, I’ll write her case up in greater detail, but right now I am focusing on the cesium connection.
 

As with most patients, I wanted to take a look at JT’s potential toxin exposures. The flag for me with JT was the fact that she relied heavily on sushi for her protein.

If not careful, we can exceed the EPA limit for mercury exposure with the intake of certain fish.

And as I discussed last month, PCBs are very high in farm-raised salmon, among other foods.
 
I ran a urine toxic and essential elements test on JT. As I suspected, JT’s mercury level was quite high. I advised JT to eat low mercury fish and gave her the EPA guidelines. We also started a treatment protocol to remove the mercury from her body. 
 
In addition to the elevated mercury, I also noticed she had a high-normal level of cesium. Cesium? Huh? I pinged my brain, but received no reply.... Cesium just wasn’t in there. Here’s what the Metametrix Interpretive Guide has to say about it:
Cesuim
 
I thought to myself, where on earth is JT getting exposure to cesium??   I decided I would watch it, holding a secret hope that it was a fluke finding on a single test. Interestingly, however, she did have mildly reduced levels of magnesium (hypomagnesmia) and potassium (hypokalemia), issues associated with cesium exposure and a zillion other conditions. As with most findings associated with metals, they are very non-specific.
 
 JT also had had some gastrointestinal complaints, but we had resolved those earlier. And who among our patients doesn’t complain of, as the above interpretive guide describes, “gastrointestinal distress”? Another vary vague symptom we can’t readily link to cesium.  My thinking at the time was that we had JT’s bases covered for a potential cesium exposure from who knows where.  And if it was radioactive, I was glad we had her on a good antioxidant protocol, which was not based on the presence of cesium, but rather on the fact that oxidative stress is a likely contributing factor in thyroid disease.
 
So, as I read the NYT article last week and the dawn of recognition lit my grey matter, I wondered, could JT have gotten exposure from the fish she ate? 
Radioactive Baby Formula
 
I emailed the laboratory to get their thoughts on it. First, it was established that the cesium measured on the test wasn’t a radioactive isotope. That was good news. But as the conversation continued, some of the lab’s “brain trust,” Terry Pollock, MS, and Richard Lord, PhD, both thought that non-radioactive cesium could be associated with the radioactive isotopes (isotopes tend to congregate), and therefore a radioactive exposure couldn’t be ruled out conclusively. 
 
Damn. What now? (Again, I don’t want to be an alarmist. Remember, her exposure wasn’t frankly elevated but what I call “high-normal”; that is, when we looked at her results as compared to the population as a whole, she was higher than 80% of the population, but still within the so-called “normal limits” as compared to the standard laboratory reference range.)
 
I contacted JT a couple of days ago and suggested she stop all fish for the time being -- she was still consuming limited amounts of the EPA-OK fish. It just seemed safer to stop while we monitor and treat, rather than to figure out what fish in the U.S., if any, has cesium. 
 
I don’t have follow-up results on her yet, as we’ve just initiated these changes. However, I do think JT stands a better chance for a good outcome because of a systems approach to her treatment. So stay tuned. And by all means, comment away if you have thoughts. And yes, she continues to take a very high quality fish oil supplement. And yes, I do wonder what effect, if any, a potentially radioactive cesium exposure would have to do with her thyroid disease. 
 
**Science 1 June 2012:  Vol. 336 no. 6085 pp. 1115-1116
 

Naked Mole Rat, You’re My Detox Hero!

by Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

There’s no disputing these guys are homely at best, hideous at worst. They’re wrinkled, beady-eyed, hairless (except for whiskers), subterranean rodents with massive protruding front teeth. When one was spotted in Africa in 1842 by German naturalist, Eduard Ruppell, he mistakenly described it as diseased. Poor little NMR! 

But NMRs don’t need your pity. Learn a little more about these guys, and their beauty emerges: they tolerate oxygen deprivation better than Houdini. They live forever, feel no pain, and they don’t get cancer.  
    
They live healthily well into their rodent-year 90s, still reproducing, and participating in NMR society. They maintain muscle mass, fat mass, bone density, cardiac health and neuron numbers. (American Academy of Anti-aging Medicine, watch out!) Rumor has it that by the time they’re 90, naked mole rats have read all the classics, speak six rodent languages and have mastered at least three instruments, including the French horn.
 
Some advice: Don’t get into a hot pepper eating contest with a Naked Mole Rat.  They feel no pain -- seriously!  While naked mole rats have the nerve fibers that transmit pain, they make none of the pain neuropeptide Substance P. This ensures that they don’t experience the burn of acid like we do, enabling them to live comfortably in a low oxygen, high CO2 environment. (C02 is acidic -- think of the feeling of soda bubbles on your lip or in your nose.) They also don’t mind capsaicin -- the hot stuff in peppers -- even directly injected into their hairless little foot…
 
But what makes NMRs so super-cool? They don’t get cancer. In fact, you can spike an NMR with all the cancer cells and cancer-inducing toxins that you can think of, and NO RESPONSE. You can nail them with ray beam after ray beam of ionizing radiation, and NO response.  It doesn’t even seem to induce DNA damage. And, they rapidly render toxic metals harmless. Far more is required to kill an NMR cell than a mouse cell. 
 
Really?
 
Vast swaths of NMR DNA are devoted to DETOXIFICATION and DNA REPAIR genes. These cute little buggers protect their DNA which then in turn produce lots of detox proteins which protect them from toxin exposures. This is probably why they sail through life into their 90s, all happy and healthy. They break down bad cells (autophagy) and problem proteins (using the ubiquitin proteasome system) rapidly. 
 
A few more plot twists:   NMRs tolerate a ton of oxidative stress for a long time (20+ years!) without impairment. That’s right -- no aging, no disease.  (So long free radical theory of aging.) They also have SHORT telomeres and low telomerase activity, which flies in the face of our understanding that LONG telomeres and high telomerase activity are associated with longevity. To those of you gulping down your resveratrol-laced red wine hoping for the fountain of youth through robust telomere preservation:  maybe the more primary effect is on glutathione activity? And finally, the subterranean NMRs are naturally very vitamin D deficient.*
 
What can we learn from these ungainly subterranean masters of the universe? 
 
As we speak, pharma is embracing the NMR, attempting to coax out their secrets in hopes of new block busters for pain, longevity, and anticancer therapy.
 
Perhaps DETOXIFICATION is THE fundamental issue in wellness.
 
But how do we integrative clinicians think about using the wisdom of NMR physiology? Well, off the top of my head, I’d say we should continue our focus on detoxification, detoxification, detoxification, as a fundamental issue to wellness. Even if it is an area still deemed “emerging.” I’ll take the risk. Could it be that many treatments of integrative therapy that work, do so through some degree of stimulation of detoxification pathways? NMR physiology might suggest that support for robust Phase I, II and III detoxification pathways are important to wellness, cancer prevention and longevity. Maybe stimulating detoxification is the key mechanism of resveratrol??  Where’s my glass of red wine -- I’m heading underground.  
 
NOTE: I very liberally borrowed from the much better, reference article on naked mole rats, entitled “Underground Supermodels,” by Dr. Thomas Park in the June, 2012, issue of Scientist Magazine. In fact, I have been carrying that issue around in my roller bag since June intending to author this blog. I can finally take it out. http://www.the-scientist.com/
 
*Gen Comp Endocrinol. 1993 Jun;90(3):338-45.
 
Naked mole rat photo: Jedimentat44 (Flickr.com), hot pepper photo by  Matt and Kim Rudge (Flickr.com), nmr in wine glass drawing zazzle.com.

A farm-raised tale about farm-raised salmon

by Dr. Kara Fitzgerald

Salmon SteaksI was at Whole Foods Market (WFM) last night. It was the grand-opening day. Kind of embarrassing to admit such a thing would get me going, but it did. Finally, one opened in Connecticut near enough to me where it might actually be a realistic shopping option. 

I do support our local stores, of course, but I WISH they had sustainable/organic fish and meat! East Coast health food stores seem to have been started by vegetarians in the '60s and '70s. (I know this because my first job was at the amazing, but meat-free Willimantic Food Coop when I was 14. My mom paid me to work our allotted time. I ate a lotta carob pecan crunch during our allotted time…that’s what I remember of it, anyway. 
 
Anyhow, I was at the Whole Foods Market. My Mom, joining me on this grand-opening day, brought me a yummy little piece of salmon teriyaki. "Mom," I asked, "is it wild-caught?" She didn’t know. It’s a big issue for me, for us, for everyone eating fish. Why? Because farm-raised salmon (aka Atlantic salmon) is ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST TOXIC FOODS! Ouch! 
 
PCBs in meats and salmon
As I approached the fish market at the WFM, I noticed that it was indeed farm-raised. Ugh. And then I noticed that the farm-raised salmon farmer was standing there. "Did you know that farm-raised salmon is not so good?" I asked.
 
My Mom said, "You just told me it’s the world’s most toxic food!"
 
"OK." I said to him. "It’s bad. In fact, I consult for a laboratory that measure toxins in humans, including PCBs, which are horribly elevated in farmed salmon. The CEO had high PCB levels, higher than anyone else in the lab. The culprit seemed to be the morning farm-raised salmon bagel habit he’d developed."
 
"Hmmmmm. Can I get back to you on that?" the farm-raised salmon farmer asked.
 
"Yes. Please do."
 
And, to his credit, he did promptly. He emailed me a detailed 23-page document "WFM Seafood Quality Standards for Farm Raised Salmon."
 
Here are a couple of points I found interesting:
  • Antibiotics, parasiticides, hormones, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are prohibited in feed.
  • Stringent water and food quality guidelines.
  • All farmed salmon must contain at least 1,820 mg of combined EPA and DHA per eight ounce piece of uncooked salmon.
  • Maximum allowable contaminant levels (including PCBs and mercury) are set by WHO--2.16pg/g TEQ (toxic equivalent). The above figure shows suggests some farm-raised salmon clocks in up to 55pg/g.
 
While I still prefer wild-caught salmon, appropriately farm-raised salmon may actually be a viable and necessary option. We’ll call it green salmon.
 
 
 

Pages