You have no items in your shopping cart.
category : Dr. Mixon's Longevity Journal
Statins, Fat, and the Prostate
A recent study of prostate cancer, funded by the federal government, linked high cholesterol levels with doubling the risk of developing an aggressive cancer that is more likely to result in death. The study, which involved over 6000 men, showed there was a clear correlation between a cholesterol level over 200 and a doubling in the incidence of high-grade malignancies of the prostate. As a result, some have leapt to the conclusion that placing men on statin drugs, which are a class of drugs that lower cholesterol levels, should lower the risk of prostate cancer (or at least lower the risk of high-grade aggressive prostate cancer).
I wish life was that straight forward, but the data on statin use and prostate cancer incidence is complex. There are studies indicating that long-term use of statin drugs may decrease the overall risk of prostate cancer to some modest degree. On the other hand, a large study, published in September of 2009 and done here at the Seattle Fred
Exercise: As easy as taking a pill?
Recently there have been several reports making the rounds on the various news outlets of a new drug called 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide-1-β-d-riboside (or AICAR to normal people) that seems to mimic the effects of exercise…at least it does in rats. The rats were able to build muscle, gain endurance, and lose weight. Even their ability to metabolize sugar was improved when they took AICAR. Click here to read the study.
A lot of people will have knee jerk skepticism that any drug can ever take the place of good old fashioned exercise. I, however, would not be one of them. Now, I’m not saying that AICAR is necessarily going to replace the need for exercise but sooner or later something probably will. After all, exercise fundamentally just sets off a series of bio-chemical changes in our bodies that have an awful lot of beneficial effects on us. There’s no
The Secret to Adult NON-set Diabetes
Since I stopped practicing general family medicine and started dedicating myself exclusively to aging issues, there is one disease process that comes up again and again. It’s the one on which I probably spend the lion’s share of my time as a clinical physician. That process is adult-onset, or Type II, diabetes. No mistake about it, it’s a killer and in America’s adult population, it’s a full blown epidemic.
People worry a great deal about cancer, but your chances of getting cancer pale beside the one-in-three shot you have of developing diabetes before you die. People tend to overlook diabetes since the disease has been manageable for decades. But managed or not, over the long term it will still ravage your heart, eyes, and circulatory system.
The thing that’s so crazy about diabetes is that we still have a tendency to view and treat adult-onset diabetes as a purely genetic disorder. The truth is, however, diabetes is like heart disease
Do Doctors Know Everything?
Some patients get upset if I will not accept, on faith, that their latest homeopathic, holistic, ionized, wheat grass remedy (you get the idea) was unlikely to cure their arthritis. Many years ago I accepted the fact that there are many things I do not, and probably never will, know. But I like to think I know SOMETHING.
I think the perception that we doctors don’t know anything derives from how often patients get told crazy, conflicting health advice. Consider a man who was born in 1949 who would be about 60 now. In his lifetime, he would have seen doctors talk about which brand of cigarettes had the greatest health benefits and that a hearty breakfast of bacon and eggs was healthy. However, he would also remember being told that the cholesterol in eggs and bacon would kill him but then he’d recall being told that maybe it wasn’t as bad as we originally thought. More recently, he has probably heard that there is good and bad cholesterol and he needs to get
Are You a Pregnant Horse?
I came across a news item the other day that irritated me. It was another one of those stories about how dangerous estrogen therapy is for post-menopausal women. It contained the usual tsking and finger-wagging over doctors who felt it necessary to interfere with the ‘natural process of aging and menopause’ and the horrible risks of cancer they cause while doing it.
There’s so much wrong with that position I scarcely know where to begin. First off, we scarcely need to discuss my opinion of the ‘the natural process of aging’. Suffice it to say, the natural process of aging is one of slow decline into a pitiable, crippled, wretched shell of a human being. My opinion: we don’t have to just give up like that.
The medical community started giving estrogen to post-menopausal women nearly 50 years ago for excellent reasons. Without it the health and quality of life of post-menopausal women was declining so precipitously, it became apparent that