Advanced Mediterranean Diet Blog

 For overweight and obese women, loss of between five and 10% of body weight significantly reduces urine leakage.  According to the research report in last month’s Obstetrics & Gynecology journal, weight loss should be the first approach to urine leakage in overweight and obese women.

The other word for urine leakage is incontinence: an involuntary loss of urine.  It’s a major problem that isn’t much talked about.  It’s not exactly dinner-party conversation material.  You can imagine its effect on quality of lifeIn the U.S., leakage of urine on at least a weekly basis is reported byone in 10 women and one in 20 men.  It’s more common at higher ages and in women.  Just looking at non-pregnant women, incontinence affects 7% of women aged 20-39, 17% of those aged 40-59, and 23% of women 60-79 years old.

The study at hand involved 338 overweight and obese women: average age 53 (minimum of 30), average body mass index 36, average weight 92 kg (202 lb).  For participation, they had to have at least 10 incontinence episodes per week.  On average, they reported 24 leakage episodes per week (10 stress incontinence, 14 urge incontinence).  All women were given a “self-help incontinence behavioral booklet with instructions for improving bladder control.”  They were randomized to two different weight-loss programs, but I won’t bore you with the details.  The diets were the standard reduced-calorie type.  One diet group had many more meetings than than the other.

The women kept diaries of leakage, and even collected urine soaked pads for weighing.

Results

Eight-five percent of the women completed the 18-month study.

By six months, 89 of the women has lost five to 10% of body weight; 84 lost over 10%.  As expected, when measured at 18 months, only 61 women were in the “five to 10% loss” category; 71 were in the “over 10%” group. 

Greater amounts of weigh loss were linked to fewer episodes of leakage.  Maximal improvement in leakage episodes were seen in the women who lost between five and 10% of body weight, with no additional benefit to greater degrees of weight loss, generally.

Women who lost 5-10% of their body weight were two to four times more likely to achieve at least a 70% redcution in total and urge incontinent episode frequency compared with women who gained weight at 6, 12, and 18 months.

Weight loss works better for stress incontinence than for urge incontinence.

Three of every four women who lost five to 10% of body weight said they were moderately or very satisfied with their improved bladder control.

Bottom Line

Weight loss is usually not a cure for incontinence, but a reasonable management option for overweight and obese women.  It’s going to take loss of five or 10% of body weight.  Other options  include drugs, surgery, Kegel exercises, and just living with it.

Five or 10% weight loss for a 200 pound woman is just 10 or 20 pounds.  That degree of weight loss is also linked to lower risk of diabetes and hypertension: even more reason go for it.  

Does it work for men?  Who knows?

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Wing RR, Creasman JM, West DS, Richter HE, Myers D, Burgio KL, Franklin F, Gorin AA, Vittinghoff E, Macer J, Kusek JW, Subak LL, & Program to Reduce Incontinence by Diet and Exercise (2010). Improving urinary incontinence in overweight and obese women through modest weight loss. Obstetrics and gynecology, 116 (2 Pt 1), 284-92 PMID: 20664387

My last post at the Self/NutritionData Heart Health Blog outlines recent evidence that chocolate seems to reduce both deaths and hospitalizations from heart failure among women.

You’ll also find my thoughts on milk chocolate versus dark chocolate, and the healthy “dose.”

Steve Parker, M.D.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition earlier this month published a research report on whole grain consumption and various cardiovascular disease risk factors.  U.K. investigators compared the effects of refined grains versus whole grains in healthy middle-aged adults.  The strongest finding was that three servings a day of whole grains—wheat and oats in this instance—reduced systolic blood pressure by 5 mmHg. 

The investigators suggest this BP lowering may be responsible for the reduced risk of heart attack and stroke associated with whole grain consumption in observational studies.

Additional details are at my Self/NutritionData Heart Health Blog post of August 17, 2010.  The researchers noted a three or four percent reduction in LDL cholesterol (”bad cholesterol”) in study participants eating refined grains, yet, mysteriously, had nothing to say about that.

Steve Parker, M.D.

I answered this question recently at the Diabetic Mediterranean Diet Blog, based on research from the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado.

It’s an important question.  Childhood obesity in the U.S. tripled from the early 1980s to 2000, ending with a 17% obesity rate.  Overweight and obesity together describe 32% of U.S. children.  Some experts believe this generation of kids will be the first in U.S. history to suffer a decline in life expectancy, related to obesity.

Steve Parker, M.D., author of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet

Type 2 diabetes is associated with higher incidence of several cancers: liver, pancreas, uterus, colo-rectal, breast, and bladder.  On a brighter note, diabetics have lower risk of prostate cancer.

That’s about all we know for sure, according to a report from an expert panel convened by the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society and published recently in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The report is focused on type 2 diabetes simply because 95% of all worldwide cases of diabetes are type 2; we have much more data.  [Type 1 diabetes, you may recall, has onset much earlier  in life and is fatal if not treated with insulin injections.  The type 1 pancreas produces no insulin.]

This report is a good summary of all we know about the cancer/diabetes connection in 2010.  What we don’t know far outweighs what we do know.

Does optimal treatment of diabetes reduce cancer risk?  Do particular diabetic medications raise or lower the risk of cancer?  If an overweight diabetic loses excess weight, does the risk of cancer diminish?  Sorry . . . we don’t know.

In men, 25% of all invasive cancers in the U.S. will be prostate cancer.  In women, breast cancer is the leader, comprising 26% of all cancers.  [Common skin cancers are rarely invasive or fatal and are not included in these statistics.  Melanoma, on the other hand, is invasive.]

The lifetime probability of an individual developing invasive cancer in the U.S. is about 4 in 10 (40%).  A little higher in men (45%), a little lower in women (38%).  The American Cancer Society projected 565,650 deaths from cancer in 2008.  If we look at deaths of people under 85, cancer kills more people than heart disease.

The traditional Mediterranean diet is associated with less risk of prostate, breast, colon, and uterus cancer.  Two of these, you’ll note, are seen at higher rates in diabetics.

Lack of regular exercise is associated with higher cancer rates. 

If I were a type 2 diabetic wanting to reduce my risk of cancer, I’d be sure to exercise regularly, keep my body mass index under 30 (if not lower), consider a Mediterranean-style diet, and ask my doctor to monitor for onset of cancer.

Steve Parker, M.D., author of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet

Reference: Giovannucci, E., Harlan, D., Archer, M., Bergenstal, R., Gapstur, S., Habel, L., Pollak, M., Regensteiner, J., & Yee, D. (2010). Diabetes and Cancer: A Consensus Report CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians DOI: 10.3322/caac.20078

They might, if you’re a woman over 50 taking over 500 mg elemental calcium daily without a vitamin D supplement.

Details are at my last Self/NutritionData Heart Health Blog post.

Steve Parker, M.D.

My 2007 book, The Advanced Mediterranean Diet: Lose Weight, Feel Better, Live Longer is now available in PDF format for $9.95 USD.  It’s not a low-carb diet book, but a calorie-restricted, balanced diet incorporating the healthy features of the traditional Mediterranean diet.  The physical book is also available from Amazon or CreateSpace. 

As we learned in yesterday’s post, loss of excess weight can be accomplished by measuring either carb grams or calories.  If you can handle monitoring your calorie consumption—and I make it as easy as possible in the book—then the Advanced Mediterranean Diet is a good way to go.  Due to the relatively high carbohydrate content of the traditional Mediterranean diet, however, people with diabetes or prediabetes should do better with carb-counting, as in the Low-Carb Mediterranean Diet or Ketogenic Mediterranean Diet.

Either way, I got you covered.

Steve Parker, M.D. 

Dieters on low-fat and low-carb diets both lost the same amount of weight after two years, according to a just-published article in Annals of Internal Medicine.  Both groups received intensive behavioral treatment, which may be the key to success for many.  Low-carb eating was clearly superior in terms of increased HDL cholesterol, which may help prevent heart disease and stroke.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and was carried out in Denver, St. Louis, and Philadelphia.

How Was It Done?

Healthy adults aged 18-65 were randomly assigned to either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet.  Average age was45.  Average body mass index was 36 (over 25 is overweight; over 30 is obese).  Of the 307 participants, two thirds were women.  People over 136 kg (299 lb) were excluded from the study—I guess because weight-loss through dieting is rarely successful at higher weights. 

The low-carb diet:  Essentially the Atkins diet with a prolonged induction phase (12 weeks instead of two).  Started with maximum of 20 g carbs daily, as low-carb vegetables.  Increase carbs by 5 g per week thereafter as long as weight loss progressed as planned.  Fat and protein consumption were unlimited.  The primary behavioral goal was to limit carb consumption.

The low-fat diet:  Calories were limited to 1200-1500 /day (women) or 1500-1800 (men).  [Those levels in general are too low, in my opinion.]  Diet was to consist of about 55% of calories from carbs, 30% from fat, 15% from protein.  The primary behavioral goal was to limit overall energy (calorie) intake. 

Both groups received frequent, intensive in-person group therapy (lead by dietitians and psychologists) periodically over two years, covering such topics as self-monitoring, weight-loss tips, management of weight regain and noncompliance with assigned diet.  Regular walking was recommended.

Body composition was measured periodically with dual X-ray absorptiometry.

What Did They Find?

Both groups lost about 11% of initial body weight, but tended to regain so that after two years, both groups average losses were only 7% of initial weight.  Weight loss looked a little better at three months in the low-carb group, but it wasn’t statistically significant. 

The groups had no differences in bone density or body composition.

No serious cardiovascular illnesses were reported by participants.  During the first six months, the low-carb group reported more bad breath, hair loss, dry mouth, and constipation.  After six months, constipation in the low-carb group was the only symptom difference between the groups.

During the first six months, the low-fat group had greater decreases in LDL cholesterol (with potentially less risk of heart disease), but the difference did not persist for one or two years.

Increases in HDL cholesterol (potentially heart-healthy) persisted throughout the study for the low-carb group.  The increase was 20% above baseline.

About a third of participants in both groups dropped out of the study before the two years were up.  [Not unusual.]

My Comments

Contrary to several previous studies that suggested low-carb diets are more successful than low-fat, the study at hand indicates they are equivalent as long as dieters get intensive long-term group behavioral intervention. 

Low-carb critics warn that the diet will cause osteoporosis, a dangerous thinning of the bones that predisposes to fractures.  This study disproves that.

Contrary to widespread criticism that low-carb eating—with lots of fat and cholestrol— is bad for your heart, this study notes a sustained elevation in HDL cholesterol (”good cholesterol”) on the low-carb diet over two years.  This also suggests the low-carbers  followed the diet fairly well.  The investigators also note that low-carb eating tends to produce light, fluffy LDL cholesterol, which is felt to be less injurious to arteries compared to small, dense LDL cholesterol.

A major strength of the study is that it lasted two years, which is rare for weight-loss diet research.

A major weakness is that the investigators apparently didn’t do anything to document the participants’ degree of compliance with the assigned diet.  It’s well known that many people in this setting can follow a diet pretty well for two to four months.  After that, adherence typically drops off as people go back to their old habits.  The group therapy sessions probably improved compliance, but we don’t know since it wasn’t documented. 

How often do we hear “Diets don’t work.”  Well, that’s just wrong.

Overall, it’s an impressive study, and done well. 

Individuals wishing to lose weight on their own can’t replicate these study conditions because of the in-person behavioral intervention component.  There are lots of self-help calorie-restricted balanced diets (e.g., Sonoma Diet, The Zone, Thin For Life,  Advanced Mediterranean Diet) and low-carb diets (e.g., the Atkins Diet,  the Low-Carb Mediterranean or Ketogenic Mediterranean Diets).  On-line support groups—e.g., Low Carb Friends and SparkPeople and 3 Fat Chicks on a Diet—could supply some necessary behavioral intervention strategies and support.  

Choosing a weight-loss program is not as easy as many think.  [Well, I’ll admit that choosing the wrong one is easy.]  I review the pertinent issues in my “Prepare for Weight Loss” page.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Foster GD, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, Makris AP, Rosenbaum DL, Brill C, Stein RI, Mohammed BS, Miller B, Rader DJ, Zemel B, Wadden TA, Tenhave T, Newcomb CW, & Klein S (2010). Weight and metabolic outcomes after 2 years on a low-carbohydrate versus low-fat diet: a randomized trial. Annals of internal medicine, 153 (3), 147-57 PMID: 20679559

UT Southwestern Medical School investigators recently determined that avoiding obesity is better at preventing high blood pressure than is being physically fit, although both work.

Keeping blood pressures down at reasonable levels is important in prevention of heart attacks, strokes, aneurysms, heart failure, and kidney failure.

Details are at my recent Self-NutritionData Heart Health Blog post.

Steve Parker, M.D.

How many carbonated soft drinks would you have to drink daily to increase your risk of high blood pressure?

Fructose as an added sugar seems to raise the risk of high blood pressure.  High blood pressure, in turn, causes heart attacks, strokes, aneurysms, heart failure, and kidney failure.  Most soft drinks are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.

So how many soft drinks does it take to increase your risk of high blood pressure?  Find out at my recent Self-NutritionData Heart Health blog post, just a quick click away.

Steve Parker, M.D.