One of the most common complaints I hear from my menopausal patients, is the problem of poor sleep.  After a lifetime of sleeping like the proverbial baby, it’s common for perimenopausal and menopausal women to suddenly battle with insomnia for the first time.  Often it’s the problem of frequent night waking, and of course this is not helped by hot flushes or night sweats.  Not only do broken nights leave you feeling like a zombie, it would appear that they also contribute significantly to that other bane of the menopausal years…. weight gain. 

A new study in the International Journal of Obesity had the benefit of assessing participants over a lengthy period of time.  This contrasts with most other research that has looked at sleep and weight issues at a single point of time.. making it difficult to determine, which cane first, the sleep problems or the weight gain?  This latest study suggests strongly that it’s the sleep problems which eventuate first, and over time, contribute to excessively high weight gain.

The Finnish researchers followed 7,300 people aged 40 to 60 (both men and women) for seven years.  They found that a third of women with sleep problems at the start of the study gained an average of 11 pounds over the seven years, compared with only one fifth of their soundly sleeping counterparts.  And the cruelest twist of all for us mid-life women?  Men showed no such link between weight gain and sleep!

The study authors do comment that while an association between poor sleep and weight gain looks fairly strong, it is impossible to prove an absolute “cause and effect” relationship at this time.   It’s possible that other factors account for the observed relationship. 

Why would insomnia affect our weight anyway?  It seems that a lack of sleep alters our levels of the appetite suppressing hormones leptin and ghrelin, which could lead to overeating.  That makes sense to me.  I always notice that if I’ve had a really bad nights sleep, or been very late to bed, the next day I can’t get enough carbs to satisfy my hunger.

If you’re a woman and battling the bulge, even though the research is not 100% definitive, I would strongly suggest getting some help to sort out your sleep issues, as well as addressing the weight more directly through sensible diet and regular exercise.

Reflux, indigestion, heartburn… whatever you want to call it, it’s a huge pain in the gullet.  It’s also an incredibly common problem plaguing millions of us.  Rather than cut out the coffee, alcohol, rich foods and overeating that contribute to the problem, it’s so much easier to reach for a pill.  And that’s exactly what millions do each day. 

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI’s) are one of the most widely used class of drugs for reflux and stomach ulcer pain.  They include drugs such as Nexium, Prilosec and Prevacid.  In many western countries PPI’s are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs, and in America alone, 2009 sales reached   $13.6 billion.

When your stomach and chest feel like they’re about to burst into flames, do these drugs work?  Yes… they give fairly rapid relief, and prevent ongoing acute episodes of heartburn.  What many don’t realize though, is that these drugs come with some very real side effects and risks.

PPI’s bring their sweet relief by suppressing your stomach production of hydrochloric acid, needed to digest food. Tinkering with stomach acid can lead to some unexpected outcomes, one of which is an increased risk of a really nasty intestinal infection from the bacteria Clostridium difficile.  For some this hard to treat infection will just cause a major case of diarrhea.  For others the outcome may be the surgical removal the colon, or death.

Then there’s the problem of snapping bones with long term or high dose use of PPI’s.  The FDA have just issued a warning that these drugs increase your risk of fracturing your hip, wrist or spine.  The research behind the warning stretches way back to 2007 when a large study demonstrated that those using PPI’s for a year increased their risk of hip fracture by a whopping 44%.

Why?  Because these drugs reduce hydrochloric acid in the stomach, making it difficult to absorb calcium.

So rather than rely on months or years of these drugs to control your digestive problems, try taking some proactive steps yourself.  Cut out all the foods known to trigger reflux – tomato, citrus, chocolate, tea, coffee, alcohol and spicy foods are top of the list.  Cut down your portion size, and start to actually chew your food before you swallow.  Avoid drinking anything for a half hour before or after your meals.  If you’ve still got a problem try a course of high potency quality probiotics for a month to six weeks, and augment with digestive enzymes if needed. 

Lynda Wharton is a registered acupuncturist and naturopath specializing in woman’s health issues.  She is also a widely published columnist and author.  Her latest book “Wellbeing” is available at www.lyndawharton.com

AMH TEST

As an acupuncturist and naturopath, working with women trying to conceive is a big part of my daily clinic life.  Recently, many of them have asked me about the new AMH blood  test hitting the headlines in New Zealand. While it’s early days and there appears to be yet more research to do, this simple blood test appears to be a very useful tool  for women wanting a true insight into the state of their remaining fertility.

The AMH tests levels of Anti-mullerian hormone.  This hormone is produced by egg follicles that the ovaries grow in order to prepare an egg for release.  In a nut shell, the more of this hormone you have in your bloodstream, the better off you are in the fertility stakes.  Hormone levels reduce with age, and the lower your levels, the less likely you are to conceive.

AMH levels are a reflection of how many egg follicles you have remaining in your ovaries, and it’s also a reflection of the biological health and vitality of those remaining eggs.  The biological age of a woman’s eggs can differ from her chronological age.  You can be a fit and sprightly 35 year old for example, but have eggs more like those you’d expect to find in a 40 year old woman. A baby girl is born with all the egg follicles she will ever have, and once she starts ovulating from her early teens onwards, the number of egg follicles gradually decline until menopause.  The existing test used to guage fertility is the FSH or Follicle Stimulating Hormone test.  This test is much less sensitive than the AMH test, and is only able to tell a woman her fertility is declining, at an advanced stage of the process.

Developers of the AMH test are really emphasising this use for the test, suggesting that women in their thirties have a test to determine their likely fertility for the following two years.  Based on their results they have a clearer understanding of the potential cost or otherwise of delaying conception.  Perhaps they want to travel overseas; take a job promotion… or simply find a man of “fathering” quality.  A poor AMH result would give them the option of trying to conceive sooner rather than later.  Test results are thought to be 70% accurate.

The AMH also makes the stressful process of fertility treatment a little less of a lottery.   AMH testing of women about to undergo IVF allows specialists a clearer idea of the likelihood of success for a particular woman.  Understanding the biological age of a womans eggs will allow doctors to tinker with fertility drug doses to maximise a womans chance of success, while minimising the risk of “hyperstimulating” her ovaries… a potentially fatal situation. 

Working with women experiencing the grief of infertility, I personally see  a great benefit in this new test.  I would encourage all my 30 something patients, still putting off pregnancy for yet another year, to have this test.

Lynda Wharton is a Traditional Chinese Acupuncturist and Naturopath with 25 years experience in Holistic Woman’s Health.  She is also the author of “Wellbeing – an essential guide to vibrant good health for women available online at www.lyndawharton.com

It’s been an interesting week in the bedroom… but not in a good way.  It’s been a week of broken sleep, followed by alarm clocks ringing at dawn, and a body determined to pull up the duvet and keep on slumbering.   Between cat fights, teenagers and the full moon, sleep deprivation has been the order of the day.

That’s why I was so interested to read a new study from the University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, looking at the effect of sleep deprivation on our health.  In particular, the effect that not enough shut eye has on our body’s ability to regulate blood sugar levels.

Here in New Zealand type II diabetes (once upon a time called “old age onset diabetes) is reaching epidemic proportions, and costing our country a fortune.  Type II diabetes is now effecting children in their early teens, instead of the once usual old age onset.  Experts tell us that this crippling disease is the result of obesity, lack of exercise and a poor diet.  While all that remains true, this latest study got me wondering about the part played by poor sleep habits.  Could it be that the modern phenomenon of staying up late into the night playing on computers, or watching TV, and the resulting chronic sleep deprivation, is partly driving our type II diabetes epidemic?

This form of diabetes occurs when our body is unable to effectively respond to the hormone insulin.  Insulin is responsible for moving sugar out of our bloodstream and into our cells, thus regulating blood sugar.   When we become resistant to the effects of insulin, sugar levels rise and wreak havoc with our eyes, blood vessels, kidneys and nerves.

This latest study found that even after one night of inadequate sleep (4 hours, instead of the ideal 8 hours), blood sugar regulation is markedly effected.  Nine healthy people were examined, once after a good 8 hours of sleep, and once after only 4 hours of sleep.  After the short nights sleep, the sensitivity to the blood sugar regulating effects of insulin was reduced by between 19 and 24%. 

An American study published last year found that people who slept less than six hours a night were 4.5 times more likely to develop abnormal blood sugar readings, in the following six years, compared with those sleeping 8 hours a night regularly.

So, the obvious take home message… turn off the tv and computer, ignore the stack of work waiting to be done, and slide beneath the duvet on the right side of midnight.

Lynda Wharton is a Registered Acupuncturist and Naturopath, health researcher and writer with over 20 years experience.  She is the author of three woman’s health books, the latest of which is “Wellbeing” published by Harper Collins, available online at www.lyndawharton.com

A new study from Denmark confirms what I’ve suspected for a long time. Women who live a life of high career pressure (a role traditionally associated with males) take on the male profile of cardiac disease. The Danish study looked at a group of 12,000 nurses between the ages of 45 and 64, and assessed the impact of their work pressures, and the degree of personal influence or power they had in the workplace. The nurses were tracked for a fifteen year period. The results were hardly surprising, but interesting confirmation that it’s not just stressed out type A business men who pay a price for workplace stress. Those nurses who reported their work pressures to be too high, were 25% more likely to develop heart disease compared with nurses who said work pressures were manageable and appropriate. For those at the top end of the stress scale, who felt overwhelmed by work pressures, there was a 35% increased risk of heart disease.

Premenopausal women under the age of 50 generally have a low incidence of heart disease, due to the cardiovascular protective effects of estrogen. If you’re a younger woman in a stressful work environment, don’t bank on your female hormones protecting your heart from the effects of stress. According to this latest study, you are in a demographic MOST at risk of work stress related heart disease. Nurses under the age of 50, who felt they were under moderate work place stress were a whopping 60% more likely to have heart disease compared with their unstressed peers.

So is it the actual biochemical changes resulting from stress that predispose us to heart disease, or is it the effect that stress has on our lifestyle choices? Most likely it’s a combination of both. Feeling chronically stressed puts you into a “fight or flight” state for much of the day, complete with health damaging biochemical changes. But the truth is that if you’re stressed and exhausted when you get home you’re much less likely to have the energy to exercise or cook yourself a healthy dinner… and a glass or three of wine a night may look just a little too tempting.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins. Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

In 2002 a Cancer Research UK study looked in detail at a group of 50,000 women with breast cancer, and another group of 100,000 women without breast cancer. They were especially interested in whether or not women had breast fed their infants. What they found was that the longer a woman had breast fed, the less likely they were to develop breast cancer. For every year of breast feeding a woman’s risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.3%. There was also a 7% reduction in risk of breast cancer for each child born.

You’re probably thinking that 4.3% is not much of a risk reduction for a whole year of breast feeding? Because breast cancer is such a common cancer, in a country like Britain, if every new mum chose to breast feed for an extra six months, it would mean 1000 fewer breast cancer diagnoses each year.

When you look at the global pattern of breast cancer, the western world has by far the highest incidence. Countries in which breast feeding for long periods of time is standard practice (like China and Japan) have much lower rates of breast cancer. Based on global study, researchers have concluded that the incidence of breast cancer in developed countries could be reduced by more than half, if women had the number of births, and duration of breast feeding common in undeveloped countries

It’s still not fully understood exactly how breast feeding protects breasts, but we do know that breastfeeding lowers the levels of some cancer related hormones in a mother’s body. Also, when breast feeding comes to an end the body rids itself of any cells in the breasts that may have DNA damage, and this reduces the risk of breast cancer developing in the future.

If you’re still not convinced that breast feeding is the way to go, here’s another amazing health benefit for your breast fed baby. Breast fed female infants have a 25% lower risk of eventual breast cancer, compared with women who were bottle fed.

In October 2007 the World Cancer Research Fund published one of the most comprehensive reports ever on the link between cancer and lifestyle. One of its ten key recommendations was that mother breastfeed exclusively for six months before adding other foods to an infants diet…. To lower breast cancer risk for both the mum and the baby.

So if you or someone you know is about to become a mum, give them the ultimate mothers day gift… tell them about the amazing health benefits for them and their baby, from choosing breast over bottle.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your breast health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins. Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

Latest reading this week suggests that I’m fooling myself if I think giving my kids muesli for breakfast is a healthy choice. Last week saw the release of the latest New Zealand Total Diet Survey results. This ongoing food testing looks for pesticide residues in common New Zealand foods. This time it was the turn of the muesli box to come under scrutiny. The results made my hair stand on end!!

Four samples of muesli contained ten pesticide residues. Six of these ten were not just your average garden variety pesticide, but belonged to the list of pesticides highlighted by Pesticide Action Network as highly hazardous pesticides. These chemical nasties pose a known hazard to human health, increasing risk of cancer and endocrine (hormone) disruption.
“Ok”, I hear you say, “I’ll swap to a different cereal to avoid the pesticides”. I don’t like your chances! Bran cereal tested was almost as toxic, containing eight different pesticide residues. The Food Safety Authority (as usual) totally downplayed the findings, pointing out that each of the pesticide residues was below the legal limit. After years of reading and researching the subject of environmental toxins and their effect on our health, I know this reassurance is utter codswollop (don’t you love that word). As the highly clued up, Dr Meriel Watts from the Pesticide Action Network points out, low level exposure to pesticides can cause both cancer and endocrine problems. Add together six different pesticide residues at the breakfast table, each of which are known to cause these problems, and you most definitely have a health risk. Pesticides are always tested in isolation when their potentially negative effects are investigated. Studies show us, that mixing together chemicals which are seemingly “safe” at small doses, can result in new toxic effects.

Overall, in the various food groups tested, 25 different pesticide residues were found, amongst 33 different food types. 19 of the pesticides are on the Pesticide Action Network International list of highly hazardous pesticides.

So, should we all stop eating muesli for breakfast? I don’t think so. It is after all a great way to start the day with whole grains, fruits, nuts, and a low glycemic energy boost. Maybe now though, it’s time to pay the extra and choose the organic version. After all, certified organic muesli doesn’t contain any pesticide residues, and you can be sure as you kids head out into the new day, they’re not taking with them a stomach full of pesticides and toxins.

To your Good Health

Lynda Wharton
www.lyndawharton.com

It’s been an interesting week in the world of woman’s health… and in my clinic.  Most of my woman patients take a high quality multivitamin/mineral and antioxidant formula every day, as part of their nutritional wellness regime.  Just like me, they swallow their tablet alongside their porridge and fruit, secure in the knowledge that this daily ritual is an investment in good health.

Imagine the questions I have fielded this week, with the internet and newspapers abuzz with the news that their daily multivitamin actually INCREASES their likelihood of developing breast cancer.  I’ve read the reports… and have I stopped taking my multi?  No!  Here’s why….

The research causing all the fuss hails from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.  Back in 1997 they recruited just over 35,000 women, between the ages of 49 and 83, to fill in a self assessment questionnaire.  Included, were questions relating to some (but not ALL) known risk factors for breast cancer, as well as questions relating to the use of a daily multivitamin.  Recently, the women were followed up to see how many of them had developed breast cancer in the intervening 10 years.  9,000 women claimed they were taking a multi, and of them 293 developed breast cancer, leaving 96.7% of the multi users not having developed breast cancer.  In the group of 26,000 non multi users, 681 women developed breast cancer.

Ok, so at first glance it all looks a bit of a worry doesn’t it?  Someone who actually understands the intricacies and fallibilities of experimental design is Professor of Epidemiology, Rod Jackson from the University of Auckland.  His take on the research?  “The study is non-randomised, so I wouldn’t take too much from it.  Cohort studies like this trial are just too prone to biases to be very helpful”.

Remember that the latest study found only an association between women using multi’s and breast cancer, not a CAUSE and EFFECT.  Of the women who eventually developed breast cancer, one common denominator was that they took multi’s, but from that, one can’t claim that the multis CAUSED the cancer.    All of the women taking a multi were lumped into one entity, and nowhere did the study look at the data of each woman individually.  Consequently it is impossible to surmise how taking a multivitamin may increase breast cancer risk in any individual woman.

As a  prescriber of clinical nutritional therapy for almost 25 years, I’m also concerned about use of the generic term “multivitamins” in this study.  What the heck does that mean? I know from clinical experience that not all multi’s are born equal.  Quite frankly, some of them are nothing more than a synthetic, poorly balanced recipe for expensive and smelly urine.  I would have been much more interested in the outcome of this study if individual women were examined in terms of the type of multivitamins they were taking.  Did these multi’s contain only vitamins?  Were there minerals in some, any or all of them?  Were they synthetic or organic forms? Did they contain added antioxidants? Did they contain selenium?  Were they iron free or containing iron?  Did they contain vitamin E and was it synthetic, or a complex of different tocopherols?… Blah, blah, blah, I could go on and on, but you get the gist of what I’m saying don’t you?    We have no idea what these women were taking as a “multi” each day, and whether a study in which they each took the same standardized high quality formula daily, would have produced the same results, or would have actually demonstrated a protective effect against breast cancer.

It’s worth noting that this latest warning about the dangers of multi’s flies in the face of some very well respected, large and well designed studies showing no increased risk of disease with multivitamin use in women.  One of the biggest and most respected of these, was the Woman’s Health Initiative study involving over 161,000 women, and running for 8 years.  Robustly constructed, this study failed to show any harm to women taking a multivitamin daily, over an 8 year period.  

Media hysteria aside, I will happily continue to take my multi with breakfast each day, and will prescribe the same high quality nutritional product to my patients, without concern.  I’ll wait for some more reliable research to come along before I’m convinced that my daily multi is a risk to my breast health.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your breast health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins.  Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

Now, courtesy of Allergan, we have a new designer drug that could make mascara excess a thing of the past. Why then, am I not jumping for joy at the prospect of an end to the teenage mascara wars? Because, we’re talking a drug… a powerful drug, with side effects (some of them still not know), to grow a thick, luxurious crop of eyelashes. I say, give me the mascara any day.

Allergans drug, Latisse was originally formulated to be a treatment for the eye disease glaucoma. The fact that it causes a thick crop of eyelash hair was observed simply as a side effect to begin with. Allergan quickly twigged to the fact that this side effect could itself allow marketing which could see Latisse stowed in every makeup bag alongside the lip gloss and blusher. With the gorgeous Brook Shields as front person, Latisse has quickly attracted teens and 20 something’s as its biggest fans, despite its $120 a month price tag.

There is no doubt that Latisse works, and very quickly you or your teenage daughter can become the proud new owners of a set of lashes to turn daisy the cow green with envy. Trouble is, all the other stuff that comes along with the lashes to die for. How about hair growing in strange places on your cheeks; or ingrown eyelashes; or eyelashes growing to weird lengths? What about permanently darkened, browned eye lids, or weirder still, how about changing your beautiful blue or green eyes to a permanent shade of brown?
Yes, Latisse actually causes eye colour to change.

Then there’s the “per orbital fat atrophy”. That just means that the fat around your eye sockets simply disappears, giving you a very caved in, or carved out appearance around your eyes. But wait, there’s more…. Lattise can make your eyes red and irritated, cause inflammation (uveitis); swelling of the macular; cataracts and vision problems.

While all of these “side effects” are potentially problematic, the most concerning of all may be the effect of changing eye colour to brown. The truth is that the long term ramifications of this are completely unknown. The pigment granules in the eye that are changed by Latisse, are involved in the routing of the optic nerves, as well as the protection of the eye from free radical damage, protein breakdown.

In common with many other pharmaceutical drugs on the market, Lattise will be purchased and used (long term) by young women who themselves will become the guinea pigs used to discover the long term consequences and side effects of the drug.

So for me and mine, it looks like the mascara wars are here to stay, and Latisse will not be coming to live in a make up bag anywhere near this house.

To your good health

Lynda Wharton
www.lyndawharton.com

CoQ10 not just about heart health

CoQ10 is essential for the normal and optimal function of every type of cell in the human body, and not surprisingly there are a multitude of different disease states which have proven responsive to supplementation with this antioxidant. CoQ10 supplements make a huge difference to energy levels as well as strengthening the immune system and boosting our resistance to infection. Supplementing with CoQ10 raises antibody levels and super boosts the killing ability of macrophages (the immune cells which devour bacteria and viruses). Even the normal age related decline in immune function can be slowed with CoQ10 supplementation.

Periodontal disease effects 60% of young adults and 90% of people over 65. It is often the cause of tooth loss with aging, and research has shown that most people with periodontal disease have low levels of CoQ10 in their gum tissue. One study demonstrated that after only three weeks of treatment with CoQ10, patients showed improvements in their periodontal disease consistent with 6 months of normal periodontal disease treatment.

CoQ10 research has also produced some exciting results in the field of cancer research. In one study a group of 32 women with “high risk” breast cancer had CoQ10 included in their treatment protocol. None of them showed signs of further distant metastases, and quality of life improved for all. Six patients showed a partial remission. One of these was given an increased dosage of CoQ10. After two months the mammogram confirmed the tumour had gone. A second patient was then treated. Within three months she was in excellent condition with no residual tumour tissue.

A couple of years ago, researchers from the University of Miami presented their findings at a national cancer conference, showing a very powerful cancer killing ability for CoQ10. Using lab animals and test tube studies, they found that by delivering CoQ10 to breast and prostate cancer cells, they could be triggered into self destruction. CoQ10 was found to greatly inhibit the proliferation of breast cancer cells, while providing a stabilising effect on normal breast cells.

CoQ10 has also been used successfully to prevent damage to the heart caused by chemotherapy drugs, which can themselves cause serious levels of toxicity with long-term treatment. In one test, seven patients were given CoQ10 daily from before the start of their treatment with a common chemotherapeutic agent. This prevented the decrease in heart function that occurred in the study patients taking the drug without the addition of CoQ10

Supplementing with CoQ10

Research into CoQ10 is extensive and increasing rapidly, but as yet it is still not known exactly how much CoQ10 is required as an ideal “preventative” dose. Research shows that blood levels of CoQ10 and heart function change with supplementation of just 30 – 60mg daily. Many aware cardiologists recommend 100mg of CoQ10 daily to safeguard cardiovascular health. Patients with active heart disease are often prescribed doses of between 400 – 600mg a day. CoQ10 is a fat soluble compound which is best absorbed when taken with a meal containing fat. A recent New Zealand study demonstrated that not all forms of CoQ10 are equally absorbable and bioavailable (NZMJ 8 October 2004, vol 117). Ensure that any supplement you use is in an oil based encapsulated form rather than a tablet, for maximum absorption.

CoQ10 levels can be measured with a blood test. Normal levels are between 0.8 – 1.2 micrograms per milliliter of blood. For therapeutic benefit however, CoQ10 levels need to be increased to 2.5 to 3.5 by supplementation.

Finally, if you decide to supplement with CoQ10 and you are taking any type of cardiac medication it’s important to let your GP know as the effects can be dramatic, and existing medication may need to be reduced or altered. For example, blood pressure may drop significantly, leading to low blood pressure if existing medication is not reduced.

Lynda Wharton
www.lyndawharton.com