Super four-pack of links July 11, 2017: the five percent and healthcare money, video game addiction, exercise to prevent diabetes, activity inequality, and evil coconut oil

Super-user sounds great, right? Who doesn't want to be super at something? Only this video (in Memphis-style) refers to the 5% of Americans that account for ~50% of health care spending in a year.

To paraphrase the end of the video: "There's almost nothing insurance companies won't charge, and Americans won't pay." How do you keep yourself from becoming a super-user? Everything medical is a matter of risk, so don't believe anyone who tells you there's a rock-solid simple way to keep from falling into that 5%, at least temporarily. But overwhelmingly, if you can keep a steady job you don't hate, if you can abstain from smoking, if you can get even a small amount of daily exercise (more is better, obviously), if you can keep your alcohol intake to a minimum, if you can abstain from recreational drugs (this includes marijuana, obviously), and if you can choose to eat mostly plant-based foods in semi-sane quantities, you're gonna stay out of The Five Percent.

Dara Lind and Dylan Matthews join Ezra to talk about the updated travel ban, how Trumpism has translated into policy, and the impact that increasingly awesome video games have had on young men's work habits.

Links!

White Paper: Leisure Luxuries and the Labor Supply of Young Men

Peter Suderman's piece about young men playing video games instead of getting jobs

What does excess immersion into video games mean for young men?

I've tried to set the Weeds audio above to play at about the 46 minute mark. But if that doesn't work, fast forward to the 46 minute mark. Not because the discussion of what "Trumpism" is isn't interesting (it is), but because the discussion that follows helped me think more deeply about the problem of excess immersion into video games that young people, especially young men, are experiencing. I've blogged about this before, and I talked about it at a recent speaking engagement. We seem to be creating a generation of youths who are increasingly isolated in very immersive video games, and then they're growing up into increasingly isolated and lonely people, particularly after age 40. As Ezra Klein says in the piece: if this were a problem of drug abuse, I think we would be acting collectively to do something about it. That's an apt comparison, since game addiction and drug addiction seem to have some physiology in common. But since the solution to technological problems currently seems to be "more technology," we are kinda-sorta just plowing ahead and hoping that video games fix themselves. I'm not optimistic. I think we need to start introducing programs to help kids moderate their exposure to video games and increase their exposure to the world at a young age. Dylan Matthews, who generally defends the idea of video games as a pacifying technology for people who can't or won't work, ends with this quote: "When we're in our eighties, we're all gonna be doing, like, flight simulator stuff. That's, like, how we'll spend--or, VR stuff, at least--that's what retirement's going to look like." Yuck. No. No. No. 

A new meta-analysis shows that African-Americans who exercise may not derive the same protective benefit from type 2 diabetes as other races

(brief Healio write-up here)

 I'm not ready to sign on to this point; race is a very blunt instrument when it comes to genetics. As the cost of gene sequencing falls, I think we'll not only be able to tease out drug effects in people with specific genetic features; we'll be able to more precisely target interventions like physical activity. Maybe certain people in this collection of studies would have benefited more from strength training, while others needed more endurance-oriented activities. Maybe some would have benefited from a specific combination of drug and activity. We don't know the answers to these things now, but we will soon. 

Smartphone data shows that countries with the highest "activity inequality" are more likely to have large obese populations: 

More differences in activity within the population equals more obese people. 

So it isn't a surprise that the same investigators found that the higher the walkability of a city, the lower the "activity inequality":

Texas is not a place with a great deal of walkability. 

The cynical take on this study is something like, "Of course people who are inactive weigh more!" Fair enough. But the obvious policy implication of the study is that, to affect the activity level of the inhabitants of a city, the built environment must give opportunities for activity.

ADDENDUM (make it a five-pack): How coconut oil got a reputation for being healthy in the first place. I don't love coconut oil, but even if I did, I'd think of it like I think of butter: an ingredient to be used sparingly, mostly for flavor. 

June 13, 2017 links to confirm my pre-existing biases: No insulin, no BG checks and the cancer risk of physical inactivity and diet

If you're a diabetic person NOT on insulin, you probably don't need to be checking your blood sugar at home.

I like this paper for a couple reasons: first, it confirms what I already thought, which makes it my (and everyone else's, whether they admit it or not) favorite kind of paper. Second, it's by my old boss at UNC-Chapel Hill, John Buse (seen in that picture rocking a Willie Nelson-esque beard). Finally, it's a very practical look at what glucose monitoring is. If you're on insulin and can change your dose meal-to-meal and day-to-day, it makes sense to monitor glucose levels for safety and efficacy reasons. If you're on fixed doses of non-insulin medications, the act of glucose checking becomes much less practical, and just as big a pain in the ass as it always is. My screed against SMBG in this case, though, is called into question by the study. The investigators measured "health-related quality of life" at 1 year, and it didn't differ between the groups. So the people poking themselves didn't feel much worse than those who got off the hook. But I'm sticking to my guns: when it comes to self-monitored blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetics NOT on insulin, the juice (that's your blood) literally isn't worth the squeeze.

Some folks say that diet, physical inactivity, and the resultant obesity could overtake smoking in terms of cancer risk.

I say "no shit."

June 6, 2017 link-a-dink

The idea that good diabetes care isn't strictly an obsessive quest for an A1c level of 7% or less is finally hitting the mainstream press. This article also touches on the very real dilemma that doctors and patients face: Do we use old, cheap drugs that are effective at lowering the hemoglobin A1c level, or do we use new, astonishingly expensive drugs that have better evidence of actually reducing death?

Most people will never understand my eating disorder. "I am six feet tall and between 180 and 190 pounds, depending on the month. I am by no means the picture of health or even particularly muscular-looking—not for someone who exercises this much, and definitely not compared to most of the men I see at my gym. Or maybe I am? That's the problem, or one of them: What I see when I look in the mirror doesn't correspond with reality. I see a fat piece of shit, and then I think to myself that it's time to punish my body for letting me down."

Do patients make mistakes during doctor visits because they're put in a position that forces them to rely on intuition and makes them vulnerable to biases? 

Links to wrap your head around May 10, 2017

Your dog won't protect your kid from type 1 diabetes. This goes against the theory (which I tend to agree with) that "eating dirt protects us from autoimmune diseases."

Gluten-free diets don't appear to cut heart disease risk. Let me get this straight: celiac disease affects (thankfully) a very small fraction of people. For the rest of us, going gluten-free may increase our risk of diabetes and doesn't seem to have other beneficial effects. So why are so many people going gluten-free?

More and more companies are bringing out closed-loop insulin pumps.

Link the Hylian May 2, 2017

This author says the diabetics will be the first to meld with machines. I think everyone with a pacemaker may take issue with that statement. The first closed-loop insulin pump is a sign of what's to come though. 

Alternate-day fasting is no more effective than good ol' fashioned dieting for weight loss. Aaaand, people on alternate-day fasting were a lot more likely to quit the diet. HDL went up a little more in the alternate-day fasting group, but other markers didn't differ between the groups. I think there is promise to "fasting" insofar as that means just not continually stuffing food into your mouth between meals. I'm less convinced of any benefit of intentional witholding of calories for days at a time. 

Richard Link-later April 18, 2017

Banning Trans Fats in NY reduced heart attacks by 6%. If this is true, it's astonishing. Researchers compared admission rates for the composite of myocardial infarction and stroke between New York counties implementing the ban in its eateries versus those that did not. The restricting counties showed an additional 6% drop in admissions relative to non-restricting counties after adjustment for an already-declining trend across the state. The difference became significant 3 years after implementation of the bans and benefitted men and women equally.

Newer, novel (and astonishingly expensive) diabetes drugs seem to have lower hypoglycemia, heart, and death risk than good old insulin: even though this study had a lot of warts (industry-funded, retrospective, yada yada), I'm having a harder and harder time justifying the addition of insulin to high-risk patients' regimens.

"My V-steam cost $50, which is a lot to pay for sitting over hot vapor. Is your money well spent on this stuff? It depends on what you’re looking for."

It's a "fear social media" bonanza! First up was Hidden Brain on the dangers of curating your social media presence to look universally positive:

And then (and then!) Ezra Klein, a journalist I've heard my fair share of thoughts from in regards to how social media doesn't make him happy, interviewed Cal Newport about his notoriously fuddy-duddy views on social media, which I'll cover briefly in the very near future on this very blog.

I was asked recently to name a book that changed my life. The book I chose was Cal Newport’s “Deep Work,” and for the most literal of reasons: it’s changed how I lived my life. Particularly, it’s led me to stop scheduling morning meetings, and to preserve that time for more sustained, creative work. Which is all to say that I’m a bit obsessed with Newport’s work right now, and especially his account of how the digital environment we inhabit is training us out of concentration and into distraction in ways that are bad for us, bad for our work, and ultimately bad for the world. Most of the conversations on this podcast are how to think about things differently. This one is too, but it’s more importantly about how to do things differently, and why you should do them differently. We discuss: -How Newport defines depth when it comes to work -Why the information revolution boosted productivity up until the 2000s, but then stagnated -What he thinks is problematic about the constant accessibility of technologies like email, Slack, and other communication tools -His perspective about how we’re still in an early age of the internet, and what looking back at periods like the Industrial Revolution can teach us about using new technology to work smarter -How to take productive breaks, rather than flicking through email and Facebook and Twitter -How “flow work” and deep work overlap, and how they’re distinct from each other -Why he consumes and produces information more slowly and more traditionally—through newspapers and radio, and why that might benefit people who work in the knowledge economy -His vision of the workplace of the future I hope you get as much out of Newport’s ideas as I have. Books: -Jaron Lanier, “You Are Not A Gadget” and “Who Will Own The Future" -Douglas Rushkoff’s “Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus”

For past thoughts on social media, check here and here.

And PS--I mean fuddy-duddy in the most admiring, sincere way, obviously.

Re-link-uishment April 6, 2017

Genetically modified organisms are safe to eat. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise is misinterpreting the data or deliberately misleading you. But food safety is only part of the picture. Some uncertainty remains about the safety of the organisms to the environment. Agricultural monoculture, with hundreds of acres repeatedly planted to one, two, or three crops, is surely a bad idea. Reducing pesticide use with GMO crops is surely a good idea, but it has the specter of downstream effects that may currently be unknown hanging over it.  

Would Silicon Valley rather make death less likely or life better? Evidence seems to point to #1; most social media and apps turn out to be tools for either wasting our precious time or toys for rich people. 

Is it foolish for a woman to cycle alone across the Middle East? It is stories like this that make me miss social media. But not enough to go back to it.

Levothyroxine didn't make older people with subclinical hypothyroidism feel any better in an RCT. Huh.

Switching poorly controlled people with type 1 diabetes to an insulin pump before "optimizing" their diabetes education may not be helpful. The training only took five days, and at 24 months, both groups (pumpers vs. educated) had similar reductions in their HbA1c level. "These results do not support a policy of providing insulin pumps to adults with poor glycemic control until the effects of training on participants' level of engagement in intensive self management have been determined." How to determine their level of engagement seems to be the bugaboo, then. 

Linkfest March 15, 2017

Watch a professional cyclist's carbon wheel melt before your very eyes:

Some people think going gluten-free may be risky for diabetes. Hmmm. Gluten-free diets are, for the most part, a waste of time and effort unless you have celiac disease. And whole grain intake is generally associated with a decreased risk of diabetes, which is consistent with the alleged findings of this study. And this paper (not yet published) comes from Harvard, which gives it a certain cachet, but I'm always skeptical of big, splashy pronouncements like this when they're made ahead of publication. Too many of these studies end up having fatal flaws.

Bikes now officially outnumber cars in Copenhagen. "When Copenhagen first began manually counting cars and bikes in 1970, there were 351,133 cars and 100,071 bikes on the roads—a ratio of about 3.5 to 1. That's important, because it means not only are more people riding—about 150 percent more over 46 years—but also, fewer people are driving."

How the world's heaviest man lost it all. "The only thing that gave him comfort in life was food. It was a drug of abuse, freely available, heavily marketed."

Is loneliness the biggest threat to middle-aged men? Well, Vivek Murthy is definitely qualified to say so, and I think we're self-isolating ourselves with suburban homes and gadgets, but "biggest" is a stretch when we still have tobacco and obesity/diabetes to contend with...

Big pharma is very nervous about possible Trump FDA deregulation. This one cuts both ways. On one hand, I'm afraid that ineffective drugs are going to start coming to market if deregulation goes too far. On the other hand, any deregulation that is opposed by big pharma is inherently attractive.

The ADA 2017 Standards of Care in Diabetes are out. "To help providers identify those patients who would benefit from prevention efforts, new text was added emphasizing the importance of screening for prediabetes using an assessment tool or informal assessment of risk factors and performing a diagnostic test when appropriate." It's a start.

You can't use drugs to "prevent" diabetes

Big, big disclosure here: I am a paid consultant for a CDC grant that aims in part to increase use of the Diabetes Prevention Program. So there. Read on.

Good to see you again, Mrs. D. You mind if I call you Mrs. D? Thanks. Reminds me of "Mrs. C" on Happy Days. You know, she was the only one with the cojones to call the Fonz "Arthur." So you can see the resemblance.

I'm glad you asked about the recent study that showed a medicine called "liraglutide" (brand names Victoza or Saxenda) "prevented" diabetes. You're a smart person, so you read some of the fine print in the study, and you know that ~2200 patients, most of them obese, were randomly given a daily shot of placebo or a daily shot of liraglutide, a chemical that mimics a gut hormone to trick the pancreas into producing more insulin. Liraglutide has the side effect of making people feel fuller sooner after eating. Doctors call this "early satiety." The tricky vocabulary's how we make so much money.

All of the patients had elevated blood sugars, but not so elevated that they could be labeled "diabetic." They were "pre-diabetic" in the current nomenclature, just like you. It means the same thing as "impaired fasting glucose" or "impaired glucose tolerance." The study set out to prove that liraglutide could "prevent" the onset of diabetes. Now you're probably wondering: If I'm taking a diabetes drug, what's the point of having "prevented" diabetes?

And you're on to something, Mrs. D. This is an absurd question at face value, but it keeps getting tested, mostly by drug companies. Not surprisingly, in most cases people getting the diabetes drug were less likely than those getting a placebo pill or shot to have their blood sugars rise high enough to be diagnosed with diabetes.

I'm about to get really, really snarky, Mrs. D, but before I do, it's important that I make this point: the prevention of diabetes is actually a HUGE deal, and not only because diabetes remains the number one cause of blindness, kidney dialysis, and foot amputation in the United States. It is astonishingly expensive. Of the $3.2 trillion (!) that Americans spend on health care annually, diabetes directly accounts for $101.4 billion, making it officially the most expensive disease in America. If you can prevent people from advancing from the just-a-little-abnormal-sugars "pre-diabetes" to old-fashioned diabetes, you save about $12,000 per year in expenses. Now, that's insurance company money, but we all pay for it in premiums.

This is where your insurance premiums are going.

And as I've pointed out before, a big chunk of that extra spending isn't insurance money at all; it's coming out of your pocket in the form of co-pays and whatnot. And it's not much better for the Medicare crowd, who we all pay for in taxes:

So let's perform a quick thought experiment. You came to see me because you weren't feeling your best, and I checked a blood sugar on a hunch, and it's slightly elevated at 106 mg/dl. That's in that pre-diabetic range I've been talking about.

Bummer.

Now, we've got some options here. But let's say I tell you that the best way to keep yourself from becoming diabetic is to inject yourself with 10 units of insulin every night before bed. That way, your blood sugars will go back to normal, and we can both wash our hands of the whole issue. Great, right? We've prevented a case of diabetes! Your blood sugars are normal, after all.

BUT YOU'RE ON A DIABETES DRUG NOW!

Of course we haven't prevented a case of diabetes! We've just put you on a diabetes drug that has (predictably) lowered your blood glucose levels. The entire assertion that we've prevented anything is as laughable as the assertion that we could "prevent" a diagnosis of hypertension by putting you on blood pressure medications.

To make the situation even more ridiculous with liraglutide, it costs a fortune: over $3,000 a month for the 3 mg dose! If you wanna know where that extra $12k a year is going, I think we're hot on the trail. Think what else we could do with that amount of money. And if you for some reason think the idea of "preventing" diabetes by taking a diabetes drug isn't patently absurd, it works only modestly better than metformin, a drug that can easily be obtained for $3-4 per month.

But the final insult, Mrs. D, is that liraglutide worked barely better in its study than a program called the "Diabetes Prevention Program," or "DPP." In the liraglutide study, roughly 2% of people receiving the drug went on to have blood sugars high enough to be diabetic in three years, versus 6% of people getting placebo, for what we call an 80% "relative risk reduction." (Drug companies love using relative risk because it makes the numbers sound so much more impressive) In the original version of the Diabetes Prevention Program, 4.8% of people getting counseling on diet and lifestyle by a coach went on to be diabetic, versus 11% getting placebo, for a 58% relative risk reduction. The numbers for both groups in the DPP were higher, which I blame on an older participant population.

The cost of the Diabetes Prevention Program? $429 per year. So you might not be surprised to know that in 2016, when CMS was debating whether to allow Medicare to cover the DPP, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) fought against it, saying that twenty years of evidence was only "preliminary." They do. Not. Care. About your health or the seemingly inevitable transformation of America into a single, enormous insurance company that also happens to field a Navy. And we should all remember that back when insulin was discovered, the University of Toronto held the patent for insulin to keep any single company from exploiting the drug for unreasonable profit. How times have changed.

Okay. Deep, cleansing breaths. I'm calming down. Liraglutide is a good medicine for diabetes. It helps keep sugars down, it helps with weight loss, and it may even help prevent heart attacks. In diabetics, that is. But you're not diabetic, and you don't have to become diabetic, and all drugs come with a cost, financially and otherwise. I think we can agree that diabetes is expensive enough; we shouldn't use drugs to "prevent" it that are even more expensive than the disease itself.

So, Mrs. D. You'd be a great candidate for the DPP. But even if you weren't, do you know what the DPP asks of its participants? 150 minutes a week of physical activity and some dietary modifications to allow you to lose around 7% of your body weight. Let's think about what that might look like. The average bike commute in this country is around 19 minutes one-way. Do that five days a week, and you're at 190 minutes already! And that doesn't even count trips to the grocery store! And if you stop drinking insect bait and cut out the foods that aren't really foods:

If you cut those out from your diet and start eating most of your food from the produce aisle or from the canned fruits and vegetables aisle, don't you think that 7% weight loss sounds pretty modest? I bet you'd blow it out of the water. 

And besides, do you really want to cross that grim threshold from "person" to "patient?" Because the first time you put the needle of that Saxenda pen into your skin, that's what you'll have done. You'll have moved the wrong direction on the Double Arrow Metabolism Wellness Index. You'll have gone from a person with agency, someone who takes medicines to feel better or live longer, to someone who has yielded control to a chemical--a $30,000 a year chemical--to do something you could have done better yourself. You'll have succumbed to a philosophy of better living through chemistry.

Maybe Du Pont doesn't deserve this.

Or do you want to be the person who SAVES thousands of dollars per year by ditching the fancy gas-powered wheelchair so you can propel yourself through space with your own legs and feet and by eating real foods you made with your own hands and eating them when you want, the way you want, and in the quantities you want? Do you want to live by a philosophy of self-determination, where you know that every healthy, happy day you live from now on was of your own making? 

If that life is what you want, then don't try to prevent diabetes with drugs. It can't be done. 

40 minutes

Who is the maniac posting here the last few days? 

What the hell is Double Arrow Metabolism? Doctors always think they know everything. And I don't like the looks of this guy. He was probably born skinny, and here he is trying to judge the rest of us for driving cars, smoking, eating processed foods, spending our money on whatever we want, and spending our free time on social media. Sure, maybe you can be healthy if you've got a good set of genes and luck into a doctor who's not a quack. But it's a roll of the dice. Life is hard, and this guy acts like we can all just "choose" to be healthy. Some of us have obligations! Kids at home, a mortgage to pay. So we get a little stressed out and watch some TV and maybe have a beer or two. Live a little for a change. So what? 

Yet some people live happily and healthily into their 90s, while the overall life expectancy is going down. Is it all just genetics, or is there something we can do to live longer and happier? Let's examine the thin grey line between being healthy and happy and being sick and depressed.

How thin is the line? How about 40 minutes a day?

Let's say you are holding your own, health-wise. On the Double Arrow Metabolism Wellness Index, you're a solid two or three. Then you decide that lying on your side for thirty minutes in bed each night flipping through your Facebook feed is more important to you than moving through space like you were designed to do. All the light from the screen blasting into your retinas throws off your sleep cycle, so you wake up in the middle of every night for ten minutes and raid the fridge to the tune of 200 highly-processed calories.

Then, since you couldn't sleep the night before, you wake up twenty minutes late and decide that you don't have time to make a sensible, non-cake-based breakfast at home.

Let's assume that you commute less than five miles to work, as a solid plurality of
Americans do. You're in a hurry and instead of biking, walking, or busing to work, you swing your fancy gas-powered wheelchair through McDonald’s on your way there and spend $5 on a meal that should have cost you less than $2. Let's be generous and say that this breakfast was no better and no worse than what you would've had at home (a generous assumption indeed). Say this routine (self-inflicted bad sleep, sedentary commuting, breakfast of processed crap, repeat) becomes a habit.

So that 40 minutes a day: 30 minutes of Gay French King scrolling Twitter or Facebook, then 10 minutes of late-night insomnia binging, all at the sacrifice of a more meaningful breakfast and commute, leads to this: 1400 extra highly-processed calories a week in food intake, 1148 fewer calories per week burned by missing your average 19.2 minute one-way cycling commute, $21 a week spent on food you didn't need and shouldn't have bought, and, at the current Federal rate of $0.52 per mile, $30 a week from gas-powered wheelchair driving. And, for the sake of being fair, let's say your fancy gas-powered wheelchair is a sensible car and not a gas-guzzling adult Tonka Toy:

Goodbye, one year's salary. I'll miss you.

If that's what you drive, these numbers would be far, far worse.

End result? One year later, if you started out at 150 lbs, you're now almost 60 pounds heavier. The extra $1440 you spent on your habit in that year, had you just put it in an indexed fund, would now be worth $1541.

And ten years later, if you really fell into a rut, that 40 minutes would have cost you $10,791! Your weight would eventually level out--we all hit our genetic max for obesity at some point--but you'd almost certainly have complications, like diabetes, heart disease, or sleep apnea.

And all this assumes you didn't even take on any credit card debt to pay for this, and assumes that the bad sleep you were getting didn't make your metabolic issues worse, and doesn't even take into account the $1184/year that your new diagnosis of diabetes cost you.

40 minutes a day to stay out of this swirling vortex. 40 minutes.