The Lucky Years: How to Thrive in the Brave New World of Health (22 page)

What’s the underlying mechanism here? How can
when
you eat have such a biological impact despite the amount or quality of the calories? To answer this, the scientists dug into the genetics. At various points in the experiment they sequenced the flies’ RNA to see which of their genes had been turned on or off as a result of time-restricted feeding. For the record, ribonucleic acid, or RNA, is one of the three major biological macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life (along with DNA and proteins). The flow of genetic information in a cell is from DNA through RNA to proteins: “DNA makes RNA makes protein,” hence studying the RNA of a species can show which genes are turned on or off. In this particular study, the researchers identified three genetic pathways that seem to be involved in these gene expression changes: the TCP-1 ring complex chaperonin, which helps proteins fold; mitochondrial electron transport chain complexes (mETC), which relate to the energy cycle of a cell; and a collection of genes in charge of the body’s circadian rhythm.

Then the scientists repeated their experiments with flies that carried mutations in their DNA that adversely affected their TCP-1 and circadian rhythm genes. In these flies, time-limited feeding conferred no health benefits, further suggesting that these genetic pathways play important parts. In the flies with the modified mETC genes, however, twelve-hour feeding showed enhanced protection against cardiac aging.

Although science has yet to understand fully how these three pathways work together to increase or decrease risk of cardiovascular conditions, one thing is clear: daily eating patterns can have a profound impact on our bodies, including our brains, where the entire circadian rhythm is literally clocked. These results actually complement earlier research showing benefits of time-restricted feeding for obesity, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes in rodents.

So the message is clear: time does matter. The three chief areas where you can make great strides in honoring your body’s homeostasis are your eating times, sleep-wake cycles, and periods of physical activity. If you take medications, scheduling that to occur at the same time daily is also important. And that’s what you’re going to do over the next fourteen days: keep track of these daily routines. I don’t expect every single day to be identical to the next, but see if you can create a consistent pattern that’s more or less the same on a daily basis. Below is a sample entry for two different days, with notes added at the end of each day:

Wake up / go to bed: 6:30 a.m. / 10:30 p.m.

Exercise: 7:00 a.m.

Eating: 8:00 a.m.; 11:00 a.m. (snack); 1:00; 4:00 (snack); 7 p.m.

Note: 11:00 snack unusual (office birthday party)

Wake up / go to bed: 6:30 a.m. / 11:00 p.m.

Exercise: none

Eating: 7:30 a.m.; 12:00; 3:00 (snack); 7 p.m.

Note: didn’t feel as good in the afternoon; took Tylenol for headache.

You can track a lot more than these basics, but this will give you a good start. The goal is to record the most prominent activities in your daily life that repeat on a twenty-four- to forty-eight-hour cycle, which for most are at least these three items. Note any nuances or deviations.

Do you have a plant-based diet? Or would you call yourself a bona fide carnivore? Is your weight in an ideal place today, or could you lose a few pounds, perhaps twenty? How many times have you tried to lose weight permanently via a popular diet protocol? Do you even know what you weigh and if it’s within a healthy range for your height?

It should come as no surprise that carrying excess weight can sabotage the body’s optimal functionality, especially in the absence of cardiorespiratory fitness. Being overweight increases your risk for most illnesses and chronic conditions, from the obvious ones such as heart disease and diabetes, to dementia and cancer.

If you don’t know how much you weigh, get yourself on a scale to find out your poundage and then plug that number into an online body mass index calculator, which is a general measure of body fat based on height and weight. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has an easy-to-use calculator at
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm
. An ideal BMI for most people is between 18.5 and 24.9, although there is some wiggle room if you’re physically fit and have a naturally larger body frame and carry extra muscle mass, which will push your BMI higher due to the weight of that muscle. By some standards, a BMI of 26 or 27 isn’t too terrible if you don’t have any metabolic conditions such as signs of diabetes and you’re in excellent physical shape.

There is no such thing as the “best diet.” The best one is the one that works for your physiology. And even though we have studies to show that, for example, a Mediterranean diet can reduce the risk of various diseases and decrease mortality, by no means is it the only diet. Also keep in mind that there’s no such thing as
the
Mediterranean diet. It just
has some universal features: plenty of whole fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds; fat from healthy sources like olive oil; a little bit of dairy, fish, poultry, and eggs; a smaller bit of red meat; and maybe a glass of wine with dinner. How can you argue with that?

We all can agree that any traditional diet will beat our processed-food culture. Just about every food fad of late, including the Paleo or primal diet, has been flawed (our Paleolithic ancestors didn’t just gnaw on meat all day; new evidence from the dental plaque of early Paleolithic people, dating back 400,000 years ago, shows they enjoyed a balanced diet including plants, nuts, and seeds).
⁹
Traditional eating habits have worked for centuries among different cultures with vastly different diets around the world. But they do have a lot in common, such as moderate portions, communal eating, and letting hunger build in between meals (no grazing or snacking). Only in recent times have people begun to demonize certain ingredients or whole categories of food. The top five that I continually hear about are sugar, gluten (and wheat in general), dairy, alcohol, and red meat. Let’s dissect the dispute about red meat, which I should remind you has been a staple in many cultures for centuries.

A couple of years ago, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health came out with a study linking red meat and death. It got the media talking, to say the least. You probably read the alarming headlines: “Red Meat Death Study” and “Will Red Meat Kill You?” According to the study, the results of which were published in no less an authority than the
Archives of Internal Medicine
(now called
JAMA Internal Medicine
), for every extra serving above and beyond an acceptable single serving of unprocessed red meat consumed daily (think steak, hamburger, pork, etc.) the risk of dying prematurely went up by 13 percent.
¹⁰
Processed red meat, including hot dogs, bacon, and sausage, increased the risk by 20 percent.

This was no small study, either. It included data from more than 37,000 men involved in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and 83,600 women from the Nurses’ Health Study. These volunteers were followed for an average of twenty-four years, during which 23,926 of
them died. Every four years, these participants submitted information about their diets. The people who ate the most red meat had higher death rates compared to those who ate the least. To date, this has been the largest, longest study on the alleged link between red meat and life span. While the findings have merit, these numbers do need to be put into perspective—and brought into the right context.

The same year of the Harvard study (2012), a Japanese investigation that looked at more than 51,000 men and women over the course of sixteen years failed to find a connection between meat consumption and premature death.
¹¹
In 2010, another study by different researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health also found no connection between unprocessed red meat and the development of heart disease and diabetes. But they did find a strong relationship with
processed
red meat.
¹²

Now let’s review some numbers. If red meat increases your risk of dying by 13 percent or 20 percent, that might motivate you to ignore your cravings for a juicy steak and learn to love tofu, or eat just chicken and fish. But don’t forget that we’re talking about relative risks. When scientists make these comparisons, they look at death rates in people eating the least meat with those eating the most. So it behooves us to consider the absolute risks, which paint a different and much more comforting picture.
¹³

According to the authors of the
Archives
paper, the increased risk from red meat is likely multifactorial. It could be due to the saturated fat, cholesterol, and iron that meat contains. It could be partially due to the effects from cooking red meat at high temperatures, which can produce potentially cancer-causing compounds. There also could be a potential driver in red meat’s sodium content, particularly in processed foods. Moreover, we can’t ignore the fact that major red-meat eaters often have other risk factors for serious, life-shortening diseases. While stereotypical, there is data to show that people who eat too much red meat also have a propensity to shun exercise, drink excessively, and use tobacco. Put simply, a lot of variables are in the mix; things are not always what they seem to be on the surface. An important conclusion
by the researchers is their estimate that 9.3 percent of deaths in men and 7.6 percent in women could have been prevented at the end of the study period if all the participants had consumed less than 0.5 servings per day of red meat. That is three and a half servings per week. Moderation is the key here. Meat isn’t necessarily bad, but too much meat and processed meat are bad.

While this moderation principle should be obvious to any well-read individual, far too often, we’re out of touch with what—and how much—we’re eating. Perhaps you think you are eating well when in actuality you’re exceeding the recommended limits for sugar, fat, and salt three days a week. Over the next fourteen days, aim to record your eating habits. Try to be as precise as possible, recording amounts, quality, and types of, say, fat and protein. Distinguish between a meal from McDonald’s and a homemade burger with grass-fed beef, or a green salad with olive oil versus a Cobb salad with commercially made ranch dressing. Include beverages, from water, juice, and milk, to wine, liquor, and beer. Which foods make you feel good within the hours afterward and the next day? Which choices render you sluggish, achy, or moody?

Remember, there’s a connection between the food you eat and how you feel. By keeping a food diary, you can quickly see how your choices are impacting you and where you can make adjustments. The goal is to see where your diet may be lacking or overly abundant. Don’t worry about trying to count calories or grams of nutrients. I trust you’ll be able to see easily where your diet could be improved using common sense. This exercise also might help you pinpoint foods that make you feel especially good or bad. Make any additional notes as you see fit.

How many pills do you take a day, prescription or otherwise? Do you know exactly what each drug is for and why you take it? Do you manage a chronic condition through these drugs alone? Do you know if there are additional ways to manage your condition aside from drugs? If, for example, you’re a diabetic, do you still watch your diet and commit to an exercise routine? If, for another example, you’re a marathoner who trains
hard on the weekend, do you find yourself taking upwards of ten over-the-counter pain relievers to combat the muscle aches? What about vitamins and supplements? Do you know why you take them if you do, and if you really need them? Or could they be harming you in ways you don’t realize?

One of my favorite quotes by Sir William Osler is “The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine.” Don’t get me wrong: drugs—prescription and nonprescription—do have their place in medicine and health. But it’s true that far too many people rely on them for the wrong reasons. In 2013, a study from Mayo Clinic researchers revealed the depth of our drug dependency: 7 out of 10 Americans take at least one prescription drug; more than half of Americans take two prescription medications, and 20 percent of Americans are on at least five prescription medications.
¹⁴
Although we’d like to think these drugs are prescribed for the most common chronic conditions—heart disease and diabetes—it turns out that antibiotics are the most prescribed drugs; they are taken by 17 percent of Americans, followed by antidepressants and opioids, each taken by 13 percent of Americans. Clearly, this goes to show how mental health is a huge issue that we should focus on. Prescriptions for antidepressants are more common among women than among men, especially among women ages fifty to sixty-four, nearly 25 percent of which take these drugs.

So here’s your challenge: take inventory of your medications and the conditions for which they are prescribed. Also include the over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, and supplements you take and why you take them. You may find that you can’t fully answer the
why
part. And you may feel inspired to taper off certain medications and supplements or find alternative ways to manage your condition that are better for you and your body. Let me give you one quick example: A friend of mine realized she was taking up to thirty ibuprofen tablets weekly to manage a foot problem she had that plagued her during the day, especially with exercise. When she started to experience gastrointestinal issues and a slight decrease in her kidney function linked to the ibuprofen, she was
forced to stop and consider why her foot started hurting as soon as she rolled out of bed most mornings. After some visits to an orthopedic surgeon who specialized in feet, she learned that she had a degenerative condition in one of her foot joints that had been caused by trauma many years back. She had a surgical procedure on the joint, which after a recovery period led her to being ibuprofen-free. She changed her context. I can give story after story here, but the realization of context is the unifying theme.