Who says being fat is bad?

Would you have guessed that, one fine day, health insurers will regret the demise of big tobacco and its contribution to health care costs? Would you have guessed that, when that day arrives, health insurers would also learn to love other frowned-upon-vices of their policy holders, such as getting fat and lazy? Your answer is probably "no, I wouldn't have guessed that in my dreams.". 

And also very probably this answer is based on what you typically read in the media, such as this piece of news titled "Obesity Adds More to Health Care Costs Than Smoking, Study Suggests." released on April 3, 2012, on sciencenews.com. The article text wraps the title message into a substantially larger amount of unsubstantial words, before it concludes what you would probably subscribe to blindfolded: the  "...study [1] provides new insights into the long-term costs of obesity and smoking, showing that both risk factors lead to persistently higher health costs throughout a seven-year follow-up period.". Dah, what else is news?

Well, for one, that the Joe Camels and the lardbuckets, with all their vices, cost their health insurers actually LESS money than Mr. and Mrs Healthy. For one simple reason: the "vice guys" die earlier.

But let's hold that thought for a moment and let's look at the figures. In a Dutch study performed by Pieter van Baal and colleagues, the authors compared the annual and lifetime health care costs of three cohorts, namely the obese, the smokers, and the healthy living people [2]. As the basis of their calculations they used the Dutch National Institute's of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) chronic disease model, which, the authors assure us, has been widely used and validated in disease and cost projection analyses.

To make their results more comparable internationally, they ran their analyses with altogether 7 different scenarios, to account for different health care systems and for different mortality risk estimates. The latter had been drawn from observations in the U.S. published by Flegal and colleagues [3] who had found declining mortality risks in the obese cohorts. I mention this because I don't want you to suspect that the Dutch authors had based their calculations on an unrealistically high keeling-over rate for the obese. Now, fast forward to the astonishing results.

In all 7 models, as well as in the unadjusted base case scenario, the financially most attractive "villains" to health insurers are the smokers. The most expensive are always the goody-two-shoes healthy-living people. Somewhere in-between are the fat ones. In the model which assumed a yearly 1% increase in health care costs, the lifetime costs for an obese person amounted to € 399,000, compared to which the smoker comes at a 14% discount of € 341,000, but the healthy living person with a 17% premium at € 468,000.

How can that be? The answer is not where you and I would have looked first: The diseases which directly associate with smoking and obesity (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, pulmonary diseases, musculoskeletal disorders). They account only for 20% of total disease costs. The remaining 80% are for ailments and conditions, which come with age. But when that age doesn't come, because you die earlier, then those costs don't come either. And Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald are rather effective in cutting years out of your life, and thereby costs out of your health insurers balance sheet. For 7 and 5 years respectively, to be precise.   

So, where are the premium discounts for the obese and the smoking policy holders? Why are the healthy living people permanently miffed about not getting premium discounts, when they actually cost more? I have to admit, I belong to the latter, too. But recently, after having listened to one of my talks at a conference, a friend of mine, the CEO of a German health insurer, took me aside and told me, that my indignation about the healthy people having to share the cost burden of their willfully negligent peers, was unfounded.

As much as I wanted to disbelieve, I also knew that these insurance guys do one thing very well: calculating risk and premiums. So I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. Which is why I began to check. And by checking, I came to know about quite a number of studies confirming my friend's argument. One of those studies was van Baal's, which I chose to quote from because he is actually working for the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. Not that I'm biased in favor of the Dutch. I'm biased in favor of anyone who articulates a viewpoint which is in stark contrast to what I would expect merely on the basis of his association. I mean, here you have someone telling you to NOT confuse health with health care cost savings, when his employer is actually trying to make everyone with a cigarette or a burger in his mouth feel guilty about sending health care costs sky high.  

So what now? Shall we promote the vices and lower our health care costs in a decade-long smoking and feeding frenzy? Well, it's your choice, but I'm not convinced that we have got the reasoning or the arguments right just yet. We need to do a little more detective work to solve this case.

Now, you know how the French, at least in their novels, dish out that piece of advice to the detective: Cherchez la femme (look for the woman)? Maybe it works in the French universe. In mine, I have always found this one to work better: "Cherchez l'argent" (look for the money).

Which will lead us to another few surprising discoveries in the next post. And, of course, a couple more reasons to believe that there are quite some powerful players around who yearn for the good old times when Marlboro Man and Ronald McDonald delivered us from the risk of a costly long life.

PS: To meaningfully pass the time until the next post, watch this video on the calorie cartel

1.           Moriarty, J.P., et al., The effects of incremental costs of smoking and obesity on health care costs among adults: a 7-year longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2012. 54(3): p. 286-91.

2.           van Baal, P.H.M., et al., Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure.PLoS Med, 2008. 5(2): p. e29.

3.           Flegal, K.M., et al., Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. Jama, 2005. 293(15): p. 1861-7.

Moriarty, J., Branda, M., Olsen, K., Shah, N., Borah, B., Wagie, A., Egginton, J., & Naessens, J. (2012). The Effects of Incremental Costs of Smoking and Obesity on Health Care Costs Among Adults Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54 (3), 286-291 DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318246f1f4
van Baal PH, Polder JJ, de Wit GA, Hoogenveen RT, Feenstra TL, Boshuizen HC, Engelfriet PM, & Brouwer WB (2008). Lifetime medical costs of obesity: prevention no cure for increasing health expenditure. PLoS medicine, 5 (2) PMID: 18254654
Flegal, K. (2005). Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 293 (15), 1861-1867 DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.15.1861

Screw Your Health?!

So, what's your excuse for not exercising enough, for smoking, for not watching your diet, for getting fatter every year, and therefore having high blood pressure, and too much glucose and cholesterol in your blood?

 That's what the American Heart Association has been telling you for so many years NOT to do. How can I be sure that you, dear reader, are one of those people who only pay lip service to health? I can't, but as a numbers guy I go with the statistics. 

And when health is concerned the statistics tell me that there are obviously only two types of people. Those who do enough for their health, and those who merely think they do. The latter make up 98.8% of the population [1]. That is, only one in a hundred meets all 7 health metrics: not smoking, eating a healthy diet, no overweight, sufficiently physically active, normal blood pressure, normal levels of glucose and cholesterol. Four out of every 5 Americans meet 4 or less of those metrics. Actually, only one in four meets 4 metrics. How can that be when having at least 6 of those metrics will cut your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease by 75% compared to those who meet one criterion or none? How much more incentive do you want?

That's the frustrating question I'm asking myself every day. Because whether it is in the US, in Germany or anywhere else in this world, maintaining health and preventing disease is a frustrating service to provide. I used to think this is so, because when you don't feel it, it is health. And what you don't feel, you don't appreciate. But if that was true, the first diagnosis of a chronic condition, such as heart disease or diabetes, should surely be a wake-up call. But it isn't. Only 40% of smokers quit when  being told that they have such a chronic disease, and that smoking will make it worse [2]. That's still a lot compared to the behavior change in exercise: Nil, no change at all.  And for every American who quit smoking in 2011 another American became obese. 

If you have read my earlier blog posts, you'll remember that I'm a strong advocate of recognizing the autonomic neurohormonal mechanisms which certainly drive our eating and exercising behaviors. But we are not exclusively controlled by those. We still have a few brain centers which give us the abilities and skills that make us human: volition, reasoning, intelligence. Of course you can use them to find the most elaborate excuses for your health behaviors, or rather for the lack thereof. But he who is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else. That's what Benjamin Franklin said. Are you good for something else? Make that something your health. And start today. Here!

1.           Yang, Q., et al., Trends in Cardiovascular Health Metrics and Associations With All-Cause and CVD Mortality Among US Adults. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2012.

2.           Newsom, J.T., et al., Health Behavior Change Following Chronic Illness in Middle and Later Life. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2011.

Yang, Q., Cogswell, M., Flanders, W., Hong, Y., Zhang, Z., Loustalot, F., Gillespie, C., Merritt, R., & Hu, F. (2012). Trends in Cardiovascular Health Metrics and Associations With All-Cause and CVD Mortality Among US Adults JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 307 (12), 1273-1283 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.339 

 Newsom, J., Huguet, N., McCarthy, M., Ramage-Morin, P., Kaplan, M., Bernier, J., McFarland, B., & Oderkirk, J. (2011). Health Behavior Change Following Chronic Illness in Middle and Later Life The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67B (3), 279-288 DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbr103

Do vitamin supplements make you healthier?

The (non-)sense of vitamin supplementation?

Almost one in two American adults is a regular user of vitamin and mineral supplements, either in the form of single- or multivitamin/mineral formulations (MVMS). It all adds up to a market of US$ 9 Billion annually, or one third of the total US supplements market. Does all the pill-popping help their users to achieve better health or longevity? 

That's one question raised by Björn, one of the readers of my blog. Thanks, Björn, I wanted to write on this subject for some time. You just got me going on this a little earlier than I would have otherwise. And also thanks for the second question: Does the latest technology of delivering the drug (not to your house, but within your body to your organism's cells) via "nano-encapsulation" improve that health effect in any way? Let me try to answer these questions one by one.

When you talk about vitamins, you talk about essential micronutrients, for which the human organism has either no or only a very limited ability to produce (e.g. Vitamin D) on its own. If you want to group vitamins according to their solubility you'll find that they come in two flavors: water soluble and fat soluble. Of course, you could group them for any other biochemical characteristic, but grouping them according to their solubility makes immediate sense when you keep in mind that the fat soluble ones (A, D, E and K) can accumulate in your body's tissues, whereas the water soluble Vitamins typically can't. Whatever can accumulate, can also accumulate to the point where there is too much of it in a body's tissue. So, yes, too much of a good thing may turn into a not so good thing, as is the case for vitamins A and E for example. Or, too much of a good thing may just be flushed out of the body, as is the case with water-soluble vitamin C.

The supplement industry certainly does a good job convincing the public that supplementing one's diet with additional vitamin formulations is good for one's health. It's certainly good for the industry's bank accounts. In such cases it always pays to ask one simple question: Where is the evidence?  

In a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT, the gold standard of clinical research methodology), the authors investigated the effects of vitamins E and A on the risk of cardiovascular disease and death in altogether 220,000 patients [1]. The effects? Zilch. The authors recommendation? The evidence does not support any recommendation for the use of Vitamins E and A. On the contrary, they found a slight increase in all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality associated with vitamin A supplementation.

In another 2007 review on the subject, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, its author came to the same conclusion, stating that "Results to date are not compelling concerning a role for MVMs in preventing morbidity or mortality from cancer or CVD." [2] The two largest trials on Vitamin A and E supplementation in smokers, the Finnish Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (ATBC Trial) and the US Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) enrolled 29,000 and 18,000 smokers. In the Finnish trial, supplementation with Vitamin A increased the risk for lung cancers by 18% within a 5 to 8-year observation period [3]. And the US trial was halted after 2 years for the same reason: a 28% increase in lung cancer risk, a 26% increase in risk for dying from cardiovascular disease [4]. In 22,000 healthy men who had been observed for 12 years, supplementation with vitamin A showed neither benefit nor harm [5].  

So where is the evidence for you to believe that buying Vitamin E and A supplements will make you healthier and live longer? Maybe I'm blinded by a perverse distrust of everything a sales man tells me, but I can't see it.

So, how about multi-vitamins? In the group of people with the highest take-up rate of multivitamins: post-menopausal women? Again, the authors of a study which pooled the data from the Women's Health Initiative trial and observational study cohorts, come to the same conclusion "the WHI CT and OS cohorts provide convincing evidence that multivitamin use has little or no influence on the risk of cancer or CVD in postmenopausal women." [6].

Not even for infections is there any evidence that MVMS have any protective effect on those most vulnerable, the elderly [7]. 

Of course, keeping all this in mind, the nagging question remains: would there be an effect if only the delivery of the drug in the human body was improved? After all, if vitamins are essential for survival, and if vitamin supplementation does not improve health, then there are several possible reasons for this observation. For instance, we might get enough vitamins from our food, and adding vitamins has simply no effect. Or, maybe we have vitamin deficiencies but the supplements are ineffective in delivering their vitamin loads.

Which brings us to Björn's second question: "Does nano-encapsulation improve the effect of MVMS?

And may I add my nagging question: Or is "nano-whatever" just a cool gimmick of the industry to push a market, which currently grows only moderately? In the next post (Monday 16. April) I'll try to answer this question. So, stay tuned. 

1.           Vivekananthan, D.P., et al., Use of antioxidant vitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet, 2003. 361(9374): p. 2017-23.

2.           Prentice, R.L., Clinical trials and observational studies to assess the chronic disease benefits and risks of multivitamin-multimineral supplements. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007. 85(1): p. 308S-313S.

3.           The Effect of Vitamin E and Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Lung Cancer and Other Cancers in Male Smokers. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994. 330(15): p. 1029-1035.

4.           Omenn, G.S., et al., Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med, 1996. 334(18): p. 1150-5.

5.           Hennekens, C.H., et al., Lack of Effect of Long-Term Supplementation with Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Malignant Neoplasms and Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1996. 334(18): p. 1145-1149.

6.           Neuhouser, M.L., et al., Multivitamin Use and Risk of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease in the Women's Health Initiative Cohorts.Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009. 169(3): p. 294-304.

7.           El-Kadiki, A. and A.J. Sutton, Role of multivitamins and mineral supplements in preventing infections in elderly people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2005. 330(7496): p. 871.