An advisory committee has recommended that the next set of dietary guidelines have some changes. These include that Americans cut back on their alcohol consumption and sugar intake. What they are proposing is only 1 alcoholic beverage per day on the days that alcohol is consumed. In the past, the limit was two drinks for men and one for women.

As far as sugar intake…the committee suggests that less than 6% of energy come from added sugars. The previous guidelines suggested less than 10%. The average sugar consumption in the U.S. is around 13%.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has mandated a new food label, (first initiated in 2018) that must be in effect by January 1, 2021, this upcoming year. Many food companies have already embraced this new food labeling. One of the biggest changes has been the new “added sugar” section. This makes it much easier to differentiate “naturally occurring sugars” from “added sugars”. This new label separates the two and also includes the percent Daily Value (%DV) for added sugars, which previously was not required.

The report will be used by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services to formulate the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. For the first time, the guidelines will cover a broad range of recommendations for all age groups including, infants, toddlers and pregnant women. The guidelines also include dietary patterns in relationship to several different types of cancer such as colorectal, breast and prostate cancers.

Reference: Young, K. Physician’s First Watch. 7/16/2020. http://www.jwatch.org/fw116842.                                                          Rittiman, L. Total Sugars vs. Added Sugar-What You Need To Know. 9healthfair.org. 1/30/2018.

There has been alot of debate on whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective in preventing or treating COVID-19. What got things started was a French study suggesting efficacy in lowering the viral load in patients with COVID-19 back in March 2020. We have learned alot since then and other studies have called into question both the efficacy and safety of HCQ in treating COVID-19.

The French study was a non-randomized study of 36 hospitalized people in which patients were recruited either into a treatment group or control (non-treatment) group. This was an observational study. Since then, there have been roughly 900 published studies in which the vast majority are observational studies. So whats the difference?

In an observational study, the effect of the drug being tested (in this case HCQ), is due to its true causal effect (lowering viral load or treating the infection) AND the characteristics of who was selected for treatment.

Whereas, in a randomized trial, because the selection is random, the effect is due solely to the true effect of the treatment. This is a much better type of study looking primarily at the effect of the drug treatment.

So if you are able to select the people in the treatment group, the researcher can tend to choose those that are younger, and who have fewer co-morbidities which is poised to do better than if the treatment was assigned randomly.

Observational studies are still good studies and should be used to design randomized studies. Randomized studies should then be used to guide therapy.

So the next time you are reading research about a new prevention or treatment for COVID-19, check to see if it is a randomized study. It will serve to be more reliable.

References:  Randomized clinical trials

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2020-06/more-clues-potential-treatments

I was hesitant in posting this article because I didn’t want to give the wrong impression in stating that good hand washing and cleaning surfaces is not important. It is. This article explains how some companies emphasizing how they are disinfecting their areas may give us a false sense of security. This obsession of risk reduction rituals that make us feel safer but don’t actually do much to reduce the risk if transmission is called hygiene theatre.

In May, the CDC updated its guidelines to clarify that COVID-19 is spread primarily through the air, not by touching surfaces. According to Emanual Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, “Surface transmission of COVID-19 is not justified at all by science”.

But wait…weren’t we told that the virus could remain on surfaces for hours and even days?!!! Yes! Backing up those many scary stories of how people were infected after touching their mail, packages and doorknobs were several Lancet studies in July that  were based on unrealistically strong concentrations of the virus. In other words, 100 people would have to sneeze on the same exact area of a table to mimic some of the experimental conditions. But now…we have more research.

The article below reviews other studies looking at how this coronavirus really spreads. There is new research and studies everyday. The one thing that has not changed is that this is an airborne virus, and that besides good hand washing, the importance of social distancing and wearing masks cannot be over-emphasized.

The problem with over cleaning and making us feel safe is that it justifies more social gathering places to open up, such as indoor seated restaurants, bars, gyms and now schools. I’m concerned people, especially students, will feel that as long as surfaces have been cleaned, wearing a mask is not as important.

A new study in South Korea, published Thursday in JAMA Internal Medicine, offers more definitive proof that people without symptoms carry just as much virus in their nose, throat and lungs as those with symptoms, and for almost as long. The South Korean team analyzed samples taken between March 6 and March 26 from 193 symptomatic and 110 asymptomatic people isolated at a community treatment center in Cheonan. Of the initially asymptomatic patients, 89 — roughly 30 percent of the total — appeared healthy throughout, while 21 developed symptoms. The participants were mostly young, with the average age of 25. A study last week found children, who were mildly infected also carried at least as much virus as adults. Yikes!

Asymptomatic People Carry coronavirus in High Amounts

Many  of us are either exercising too much or too little during this pandemic. Here is reason to get up out of your chair and get moving…

A molecule called Gpld1 (glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)–specific phospholipase D1), seems to improve neurogenesis and cognition in mice. In a series of experiments in older mice, regular exercise, compared with sedentary behavior, improved neurogenesis, learning ability, and memory.

Blood extracted from older mice, midlife, or younger exercising mice that was injected intravenously into older sedentary mice produced improved neurogenesis, learning ability, and memory. Blood infusions from sedentary mice did not have this effect.

Mass spectrometry (a sophisticated tool used to measure the mass-to-charge ratio of 1 or more molecules) identified about 30 molecules that increased after exercise; one of the most prominent was Gpld1, a molecule produced by the liver. When scientists enhanced liver production of Gpld1, it led to improved neurogenesis and cognition.

Levels of Gpld1 are also higher in physically active humans than in sedentary humans. This is the equivalent to about 7100 steps per day. A molecule common to mice and humans has been linked to the benefits of exercise and the aging brain. Whether we see this being used in humans therapeutically is yet to be seen. But it suggest that specific molecules brought on by exercise can improve cognition.

Reference: Horowitz AM et al. Blood factors transfer beneficial effects of exercise on neurogenesis and cognition to the aged brain. Science 2020 Jul 10; 369:167.

You may not have signed up to be in an experiment…but we are all in one. This pandemic is the largest psychologic experiment in history to test human resilience under adversity. It will test all races, religions, genders, ages and socioeconomic settings. This virus spans all countries and has no borders. It effects everyone…everywhere!

As many as two thirds of people recover from difficult experiences without prolonged psychological effects, even if they have lived through extreme events like prisoner of war or violent crimes. But the other third suffer real psychological distress that can last for months or even years.

Even if most people prove resilient, the sheer numbers involved have experts warning of a mental illness “tsunami.” COVID-19 has disrupted so many peoples’ lives with the threat of disease, loneliness of isolation, loss of loved ones, repercussions of job loss and ongoing uncertainty about when the pandemic will end. Suicide deaths by health care professionals are a chilling reminder of the risks that are still present.

Epidemiologist Daisy Fancourt of University College London began a study in mid-March that grew to include more than 85,000 UK residents. They tracked depression, anxiety, stress and loneliness week by week. Six weeks in it was found that levels of depression were significantly higher than before the pandemic. In China, the first nationwide large-scale survey was taken where the crisis hit earliest and found that almost 35 percent reported psychological distress.

Generally, those with previous diagnosed mental health illness, those who live alone and younger people were reporting the highest level of depression and anxiety. Interestingly, there was a decrease in anxiety levels once the lockdown was declared. “Uncertainty tends to make things worse” according to Fancourt. Some people tend to find ways to carry on while others are frozen by not knowing what is to come.
Another study showed worrisome findings in older adults. Most adults older than 65 have better emotional well-being. This could be due to the fact that seniors have lived through more than younger people and had more time to develop skills for dealing with stress. Also many have retired and are less concerned about work. On the other hand, some seniors understand the higher likelihood of getting sick and of losing loved ones. Some are fearful of going out and fearful of anyone coming to their front door. They are also not as tech-savvy so it is difficult for them to get the information they need.

Successful coping in a crisis means continuing to function and engaging in day-to-day activities. Strategies that buffer the effects of stress include getting enough sleep, observing a routine, getting outside and enjoying nature, exercising, eating well and maintaining strong social connections. Spending time on projects and solving problems, even small ones that provides a sense of purpose are important. Factors that predict resilience are optimism, the ability to keep perspective, strong social support and flexible thinking. People who believe they can cope do, in fact, tend to cope better.

Also, in previous work by psychologist Anita DeLongis of the University of British Columbia who studies psychosocial responses to disease, those who are high in empathy are more likely to engage in appropriate health behaviors such as social distancing. They also have better mental health outcomes than people who are low on empathy. Her COVID-19 study will follow people’s behavior and attitudes for months to capture changes in empathy and coping over time. DeLongis says that empathy can be learned and encouraged with proper messaging, and depending how you respond will determine health behaviors and coping mechanisms.

Reference: Denworth, L. “The Biggest Psychological Experiment: What Can The Pandemic Teach Us About How People Respond to Adversity?”. Scientific American. July 2020, p 40-45.