As an endocrinologist, I frequently encounter patients who are confused about whether they have diabetes or prediabetes. Many have been told that their blood sugar levels were above normal on recent blood tests, possibly indicating prediabetes. However, this concern is often unfounded. So why is this scenario so common?
I believe that commercial lab facilities are partially responsible. Their routine procedure is to flag blood sugar levels over 99 mg% as abnormally high, which can result in many false positive diagnoses of abnormal glucose metabolism. But why do medical facilities continue to follow this protocol?
To understand this, let’s take a closer look at how prediabetes and diabetes are diagnosed.
Diabetes type 2 is a metabolic disease in which the body’s insulin production and sensitivity is impaired, resulting in consistently higher-than-normal blood glucose levels.
At current estimates, between 1 in 10 and 1 in 11 of the world’s population have diabetes.
Around 90% of those who have diabetes have type 2 diabetes. This is a disease in which the body is able to create insulin but either can’t create enough insulin or has become resistant to it. Insulin helps move glucose (sugar) from the blood into the cells that need it for energy. Diabetes complications include nephropathy (kidney), retinopathy (eye), and vascular disease. In the worst cases, this can lead to complete loss of feeling in the feet, kidney failure or blindness.
The complications of diabetes grow worse with age. At age 50, those with diabetes live six years less on average than those without, according to the CDC. However, early intervention and proper treatment have been shown to restore life expectancy to close to normal levels – especially if prediabetes is identified early.
It’s certainly possible to prevent, delay or change the course of diabetes. However, this depends on a robust and accurate assessment of prediabetes and the timely prescription of medication and lifestyle interventions.
Defining Prediabetes
People don’t become diabetic overnight. Before diabetes is established, individuals go through a stage of prediabetes that can last anywhere between 2 to 5 years. The effects of prediabetes are largely asymptomatic or invisible, and it’s often flagged on coincidental or routine blood tests.
The CDC estimates that 96 million adults in the US – over a third of the population – likely have prediabetes. Similar levels are observed across other developed countries.
In the USA, incidence rates of diabetes have doubled in the last 20 years, and diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death, and this is likely underreported.
Harvard Health cites that many people totally miss prediabetes or don’t take sufficient action to prevent it from developing into full-blown diabetes. As few as 10% of people with prediabetes are aware that they have it. Around 5 to 10% of cases of prediabetes convert into diabetes annually.
On the positive side, lifestyle changes can prevent as many as 70% of cases of prediabetes from turning into diabetes. As such, accurate and timely diagnosis and intervention are a top priority. But as ever, it isn’t as straightforward as some perceive.
Testing and Diagnosing Prediabetes and Diabetes
Testing blood glucose levels and response is critical for diagnosing prediabetes, as prediabetes is usually asymptomatic and neurologic and vascular pathology are absent.
However, capturing blood glucose levels and robustly diagnosing prediabetes is challenging, and leading health authorities provide varying and non-consistent advice.
There are four main ways to test and measure blood glucose to diagnose prediabetes and diabetes. Here’s an overview of each:
1: HbA1C Test
The HbA1C test (glycosylated hemoglobin A1c) measures average blood sugar level over a long period, typically the past 2 or 3 months. It achieves this by measuring the amount of hemoglobin in the red blood cells coated with glucose (HbA1c).
An HbA1C below 5.7% is considered normal, between 5.7 and 6.4% indicates prediabetes, and 6.5% or higher indicates diabetes.
2: Fasting Blood Sugar Test
A fasting blood sugar test measures impaired fasting glucose (IGT). The blood test is taken after an overnight fast (not eating).
The American Diabetes Association defines a fasting blood sugar level of 99 mg/dL or lower to be normal, 100 to 125 mg/dL indicates prediabetes, and 126 mg/dL or higher indicates diabetes.
3: Glucose Tolerance Test
Glucose tolerance tests measure impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). This blood test measures your blood sugar before and after drinking a solution containing glucose. The WHO advises that the test is taken 2 hours after ingestion of 75 g of oral glucose.
Additional measurements may be taken at 1 and 3 hours or at 30 to 60-minute intervals. Similarly to a fasting blood test, individuals must fast overnight before the test.
At 2 hours, a blood sugar level of 140 mg/dL or lower is considered normal, 140 to 199 mg/dL indicates prediabetes, and 200 mg/dL or higher indicates diabetes.
4: Random Blood Sugar Test
In some cases, clinicians may choose to take blood sugar randomly, known as a random blood sugar test. This is taken at any point, with no fasting.
It’s not robust but indicates diabetes with a blood sugar level of 200 mg/dL or higher. This often initiates other blood investigatory tests for diabetes.
Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes vs Prediabetes
Hb A1c
Fasting glucose
OGTT (2 hours)
Diabetes
6.5% or higher
126 mg% or higher
200 mg% or higher
Prediabetes
5.7% to 6.4%
100 to 125 mg%
140 to 199 mg%
Normal
5.7% or less
99mg% or less
140 mg% or less
Debates Surrounding Diabetes Diagnostics
Measuring glucose levels is one thing, but relating findings to prediabetes on a patient-by-patient basis is another.
First off, there are four tests to choose from, and global health authorities don’t advise the same test, let alone the same test result criteria.
● The World Health Organization (WHO) defines prediabetes with two parameters. First, they use impaired fasting glucose (IFG), defined as 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110 to 125 mg/dL). Secondly, they use impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), defined as 2 h plasma glucose of 7.8-11.0 mmol/L (140-200 mg/dL).
● The American Diabetes Association (ADA) uses the same cut-off for IGT but a lower cut-off for IFG (100-125 mg/dL). The hemoglobin A1c test is common in the US, with 5.7% to 6.4% indicating prediabetes.
Then, there are debates surrounding the efficacy and reliability of the tests and their ability to corroborate results. For example, a review of prediabetes found evidence of poor correlation between A1C, IFG and IGT results.
Controversy Surrounding the HbA1C Test
The HbA1C test has come under particular scrutiny. This study in the American Journal of Medical Sciences found that the HbA1C test was poor at predicting prediabetes and that clinicians should refer patients for additional oral glucose testing.
Other findings suggest a strong genetic component in HbA1C, concluding that it’s inherently imprecise. Similarly, another study in Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders concluded: “It is important to consider that HbA1c values below 6.5% (for diabetes) and 5.7% (for prediabetes) do not reliably exclude the presence of diabetes and prediabetes, respectively.”
Since the A1C test measures glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), it’s vulnerable to a myriad of factors affecting HbA1c lifespan and function.
Adding another twist to the debate is a study published in March 2023 which found that the HbA1c test was superior to the IFG (impaired fasting glucose) test for predicting severe diabetic complications, in this case adverse cardiovascular outcomes, in vulnerable individuals.
Contradictions in the Literature
To further salt the wound, evidence surrounding the testing and diagnosis of prediabetes is often contradictory.
● For example, this study from the American Journal of Hypertension says: “The combination of FPG and HbA1c is a reasonable alternative to the generally recommended OGTT for the screening of diabetes”. The authors found the use of the OGTT as the gold standard warrants skepticism.
● Whereas, this one in the American Journal of Medical Science says, “Patients with HbA1c of 5.7% to 6.4% should undergo OGTT to confirm diagnosis of dysglycemia.” The authors reinforce the OGTT as the gold standard.
IGT and IFG are also affected by those who are hypoglycemic, anemic, exhibit altered hematocrit (percentage of red blood cells in the blood), and hypotensive. As such, this study published in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine found poor replicability for both of these tests, advising caution for interpreting a single test result.
To further muddy the waters, test conditions are highly influenceable. For example, we know that, for example, eating dinner early improves 24-hour blood glucose levels. Fasting overnight after eating salads all day is likely more favorable for a fasting glucose test than fasting overnight after consuming sodas and fast food all day.
Hormones concentrations in the morning, the “Dawn Phenomenon,” can also affect test results, particularly in those with hormonal conditions. The Dawn Phenomenon is a normal hormonal reflex which increases blood sugar levels in the early morning. For most, this peaks around 3 am to 4 am, but it can extend to 8 am for some, which may feasibly impact glucose test results.
Moreover, diabetes tests often use subsidized rapid test strips with short expiry dates. They’re also affected by variables like temperature, humidity, and quality of blood samples, with error rates of around 12 to 15% in some cases.
In summary, the evidence suggests prediabetes diagnosis is highly sensitive to diagnostic and individual factors.
A review of prediabetes published in the World Journal of Diabetes concludes, to this effect, “the criteria used to define prediabetes needs to be refined in accordance to the long-term medical outcomes.”
Prediabetes Diagnosis: An Opportunity for Positive Change?
Prediabetes screening and diagnosis are becoming more common worldwide, but this presents new challenges for clinicians and health management.
For example, in the UK, the national rollout of the new Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) has vastly increased the number of people diagnosed with prediabetes. Clinicians are now raising concerns about the tests and criteria used to define prediabetes and also the social ramifications of creating a ‘new disease’ that may cause depression, anxiety, and stigma.
Harnessing prediabetes diagnosis for positive change is essential. That includes establishing clear guidelines for testing, effectively communicating results with patients, and establishing personalized treatment strategies.
Among all of this, there is at least one positive thing about prediabetes: it’s reversible.
Lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise can reduce risk by 40% to 70% or more, with the added bonus of reducing risk factors for numerous other diseases and disorders.
Stay tuned for our next article to learn about changing the course of prediabetes.
By Gary M. Pepper, M.D. Ozempic, Rybelsus, Trulicity, Wegovy, Saxenda are the central players in the weight loss craze sweeping across the globe. Metabolisim.com has been monitoring this phenomenon from its beginnings in 2008 with its report “Lizard Spit Reduces Blood Sugar and Appetite”, regarding the first drug in this class, Byetta (exenatide). Caught In the middle of the current chaos are the medical experts who treat diabetes and have been prescribing these medications for more than a decade. Here is a brief commentary from one such board certified endocrinologist; “I started treating Type 2 diabetics with GLP-1 agonists more than 10 years ago. In some respects, these medications have revolutionized the treatment of diabetes by lowering blood sugar effectively and promoting weight loss at the same time, a unique combination of benefits. Not everyone benefits from these drugs to the same degree unfortunately, and I have seen lots of patients experience unacceptable side effects from them. Nothing though, has prepared me for what is happening now. Too often, I find myself confronting someone who expects me to prescribe one of these drugs just so they can lose weight. Sadly, one extreme example was someone who, despite battling a life threatening medical condition, was insistent on getting a prescription. At the same time my diabetic patients are scrambling to find a place to buy their medications if they can even afford it. It is disheartening, to say the least, and I dread the negative interactions with some of my patients I now face almost daily.”
Off- Label Use
The FDA is the U.S. government’s department tasked with evaluating and approving drugs for specific medical conditions. When a new medication is approved for treating a medical condition by the FDA the agency will, at the same time, set strict guidelines for exactly which patients may use the newly approved drug. When a medication is used “off-label” it means that these limitations are being overridden by the provider for a potential benefit which outweighs the drugs risks. It is a general misconception that off-label means illegal; it does not. This practice has been going on for ages and more than 20% of prescriptions in the United States are prescribed off-label. A common example is the use of beta-blockers (approved for heart problems) for the treatment of performance anxiety.
GLP-1 agonist drugs, as discussed recently by metabolism.com. were originally approved for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in adults. In the past few years most of these same medications have gained unprecedented popularity for their “off-label” weight loss benefit. Of the 5 GLP-1 agents presently in U.S. pharmacies only Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) are FDA approved for treating obesity. Of these two, Wegovy is the newer and had been much more popular that its sister drug Saxenda, probably due to being dosed only once weekly compared to daily for Saxenda and less likely to cause side effects. Due to Wegovy’s soaring popularity, its manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, increased the price of Wegovy two times since its initial release. (more…)
by Gary M. Pepper, M.D. and Sam Jeans, MSc The global anti-obesity drug market, in 2021was valued at over $2 billion. Within one year this figure had skyrocketed to $8 billion and is expected to climb to nearly $ 20 billion by 2027. This astounding growth is a reflection of soaring obesity rates, and the arrival of a new class of weight loss medication fueling a craze both in the USA and across the world.
The FDA and global health regulators, until very recently, had maintained a very tight ship when it comes to treating obesity with medication, placing the emphasis on diet and exercise rather than weight loss drugs. Since the 80s, anti-obesity drugs continued to be controversial, and a more stringent FDA implemented ongoing safety trials along with other precautions. There is some speculation that a shift in attitude toward approval of weight loss medication by the FDA , is underway
Weight loss drug controversies are far from over and, in fact, may soon rival the amphetamine crisis of the 70’s. For that reason, metabolism.com has felt it important to provide our guide to weight loss drug issues, past and present.
Anti-Obesity Drugs Timeline
Prescription drugs for lifestyle diseases such as obesity were marketed heavily throughout the 1950s to the 1970s. Amphetamines entered the public domain after the Second World War where they were used extensively in the military.
In the 50s, walk-in clinics prescribed diet pills with other medications almost at random, with or without genuine concern for one’s weight. These brightly colored pills became known as “rainbow pills”.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called “rainbow pill diet” of pills was finally coming to an end as the FDA began to systematically ban many of the drugs involved. A high-profile expose by investigative journalist Susanna Mcbee, published in Life magazine, brought attention to this new modern public health crisis.
The rainbow pill diet combined amphetamines, laxatives, thyroid hormones, and even diuretics to produce extreme weight loss, combined with benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and steroids to reduce side effects, and antidepressants to suppress medication-induced insomnia and anxiety.
In 1968, rainbow pills were linked to over 60 deaths, with numerous accounts of their devastating impact surfacing in the news and media. Within just two months, 48 million pills were seized and destroyed. Nevertheless, amphetamine-based diet pills remained extremely popular throughout the 1970s. In 1978, some 3.3 million prescriptions for amphetamines were written each year, with some 50 million pills a year ending up in the black market.
In 1979, the FDA banned amphetamines as a weight loss aid, but that is hardly the end of the USA’s love affair with obesity medication.
Here’s a brief timeline of recent anti-obesity drugs:
To help clarify the effectiveness, side effects and cost of weight loss drugs now available, Metabolism.com is providing this breakdown for consumers.
According to the CDC, the prevalence of obesity in the USA is ever-increasing and reached an all-time high of 42.4% of adults over the age of 20 in 2017 to 2018.
Despite the prevalence of obesity in the USA, only around 3% of sufferers take medication. Low uptake of obesity medication is partly due to patchy insurance coverage, as about 1/3rd of insurers don’t cover obesity drugs at all, including Medicare and Medicaid in around half of all states. (more…)
Without a doubt, abdominal (belly) fat is the focus of much of our negative emotion as we get older. Studies have shown that estrogen plays a major role in body fat distribution, hence why women experience a much greater change in visceral fat with age particularly after menopause (400% vs 200% in men between the ages of 30 and 70).
Multiple studies, including this one published in the Journal of Menopausal Medicine, have also found that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) can reduce some of this weight gain. However, estrogen replacement is not without its risks and is unsuitable for many.
Namely, ERT can increase the risk of blood clots leading to strokes and embolisms and cause headaches, swelling, or edema. ERT is also often linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but studies reviewed by Breastcancer.org have shown that the risk is only significant after using ERT 10 years or more (in the case of estrogen-only therapy). Combination HRT poses a much greater risk.
As such, ERT is certainly not a ‘silver bullet’ for treating menopause-related abdominal weight gain.
Three Reliable Strategies For Reducing Abdominal Fat
The good news is that it’s possible for virtually anyone to reduce abdominal fat. The bad news is, there’s no real shortcuts and you can’t cheat your way to a trim waist!
For most people, it comes down to those two worrisome words: diet and exercise.
Does Spot Reduction for Abdominal Fat Work?
But wait, is there an easier way? It might seem logical to start an intense abdominal workout regime to tackle excess belly fat. This is known as spot reduction.
The concept of spot reduction is not new, but studies including this one published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research generally show that spot training is ineffective. In fact, the concept of spot training has been almost entirely debunked.
Moreover, spot training doesn’t rate as a great use of exercise time either – you’re likely better off spending that time on other types of holistic core or full body workouts.
However, this isn’t to rule out the benefit of strength and conditioning training with a focus on the abdomen and core, as strengthening this part of the body will boost your metabolism and help you fight age-related weight gain. The studies just show that you can’t ‘target’ one part of the body with one specific exercise.
Strategy 1: Core Exercises Without the Sit-ups
Spot training doesn’t work in the way many imagine it to work, but core training is an excellent way to lose weight in general. Core training will strengthen the abdominal muscles, which will increase muscle tone in the area and also help deal with over-stretched skin.
In recent years, sit-ups have fallen out of favor as they put immense strain on the back. Harvard Health suggests that they would be replaced with planking, which is excellent for the core and easier on the back.
Mountain climbers and burpees are also great alternatives to sit-ups and both can be modified to reduce joint strain and impact.
Exercise the core and legs to support muscle mass and increase metabolism.
Core exercises also build stability and balance, which become increasingly important with age.
Skip the crunches and sit-ups in favor of mountain climbers, burpees, and planks.
Strategy 2: HIIT For Cardio
High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is a recurring theme in any article aimed at helping people lose abdominal fat. In a nutshell, HIIT involves short bursts of intense exercise followed by rest periods, with the average session lasting around 15 minutes at the most.
HIIT burns calories quicker and more efficiently than steady-state cardio (e.g. a treadmill). It’s also easier to slot into your day and you can spend the rest of your workout time on strength training.
Those who aren’t used to intense exercise should seek advice before starting a HIIT training regime, though studies have shown that even lower intensity sessions are excellent for burning calories and improving cardiovascular health.
High-intensity interval training is a quick and efficient way to burn calories.
Almost any exercise can be used in a HIIT training regime, so you can pick your favorite one.
For seniors, HIIT is still generally safe and the benefits are proven even when the intensity is reduced to what one can handle.
Strategy 3: Make Long-Term Dietary Changes
You may often hear that diet is more important than exercise when it comes to losing weight, and this is generally true. As the old adage goes; “you are what you eat”!
In our previous article, we explored how different types of food affect the metabolism (i.e. the thermic effect of food). Protein uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs, so switching to a protein-rich diet that incorporates more raw, unprocessed foods is ideal for burning abdominal fat.
There are various diets proposed for dealing with hormonal changes relating to age or menopause, and perhaps the most promising is the Mediterranean diet. The people of Mediterranean countries in Southern Europe enjoy some of the lowest rates of cardiovascular and heart disease, as well as lower rates of degenerative diseases (like Alzheimer’s), diabetes, and even some cancers.
Harvard Health has created a diet review of the Mediterranean diet here. In essence, it involves consuming less red meat and more fish, more raw foods and healthy fats (e.g. from olive oil), and drinking practically mostly water.
Avocados, seeds, nuts, and oily fish all feature prolifically, as well as heaps of dark leafy greens. Oh, and you can still eat cheese and drink wine in limited quantities (this is a Mediterranean diet, after all!).
Cut processed foods from the diet wherever possible.
Bump up consumption of raw and unprocessed foods (but make sure you don’t overcompensate with high-fat options like nuts).
Don’t forget to avoid sugary drinks. Choose water instead.
Summary: Abdominal Fat and How to Lose It
It’s important to understand that abdominal fat is NOT the same as generalized body fat (subcutaneous fat).
For those with an hourglass body shape and thin waist, this is perhaps good news.
For those suffering from the beer belly or middle-age spread, this is probably not good news! And let’s face it, more people fall into this category.
Abdominal fat is worse than any other fat and a bulging waistline is a cause for action, even if the rest of you is relatively slim. Whilst it can be stubborn, abdominal fat is not unshiftable and with dedication and perseverance, it’s possible to shift even the most problematic fat.
DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE
The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material contained on this website are for informational purposes only. No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.
In my day to day endocrinology practice one of the first complaints I hear from people, no matter what the medical problem, is about weight. Almost always, it is either because they are gaining or unable to lose it. When I began my medical practice 40 years ago, this was also the case. What is it about weight that prevents more progress from being made? Could it be because in nature having adequate amounts of stored fat on the body eg belly fat, is essential for survival in the same way having gasoline in the fuel tank of a car is needed to keep it going? Not to mention the role of fat as an insulator against the cold. Imagine trying to live through a winter without clothes, the way primitive humans did? Being covered in fat was literally a lifesaver. The more we know about the role of fat (adipose) in our lives the better we are equipped to live with (and without) it.
It’s tempting to think that all fat is built the same, but this is not true.
There are actually three types of fat; white, brown, and beige fat, and they are distributed in different parts of the body in different proportions, as either visceral fat (inside the body and organs) or subcutaneous fat (under the skin).
White fat is the fat most people are familiar with – over 73.2% of all Americans carry too much and are classed as either overweight or obese (CDC, 2017 to 2018). While some white fat is absolutely essential for a healthy metabolism, every body has its limits.
Brown fat is found mainly in babies and plays a key role in providing energy and keeping us warm. Adults retain a small percentage of brown fat around their necks and shoulders.
Beige, or brite fat, is similar to brown fat and is optimized for burning fat rather than storing it, unlike white fat.
As we can see, white fat is the ‘bad stuff,’ and is the type of fat that many of us worry about.
Visceral and Subcutaneous Fat
Fat is distributed as either visceral or subcutaneous fat, and there is a big difference between the two.
Subcutaneous Fat
Subcutaneous fat is stored under the skin in the limbs and extremities; arms, belly, thighs, and buttocks. When you pinch your arm or leg, you’re likely feeling a layer of subcutaneous fat distributed under the skin. Made up of mostly white fat, some subcutaneous fat is essential for hormonal function, as well as keeping warm.
While people with different body compositions will likely carry different percentages of subcutaneous fat, everyone has their limits. Subcutaneous fat is not totally harmless, but it poses fewer risks than visceral fat.
Visceral Fat
Visceral fat is stored primarily around and inside the abdomen. Yes – fat is more than skin deep and is stored inside of us as well as under our skin.
Whilst excess subcutaneous fat is still unhealthy, many recent and reputable studies such as this large-scale meta-analysis of 2.5 million participants suggest that visceral fat poses a much greater health risk than subcutaneous fat.
The increased health risk of visceral fat is linked to its proximity to the vital organs.
The closer fat is to the stomach and abdomen, the greater the chance is that it penetrates under the skin, wrapping itself around the liver, heart, kidneys, pancreas, and other organs. A study conducted by the University of Chicago and published in 2016 also found that visceral fat behaves differently from subcutaneous fat and resists fat burning (lipolysis). This also explains why abdominal fat is seen as ‘stubborn fat’ that is hard to lose.
Around 59% of all US adults were abdominally obese in 2015 to 2016, representing a massive increase from around 47% in 1999 to 2000 (CDC, 2016).
Visceral fat poses a much greater risk than subcutaneous fat in developing in the following conditions:
Heart disease
Type 2 diabetes
Insulin resistance
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Certain types of cancer, such as stomach cancer, bowel cancer, pancreatic cancer and liver cancer
How to Measure Visceral Fat
Traditionally, BMI (body mass index) has been the go-to yardstick for measuring body fat. Today, many health authorities encourage the use of both BMI and abdominal fat measurements. The measurement of waist circumference is a popular method to assess abdominal fat. It’s possible to have a healthy BMI and high waist measurement, and vice-versa.
Take your shoes off and stand with your feet together.
With a bare stomach, relax and exhale all air from your diaphragm.
Use a fabric tape measure to measure your waist circumference at the naval.
Record the measurement.
Be aware that this measurement is likely not the same as what many consider to be their ‘waist’ measure (i.e. the measurement they use to fit trousers).
Men
Women
Low Risk
37 inches and below
31.5 inches and below
Medium Risk
37.1 to 39.9 inches
31.6 to 34.9 inches
High Risk
40 inches and above
35 inches and above
Does Abdominal or Visceral Fat Increase With Age?
The short answer is yes, it does. The plight of the so-called beer belly or middle-age spread is real!
This study published in the International Journal of Body Composition Research found that visceral fat increased by over 200% in men and 400% in women between the age of 30 and 70.
Why?
As we age, our metabolism changes and slows down, but the ‘middle-age spread’ is also linked to changes in behavior and diet.
To briefly summarize, aging reduces our percentage of lean muscle mass, which lowers our metabolic rate. Additionally, whilst it’s perhaps natural to indulge a little more as we get older, it’s easy to eat more and exercise less. That gives your body every excuse to pile on that abdominal fat!
Abdominal Fat and Menopause
Studies have shown that estrogen plays a major role in body fat distribution, hence why women experience a much greater change in visceral fat with age due to menopause accompanied by the loss of estrogen (400% vs 200% in men between the ages of 30 and 70).
Multiple studies, including this one published in the Journal of Menopausal Medicine, have also found that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) can mitigate some of this weight gain. However, estrogen replacement is not without its risks and is unsuitable for many.
Namely, ERT can increase the risk of blood clots leading to strokes and embolisms and cause headaches, swelling, or edema. ERT is also often linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. It is worth mentioning however, studies reviewed by Breastcancer.org show that the risk is only significant after using ERT 10 years or more (in the case of estrogen-only therapy). Combination HRT which includes both estrogen and progesterone poses a much greater risk.
As such, ERT is certainly not a ‘silver bullet’ for treating menopause-related abdominal weight gain.
Part 2 of this article will be published in 2 weeks at this website www.metabolism.com
DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE, www.metabolism.com, DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE
The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material contained on this website are for informational purposes only. No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.
The mission of the The Thyroid Project is to encourage sharing of information and experience between the public and the medical community about the treatment of hypothyroidism (low thyroid function). For at least the past few decades there is a growing awareness of “something missing†in the way suffers of hypothyroidism are treated for their disease.
Too many patients, as documented in an on-line study of 12,000 individuals conducted by the American Thyroid Association published in June 2018, (https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2017.0681) , complain of persistent symptoms of hypothyroidism despite what their doctors believe is successful treatment with levothyroxine (brands include Synthroid, Unithroid, Tirosent, Levoxl). We believe something needs to be done to resolve this conflict between patients and their doctors.
Diabetes can be defined simply as elevated blood sugar levels. What exactly is high blood sugar and when should someone be concerned about their level? Does having prediabetes mean diabetes is around the corner? Metabolism.com tackles this tricky but important topic in this comprehensive review.
By Gary M. Pepper, M.D. Ozempic, Rybelsus, Trulicity, Wegovy, Saxenda are the central players in the weight loss craze sweeping across the globe. Metabolisim.com has been monitoring this phenomenon from its beginnings in 2008 with its report “Lizard Spit Reduces Blood Sugar and Appetite”, regarding the first drug in this class, Byetta (exenatide). Caught In the middle of the current chaos are the medical experts who treat diabetes and have been prescribing these medications for more than a decade. Here is a brief commentary from one such board certified endocrinologist; “I started treating Type 2 diabetics with GLP-1 agonists more than 10 years ago. In some respects, these medications have revolutionized the treatment of diabetes by lowering blood sugar effectively and promoting weight loss at the same time, a unique combination of benefits. Not everyone benefits from these drugs to the same degree unfortunately, and I have seen lots of patients experience unacceptable side effects from them. Nothing though, has prepared me for what is happening now. Too often, I find myself confronting someone who expects me to prescribe one of these drugs just so they can lose weight. Sadly, one extreme example was someone who, despite battling a life threatening medical condition, was insistent on getting a prescription. At the same time my diabetic patients are scrambling to find a place to buy their medications if they can even afford it. It is disheartening, to say the least, and I dread the negative interactions with some of my patients I now face almost daily.”
Off- Label Use
The FDA is the U.S. government’s department tasked with evaluating and approving drugs for specific medical conditions. When a new medication is approved for treating a medical condition by the FDA the agency will, at the same time, set strict guidelines for exactly which patients may use the newly approved drug. When a medication is used “off-label” it means that these limitations are being overridden by the provider for a potential benefit which outweighs the drugs risks. It is a general misconception that off-label means illegal; it does not. This practice has been going on for ages and more than 20% of prescriptions in the United States are prescribed off-label. A common example is the use of beta-blockers (approved for heart problems) for the treatment of performance anxiety.
GLP-1 agonist drugs, as discussed recently by metabolism.com. were originally approved for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in adults. In the past few years most of these same medications have gained unprecedented popularity for their “off-label” weight loss benefit. Of the 5 GLP-1 agents presently in U.S. pharmacies only Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) are FDA approved for treating obesity. Of these two, Wegovy is the newer and had been much more popular that its sister drug Saxenda, probably due to being dosed only once weekly compared to daily for Saxenda and less likely to cause side effects. Due to Wegovy’s soaring popularity, its manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, increased the price of Wegovy two times since its initial release.
by Gary M. Pepper, M.D. and Sam Jeans, MSc The global anti-obesity drug market, in 2021was valued at over $2 billion. Within one year this figure had skyrocketed to $8 billion and is expected to climb to nearly $ 20 billion by 2027. This astounding growth is a reflection of soaring obesity rates, and the arrival of a new class of weight loss medication fueling a craze both in the USA and across the world.
The FDA and global health regulators, until very recently, had maintained a very tight ship when it comes to treating obesity with medication, placing the emphasis on diet and exercise rather than weight loss drugs. Since the 80s, anti-obesity drugs continued to be controversial, and a more stringent FDA implemented ongoing safety trials along with other precautions. There is some speculation that a shift in attitude toward approval of weight loss medication by the FDA , is underway
Weight loss drug controversies are far from over and, in fact, may soon rival the amphetamine crisis of the 70’s. For that reason, metabolism.com has felt it important to provide our guide to weight loss drug issues, past and present.
Anti-Obesity Drugs Timeline
Prescription drugs for lifestyle diseases such as obesity were marketed heavily throughout the 1950s to the 1970s. Amphetamines entered the public domain after the Second World War where they were used extensively in the military.
In the 50s, walk-in clinics prescribed diet pills with other medications almost at random, with or without genuine concern for one’s weight. These brightly colored pills became known as “rainbow pills”.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called “rainbow pill diet” of pills was finally coming to an end as the FDA began to systematically ban many of the drugs involved. A high-profile expose by investigative journalist Susanna Mcbee, published in Life magazine, brought attention to this new modern public health crisis.
The rainbow pill diet combined amphetamines, laxatives, thyroid hormones, and even diuretics to produce extreme weight loss, combined with benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and steroids to reduce side effects, and antidepressants to suppress medication-induced insomnia and anxiety.
In 1968, rainbow pills were linked to over 60 deaths, with numerous accounts of their devastating impact surfacing in the news and media. Within just two months, 48 million pills were seized and destroyed. Nevertheless, amphetamine-based diet pills remained extremely popular throughout the 1970s. In 1978, some 3.3 million prescriptions for amphetamines were written each year, with some 50 million pills a year ending up in the black market.
In 1979, the FDA banned amphetamines as a weight loss aid, but that is hardly the end of the USA’s love affair with obesity medication.
Here’s a brief timeline of recent anti-obesity drugs:
