A Heart-to-Heart on Cardiac Health

February is overrun with the hearts and flowers fanfare of Valentine’s Day. But long after bouquets have wilted and chocolate boxes have been picked over, our hearts should continue a steady beat.

The statistics about heart disease are staggering – it causes more deaths each year than all forms of cancer combined, even though it’s preventable for some people.  Doctors use American Heart Month to remind us to be good to our hearts, so we’ve asked cardiologist Dr. Jeffrey Alexis for some tips.

Scripts:  What’s the best ways we can help prevent problems with our heart?

Alexis:  We can all work to keep our hearts healthy by avoiding tobacco, eating right and getting more exercise.  Smoking damages so many parts of our body; if you’re addicted to tobacco, do whatever it takes to quit.  Miraculously, your body can reverse the damage caused by smoking.   Check out New York State Smokers Quitline for tips and access to resources.

Obesity also contributes to a variety of diseases that can hinder heart functioning. Stay trim, eat a nutritious, plant-based diet – with low-salt and low-calorie foods. Don’t drink too much alcohol.  Make sure you get enough exercise – 30 to 60 minutes per day. This protects against heart disease by:

• helping the heart work more efficiently;
• reducing blood pressure;
• decreasing the tendency of blood to form life-threatening clots;
• moderating stress;
• helping your body use insulin; and,
• helping you maintain a healthy weight.

Scripts:  How do we know if cardiovascular problems are beginning? Are there warning signs?

Alexis:  Pay attention to your blood pressure and cholesterol levels; it’s really important that you know these numbers. 

Regular blood pressure screenings start in childhood. Adults should have their blood pressure checked at least every two years. You may need more-frequent checks if your numbers aren’t ideal, or if you have other risk factors for heart disease. Optimal blood pressure is less than 120/80 millimeters of mercury. There are many inexpensive medications that doctors prescribe to help manage blood pressure or hypertension, and stave off heart disease, if your numbers are high.

Adults should have their cholesterol measured every five years. You may need more frequent testing if your levels are off, or if you have other risk factors for heart disease.  Doctors sometimes even check children’s cholesterol levels if there’s a strong family history of heart disease.  An ounce of prevention goes a long way.

Dr. Jeffrey Alexis is a member of the URMC Program in Heart Failure and Transplantation team, which cares for people with advanced heart disease. 

For more information about heart care, visit URMC’s Heart and Vascular Center or call 275-2877.

Back in Sync: Simple Programming Tweaks Help Defibrillators Work Better

Too many of us take a healthy heartbeat for granted.

But for those living with defibrillators – nearly 200,000 are implanted in Americans each year – abnormal and potentially fatal beating patterns could strike at any moment. Fortunately, a new, world-wide trial led by URMC expert Dr. Arthur Moss shows that slight programming tweaks to these rhythm-resetting devices can help people with heart disease enjoy longer, higher quality lives.

The findings were published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Moss says that implantable defibrillators are commonly programmed to fire when the heart rate exceeds around 170 beats per minute. The problem is, rates of 180 or 190 are not always dangerous, are typically short-lived, and might even be tied to increased activity or exercise. And since defibrillators aren’t always good at differentiating benign from harmful rhythms in this “in-between” range, patients must live against a backdrop of potentially painful, anxiety-provoking shocks.

“There’s also considerable research to suggest that there’s a small amount of damage to the heart muscle with each delivered shock,” added Moss. “If we can eliminate unnecessary ones, this is going to be associated with less heart damage and improved outcomes.”

Indeed, over time, too many false alarms take their toll – and not just on the heart muscle itself. In fact, data from a 2002 trial comparing anti-arrhythmic drugs and defibrillators suggested that shocks are associated with reduced mental well-being. A recent review of more than 45 studies found that such emotional distress isn’t uncommon; between 11 and 28 percent of defibrillator patients had some form of depression and between 11 and 26 percent had an anxiety disorder.

The recent trial Dr. Moss led (the MADIT-RIT trial, or Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial – Reduce Inappropriate Therapy, tapping 1,500 patients in 98 hospital centers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and Japan), revealed big boons for heart disease patients with defibrillators. The trial showed that setting the device to fire at a slightly higher rate (200 beats per minute) reduced the risk of experiencing a first unnecessary shock by 79 percent, compared to standard programming. Fewer shocks also corresponded with less energy delivered to the heart, which study authors believe ultimately contributed to the reduced risk of death. To their surprise, using this higher threshold for shock delivery also lowered the risk of death by an impressive 55 percent compared to patients whose devices ran on traditional programming.

You can hear Dr. Moss talk about the trial – and what it means people with defibrillators – in the clip below.

Lead investigator, URMC Professor Arthur J. Moss, M.D., is a world-renowned expert in the treatment and prevention of cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Moss’ team found that simply raising the heart rate at which defibrillator devices (ICDs) are set to fire – or deliver shock therapy – makes all the difference.

In 2002, Moss and the MADIT research group showed that ICDs are extremely effective in preventing death in patients at risk of irregular heart rhythms and sudden cardiac death, including individuals who’ve suffered a heart attack. The work changed medical guidelines nationwide, making thousands of heart attack survivors eligible for ICD therapy.

The MADIT-RIT trial is the first large-scale, randomized study designed to evaluate specific programming features to reduce inappropriate (unnecessary) therapy in patients with ICDs. The trial’s sponsor, Boston Scientific, was not involved in data collection or data analysis. Moss, who has led the MADIT trials since their inception in the 1990s, holds no stock in any device company, has never been a member of any corporate speakers bureau, and since Dec. 1, 2008, has chosen not to accept honoraria from Boston Scientific for any professional activity.

Air Pollution, Health Hazards — At Home and Abroad

On the eve of the 2012 Summer Olympics, scientists worried that poor air quality in London might hurt the athletes’ chances of breaking records. Although classic British rain and wind eventually lifted the smog, July’s heat had ignited a steamy brew of traffic and industrial pollutants in densely populated areas of England, reminiscent of Beijing four years ago.

URMC epidemiologist David Rich knows all about air pollution and the China Olympics. In Beijing he tracked key indicators of cardiac health before, during, and after the games in a unique set of experiments that also looked at the Chinese government’s unprecedented programs to reduce pollution by shutting down factories and restricting vehicular traffic.

His research has given scientists new insight on the biology of air pollution and health. With the 2012 Olympics underway, we asked him to reflect on his discoveries and talk about pollution as a public health threat.

Scripts: First off, can you explain what we mean when we use the term air pollution?

Rich: Air pollution is particles and gases either emitted by human activities or by natural processes into the air. The particles and gases cause harm to the environment, or impact the health of humans and other living organisms. For example, carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuel.  Motor vehicles are the largest source of carbon monoxide, which has been linked to human health problems.

Scripts: What does the experience in Beijing during the Olympics tell us about impact of air pollution on health? 

Rich: We learned that air pollution has an impact on common markers of health such as blood pressure, blood vessel function, heart rate, and blood clotting — even in healthy young people.  In older adults, infants, and people with pre-existing diseases, changes in these markers can trigger acute problems like heart attacks, stroke, and exacerbation of asthma that results in hospital visits or even death.  Most importantly, though, from Beijing we learned that large-scale air pollution reduction campaigns can benefit health.

Scripts: While air pollution remains a significant problem in other parts of the world, one often gets the impression that this is a thing of the past in this country.  Have we made progress or is air pollution still an important public health issue?

Rich: We have made great progress. Our pollution is generally much lower than what we see in Beijing and other mega-cities in the world. However, there are still health problems associated with air pollution in the United States and here in Rochester. Specifically, those people who I mentioned earlier – the elderly, infants, and those with pre-existing diseases — are at higher risk. Also, certain activities put people in contact with air pollution at much higher levels than the background levels seen across a city. For example, riding in a car or working in an occupation such as manufacturing exposes people to higher amounts of air pollution.

Scripts: What specific health conditions can be attribute to poor air quality?

Rich: Increased air pollutants have been associated with total mortality and more deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. In addition, air pollution can lead to what we call “respiratory events,” including wheezing, breathlessness, coughing and phlegm, and asthma attacks, as well as conditions such as lung cancer, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, heart attacks, strokes, and arrhythmias, to name a few. This does not mean that all such conditions are caused by air pollution, but air pollution may have a contributing role in causing some of these types of health problems.

Scripts: Are certain people more at risk?  If so, what kind of steps can they take to protect themselves?

Rich: Certainly, older people, infants, and those with pre-existing conditions are thought to be most susceptible to the effects of air pollution. They may want to reduce their exposure to outdoor air on days when pollution or ozone levels are particularly high, and perhaps stay inside. Most local weather reports include air quality warnings.  These people also may want to avoid indoor air pollution exposure at work or other locations.  Newer research suggests that high-efficiency air filters in cars and buildings might help.  Another protection is to include more fish, or fish oil supplements with omega-3 fatty acids in your diet, and some medicines such as aspirin may offer some benefit — although these findings still require scientific confirmation.

Dr. Rich is an environmental epidemiologist in the URMC Department of Community and Preventive Medicine. To contact him please call (585) 276-4119.

Does ‘Good’ Cholesterol Still Deserve its Halo?

For years, cardiologists have revered high-density lipoproteins – the so-called “good cholesterol” – for their work ferrying fats along the bloodstream and out through the liver. Having high levels of these fat-moving molecules has been long considered key for a smooth-humming heart and blood vessel network.

Until recently, at least.

New research published in last week’s The Lancet is “compelling and disturbing,” according to a number of high-profile clinician-scientists cited by the New York Times. The research findings, which looked at the DNA from tens of thousands of Americans, show that “good genes” known to raise HDL levels actually had no bearing on an individual’s risk for heart disease.

Could the recent trial’s results shake up cholesterol science as we know it? We spoke to preventive cardiologist Dr. Robert Block to find out.

Scripts: Can you back up and explain, briefly, the difference between HDL and LDL?

Block: Happily. HDL, as you’ve noted, is the high-density lipoprotein (historically dubbed “good” cholesterol); LDL is low-density lipoprotein (or “bad” cholesterol). Here’s a simple analogy: We often refer to LDL as the “garbage” that clogs up arteries, and HDL as the “garbage trucks” that collect it. In other words, LDL causes blood vessel disease, heart attacks and strokes, whereas HDL actively helps avert it by keeping the circulatory system free and clear.

Besides being “good,” HDL also has been considered “smart”; it has many characteristics that help to regulate overall cholesterol metabolism. Remember, cholesterol is an essential ingredient in building cell membranes, human hormones, and more.

Scripts: For many years we’ve accepted, almost as fact, that high HDL levels are protective. What’s propped up this theory?

Block: The Framingham Heart Study, for starters. It’s a landmark, longitudinal heart-health research project. Initially launched in 1948, it continues to follow participants in an effort to better understand heart disease risk factors. Repeatedly, the Framingham study has shown HDL levels to be better predictors of heart attacks than LDL levels, or other types of cholesterol levels (triglycerides, etc.)

You could also look at the gender argument. As a group, women tend to have higher HDL levels than men, and also a lower risk of cardiovascular disease events to boot. So the two appear connected. Other studies, such as the 1990s Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial (VA-HIT), showed that an increase in HDL (thanks to gemfibrozil, a medication that boosts HDL levels) was tied to a significant risk reduction for cardiovascular disease.

On the other hand, as the Times recently pointed out, another prominent HDL project – the AIM-HIGH study – showed little promise and was halted early.

AIM-HIGH set out to test whether a double-punch – raising HDL levels and lowering triglycerides – could reduce the likelihood of repeat heart and vascular problems in people with well-controlled LDL levels. On a cursory glance, the mere fact that the study closed early might seem to deflate the “high-HDL-helps” theory a bit, but it’s worth looking at the study design. In AIM-HIGH participants, the LDL (“bad” cholesterol) levels already were rather low. Going back to our garbage analogy, you can think of it this way: If you have little in the way of trash, amping up your fleet of garbage removal trucks won’t matter much. This goes to show that all findings need to be taken in context of the trial’s design, its inherent limits, and of course, other parallel studies.

Scripts: Well said. Still, researchers say that this may be a perfect example of two factors having an associative, but not causative, relationship. Can you explain this idea to us?

Block: Certainly. And it’s a very good point. “Associative,” in this case, means that having a high or low level of a given molecule correlates with either high or low risk for a linked disease. “Causative,” just like it sounds, would go a step further, attributing credit (or blame!) and implying that the molecule actually causes the disease.

For the HDL saga, if only an association exists between HDL levels and heart disease risk, then raising or lowering HDL blood content would have little power to fend off heart disease and stroke. And that’s not impossible; it’s at least conceivable that HDL is merely a marker (associated and predictive, but not actually causative) of heart disease risk. Current data from many studies, however, have strongly suggested that HDL actually is protective (causative) in preventing the arterial hardening that leads to heart attacks and strokes. That’s why I’m taking the Lancet study’s results with a grain of salt. In large part, it’s a step removed from the real issue: Genetics is just one of a whole host of factors that shape a person’s overall blood HDL level. So to jump right from genes to heart disease risk is a bit of an oversimplification. So many other things work together to influence HDL levels.

Scripts: Even so, the Lancet study seems to have shaken up some big players in the field of HDL research. Do you think this will have major implications for current investigations and clinical care?

Block: I doubt this one study will change the game much. It certainly will (and should) stimulate more research regarding HDL function and metabolism.

It’s interesting to note that a less-talked-about measure, known as the “non-HDL” cholesterol level (this is, simply subtracting HDL from total cholesterol), has been shown in some very large, reputable studies to be a far better predictor of cardiovascular disease risk than LDL and some other blood cholesterol molecules. This is important, as it nods to HDL as an important part of the equation. Another perk of this “non-HDL” measure is that it’s highly practical – it’s valid in the fasting and non-fasting states.

Dr. Block specializes in the care of patients with high blood cholesterol levels. If you’ve been diagnosed with unhealthy cholesterol levels, and are you looking for help getting them under control, call URMC’s Lipid Clinic at URMC at (585) 341-7700.

Go Fish! Do Omega-3 Supplements Deserve a Spot in Your Medicine Cabinet?

A new report making waves this month says the jury’s still out on whether those big, fish-oil soft gels offer much benefit for persons already living with heart disease.

The latest analysis, which reviewed just over a dozen smaller studies, found that taking the supplements – or not – made little difference in whether 20,000 chronic heart disease patients suffered heart attacks or strokes.

But don’t toss your fish pills just yet, says URMC cardiologist Dr. Robert Block. There’s more to consider. Below, he helps make sense of the latest science – and its short-comings.

Scripts: Historically, have cardiologists advised cardiac patients (say, those with high cholesterol) to take fish-oil capsules – and if so, based on what research?

Block: It’s important to note that a fair number of older studies – many of which were conducted before the mainstream adoption of today’s aggressive medicines, like statins and beta-blockers – were quite conclusive. They suggested fish oil supplements indeed played an important role of protecting patients with heart failure.

Take the GISSI (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dells Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico) trial, for instance, which found that these pills lowered the risk of fatal cardiovascular events by 10 percent for cardiac patients. So, conceivably, it could be that more recent trials (in which the bulk of patients were already taking powerful medications) might not accurately appreciate the role that fish oil actually plays – especially for people never diagnosed with heart disease to begin with.

To that end, many cardiologists do recommend fish oil supplements – or better yet, eating more real fish – since the known side-effects (other than the occasional potential for a fishy burp!) are negligible. What’s more, fish oil does not interact with other medications – a big problem we see with many prescription drugs.

Scripts: Some people assume that “supplements,” in general, are just as good of a substitute for consuming the real food. But does this study possibly suggest that the part of the benefit of fish oil, in its most natural form (that is, in actual fish!), comes because fish are eaten in place of other less-healthy meats?

Block: Certainly, fish are a wonderful dietary staple. The health benefits are well-documented, and the most current, 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise all of us (even pregnant women) to eat more servings of fish. And, even while the data supporting fish oil supplements is less cut -and-dried, the American Heart Association nevertheless maintains an official recommendation that patients with the metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes) should eat more fish – or take fish-oil supplements.

But certainly, you raise a fair point – consuming nutrient-rich foods in their natural form is important, because theoretically, because it represents a smart trade-off: Chances are good that your fish-based meals are replacing other less-good-for-you protein sources, like pork or red meats.

Scripts: Many of the studies wrapped into this latest analysis didn’t follow patients for the long-term. Isn’t it possible that, especially for patients who have not developed heart disease, there still is some longitudinal benefit from supplements?

Block: Absolutely! This is a major limitation of the study, and a point that’s getting a good deal of press attention. When it comes to preventive cardiology, we’re keenly focused on long-term health risks – looking ahead 30 to 50 years, rather than shorter periods like these trials are studying.

What’s more, sample size really matters – and is often overlooked by the public. Frankly, many of the studies wrapped into this most recent meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) were probably too small to detect the modest but important risk-reduction role supplements likely play.

Scripts: So bigger, longer-term studies are warranted – that makes sense. But, are all fish-oil supplements created equal?

Block: Supplements definitely vary in quality – and of course, cost. Take Lovaza, for instance; it’s an FDA-approved prescription drug composed of about 85 percent EPA and DHA, the most important fatty acids in fish, and is commonly prescribed for diabetics and obese folks with high triglycerides (a major cause of pancreatitis—a very serious health issue).

On the other hand, cheaper, over-the-counter options generally pack only 30 to 60 percent EPA and DHA. Many people at high-risk for cardiovascular disease take them (including me) because they feel better doing so, and are banking on their potential for longer-term health benefits.

Of course, it’s important to note that improving heart health isn’t the only thing omega-3 fatty acids have been lauded for.  Other studies have found fish-oil supplements to reduce joint pain and stiffness, boost the effects of anti-depressants, and play an important, brain-building role in the womb (aiding babies’ neurological and visual development). So, it’s important that we take new studies in stride, looking closely at their design and asking how each fits into the bigger picture of all the science that’s gone before – as well as the science that’s currently underway.

Dr. Block specializes in the care of patients with high blood cholesterol levels. If you’ve been diagnosed with unhealthy cholesterol levels, and are you looking for help getting them under control, call URMC’s Lipid Clinic at URMC at (585) 341-7700.

Finding a Role for Chocolate in a Healthy Diet

If that trove of Valentine’s Day truffles has your conscience heavy, it’s time to take a serious look at the health benefits of chocolate.

Since ancient Mayans guzzled the first molten drink (then, a bitter, chocolate soup) almost 2,000 years ago, we’ve learned quite a bit about the fascinating fruit of the cacao tree.

For a balanced look at the delicacy – and its health implications – we spoke to URMC cardiologist and community health scientist Dr. Thomas A. Pearson. A renowned expert in the metabolic effects of chocolate (thanks to his tenure as a research consultant to the Chocolate Manufacturers Association of the United States  in the late 80’s), Pearson recently penned a review of chocolate studies for the Advisory Committee of the 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines.

Scripts: Over the years, much research has celebrated the health benefits of chocolate. What’s all the fuss about?

Pearson: Let’s start with the mood benefits first. Chocolate, of course, is a sensuous treat; in fact, it’s one of the few food substances that melts at 97 degrees Fahrenheit – just a couple of degrees below the human body temperature – so it feels rich and velvety, almost buttery in the mouth. What’s more, it contains theobromines – a chemical shown to have mood-boosting properties.

From a physical health stance, several studies have reported chocolate to lower blood pressure, improve blood flow (by causing vessels to dilate), and even reduce risk for clotting (by making platelets less “sticky”) – all important pieces of a well-oiled circulatory system.

Scripts: What is it in chocolate that’s behind these benefits?

Pearson: It’s difficult to parse out exactly which ingredients in chocolate are responsible for which health effects – it could be any combination of chemicals. Of course, you have the mood-boosting theobromine, but chocolate is also rich in flavinoids – plant chemicals that not only give cocoa it’s flavorful, pungent taste, but also boost antioxidant powers, protecting cells against environmental toxins. (That said, it’s important to point out that flavinoids aren’t only found in chocolate; plenty of other foods pack them in powerful doses – like onions, apples, blueberries and green tea, to name a few.)

What’s more, one of the primary fats in cocoa butter – stearic acid – has been proven to not raise blood cholesterol in the body (so, theoretically, if stearic acid is eaten in place of other fats, it could help to lower cholesterol levels overall).

Scripts: Granted, that’s great news — but isn’t “chocolate” a very fluid term here in the U.S.  We have chocolate milk, to chocolate cheesecake, chocolate cereals…

Pearson: True – not all chocolate is created equal. There even are imposters, like carob chips, that aren’t chocolate at all.

When it comes to real chocolate, the concentration of cocoa (and therefore, the inherent flavinoids, stearic acid, and theobromines) varies incredibly, depending on the other ingredients mixed in. In general, the higher the concentration of cocoa butter in a piece of chocolate, the lower the percentage of milk fat and other fats that have been shown to raise cholesterol levels.

Scripts: But as you mentioned, chocolate foods are often high in fat and sugar.

Pearson: Of course. Even the good fat in cocoa butter – stearic acid – still crams nine calories a gram. In fact, chocolate bars rations were fed to World War II soldiers precisely because they were such a dense, calorie-rich “survival” food!

That said, assuming you’re careful to build it into your daily calorie allowance, a nice piece of dark chocolate isn’t too bad of a food choice – especially if it’s mixed with heart-healthy nuts, like almonds, walnuts of pistachios. Remember, there are no bad foods – just bad diets. Enjoying a reasonable amount of chocolate can be a real pleasure, and a smart part of keeping your diet enjoyable and sustainable.

To learn more about Dr. Pearson’s work with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, click here.  

For more on the “delicious history” of chocolate, check out this WebMD slideshow.

Can You Really Die From a Broken Heart?

Sappy cards.  Impossible dinner reservations. Rose bouquets for twice their typical cost.

If you’re annoyed by the hype of the Valentine’s holiday, take heart: There might be something worth celebrating after all. Scientists continue to find ways that nurturing relationships, like a supportive marriage, confer health benefits to the heart – and conversely, how stress and grief from love lost can take their toll on it.

In fact, one recent University of Rochester study showed that wedded people who undergo coronary bypass surgery are at least three times as likely as their unmarried counterparts to be alive 15 years later. On the flip side, more and more scientific evidence is mounting, making a strong case for the long-romanticized notion of people dying from “broken hearts.” It turns out, in rare instances, suffering a devastating loss can literally kill you.

To understand how emotions affect the heart, we sat down with cardiologist Dr. Leway Chen, who specializes in caring for patients with heart transplants and artificial hearts.

To learn more about the advanced heart health care and treatments offered by URMC’s cardiologists, click here.

How a Glass of Vino Helps the Heart: What We Know, What We Don’t

No doubt, most Americans have tilted back a couple of glasses of red wine, priding themselves on the idea that heart-healthy ingredients, like resveratrol, flood each sip.

The compound is revered for its believed ability to protect blood vessels, reduce bad-cholesterol levels in the body, and prevent clots.

But headlines from earlier this month are casting some doubt on that noble idea; report after report explores allegations that University of Connecticut researcher Dr. Dipak Das, known for his extensive work investigating the cardiac boons of resveratrol,  may have falsified scientific data in more than 100 instances.  The controversy is causing many wine aficionados to scratch their heads.

“I think the important thing to remember is that this is one small piece to a very large puzzle when it comes to heart health. Yes, red wine might hold some benefits, but we definitively know that eating nutritious foods and regular physical activity are powerful,” he said. “As far as decreasing your heart disease risk, I like to use the analogy of cleaning your bedroom:  Drinking a glass of red wine might be compared to dusting the nightstand; practicing regular exercise and eating a healthy diet is much more impactful — like vacuuming the floor, making the bed, and everything in between.”

To learn more about the state of “wine science,” we spoke to URMC cardiologist Dr. John Chad Teeters.

Dr. Teeters is the Chief of Cardiology at URMC’s Highland Hospital. To learn more about cardiology care and services available at URMC, click here.

Hair Loss and More: When Stress Takes its Toll

Last week, the celebrity gossip mill was atwitter with supermodel Tyra Banks’ juicy confession: The stress of writing her first fiction novel recently took a toll on her tresses.

The model-turned-media-mogul claimed that she “got a little alopecia (hair loss)” while juggling her many professional pressures.

While some might be quick to poke fun at the starlet’s plight, Banks raises an important issue that too many Americans ignore: Stress is neither something to brag about (that silly one-upmanship of “who’s busiest”) nor to suffer through silently. It puts real strain on our bodies, and if sustained, can suck years out of our life (not to mention life out of our years).

To learn more about stress, and its very real effects on our bodies, we spoke to mind-body research expert Dr. Jan Moynihan, who directs the Rochester Center for Mind-Body Research.

To learn more about the research underway at the Rochester Center for Mind-Body Research, click here. For a fascinating article on how our personality type affects our ability to withstand stress, click here.

It’s February: Love Your Heart

Make no mistake: while the stereotypical heart attack victim in the movies might be male, heart disease is an equal opportunity killer. In fact, it’s the number one cause of death among women 20 and older, killing almost one every minute.

The good news? Research shows that, even if saddled with a family history of the disease, there are steps each of us can take to become more heart-healthy. Simple things — like following a proper diet, keeping active, not smoking, not drinking excessively, and partnering with a primary care doctor to monitor cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure and weight — can go a long way in lowering one’s risk for a heart attack or stroke.

So, in light of February being American Heart Month, we’ve tapped Dr. Gladys Velarde, director of our Strong Women’s Heart Program, to give a few quick tips (for everyone, and then especially for women) for maintaining for a healthier heart.

To hear her advice, watch the clip below.

Curious how the Women’s Heart Program is making a difference for patients here in Rochester? Click here.