Qnexa was recommended 20-2 by an FDA advisory panel. The FDA will make a final decision on the drug in late April, possibly making it the first weight loss drug approved in over a decade.

Want to lose weight? Well now there’s a drug that allows you to shed ten percent of your body weight – no exercising, no unsavory dieting necessary! Just take a pill and start watching the pounds drop off.

Heard that one before? Well drug-maker Vivus, Inc. – and their investors – hope you hear it again and often in the coming months. The Phase III trial results of their weight loss drug, Qnexa, was presented to an FDA advisory panel recently. The panel thought the data convincing enough to recommend by a 20 to 2 vote that the drug be okayed for sale. The FDA is expected to give its final say on the drug by April 17.

Following the advisory panel’s announcement the stock value of Mountain View-based Vivus shot up 98 percent. After seeing all those slim movie stars on the red carpet, of course people are going to demand a weight loss pill!

The message here is that the drug is both effective and safe, but we’ll have to take their – and the FDA’s – word for it as data from the trial on the drug has yet to be published, but Vivus says that people who took Qnexa dropped an average of 10 percent of their body weight.

Qnexa is actually a cocktail of drugs that have already received FDA approval. Phentermine, an amphetamine and an appetite suppressant, and topiramate, an anti-convulsant ingredient in Topamax, used to treat epilepsy and migraines.

Remember Fen-Phen, the ‘miracle’ weight loss drug popular in the ‘90s then quickly unpopular as it was discovered that the drug was damaging heart valves? Fen-Phen is short for its drug combination fenfluramine and phentermine, the same phentermine now part of Qnexa’s cocktail. Because it is an amphetamine, phentermine can lead to increased heart rate and blood pressure which then lead to heart palpitations. Speeding up the body’s metabolism is part of the reason it causes people to lose weight. It’s currently being prescribed over short periods of time to overweight people already taking other measures, like exercising or dieting, to lose weight.

Topiramate has its own set of side effects including memory loss, confusion, concentration problems, constipation, depression and thirty or so other moderate to serious side effects. Looking at the list provided by the National Institutes of Health one wonders what side effect the drug doesn’t cause.

If Qnexa gains FDA approval on April 17 it would be only the second weight loss drug in 13 years to do so. Xenical won approval in 1999 to help obese people lose weight.

Given the side effects and the travails of diet drugs past, one could understandably be dubious about Qnexa’s safety, regardless of the panel’s recommendation. True, both phentermine and topiramate have been prescription drugs for a long time but that doesn’t mean we know how they’ll affect the body when taken together for years or longer. The FDA, let’s hope, has learned their lesson from not only harmful weight loss drugs but drugs like Vioxx which faced billion dollar lawsuits after it doubled the chance of heart attack or stroke in tens of thousands of people. Prudently the FDA is requiring Vivus to perform a longterm analysis of the drug’s health effects, specifically how it affects the heart. Strangely, however, the FDA may allow the company to begin selling the drug to people before the studies have even begun. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I guess the first people to take Qnexa will become the “unofficial” participants of such a study. The FDA reasons that, for an obese person, the benefits of losing weight, um, outweigh the risks of side effects. But let’s be honest, obese people aren’t going to be the only people asking their doctors for the pill. For many, the risk of looking bad in a bikini will be reason enough to take it, and we can count on at least some doctors to give it to them.

[image credits: Viewzone, Forbes, and technorati]
image 1: weight loss
image 2: Qnexa
image 3: drugs

Dream team researchers – and married couple – Wadih Arap and Renata Pasqualini have created a drug that fights obesity by killing blood vessels that vascularize fat cells.

Do we finally have a miracle weight loss drug? I mean, for real this time? The data seems to support such a claim, at least for overweight monkeys that simply can’t drop those extra pounds no matter what they try. After receiving the drug for just four weeks, the monkeys lost between 7 and 15 percent of the body weight, and averaged a more than 38 percent loss of total body fat.

The study, published November 9th in the journal Science Translational Medicine, was headed by husband-and-wife team Wadih Arap and Renata Pasqualini at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Their drug, called Adipotide, targets the blood vessels that feed fat cells, or adipocytes. Attacking those blood vessels chokes off the nutrient supply that the fat cells need to survive and they either die or become stressed to the point that they don’t function.

Of course, blood vessels are needed to keep all cells alive. But the major medical advancement that adipotide brings is its ability to kill blood vessels associated with fat cells while leaving other blood vessels alone. The strategy has been long sought after by cancer biologists trying to kill cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed. Where others had failed, Arap and Pasqualini, cancer biologists themselves, succeeded by taking an approach that was novel in multiple ways.

A typical approach to drug development is to find or manufacture compounds that somehow slows or stops a disease. But instead of a targeted approach, the Arap and Pasqualini cast a wide net. Proteins in the body bind to other proteins, and which proteins get together is determined by their amino acid sequences. The Arap-Pasqualini team chopped up proteins into bits of peptide, or short chains of amino acids, injected them into the body and simply tracked where the peptides ended up. It’s as if the different parts of the body have different “zip codes” and each peptide sequence is drawn to a specific zip code. What made the study possible was the case of a brain-dead man who happen to be at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The man had wanted his organs donated but his cancer had advanced too far. After explaining their experiment, the man’s family agreed to allow Arap and Pasqualini to inject their peptides into the man’s body. Afterwards, tissue from the man’s skin, muscle, bone marrow, fat, and prostate were collected to see if any peptides had specifically bound to one tissue and not the others. They found one that bound only to blood vessels in the prostrate.

Body measurements such as body mass index and abdominal fat were measured using MRI.

In 2004 they conducted a study that bridges the gap between the cancer work and the current study. In the study they discovered a peptide that binds specifically to the blood vessels of fat tissue. Experimenting in obese mice, they showed that attaching a deadly substance to the peptide reversed the animals’ obesity, as they lost 30 percent of their body weight. In addition, metabolic impairments associated with obesity were also normalized.

The current study is essentially the mouse study repeated in rhesus monkeys. Importantly, the monkeys were naturally obese – eating more an being less physically active than the other monkeys – and thus did not require any special interventions to make them overweight. After four weeks of treatment the monkeys experienced an average loss of 11 percent of their body weight. Physical measurements such as body mass index (BMI) and waistline – abdominal fat dropped 27 percent – were also reduced. Adipotide goes after the so-called white adipose tissue, or the unhealthy type that amasses beneath the skin and around the abdomen. The fat cells that die after having their blood supply cut off are reabsorbed by the body. Conversely, giving the drug to monkeys of normal size resulted in slight weight gain.

As with obese humans, obese monkeys displayed an increased resistance to insulin. After a meal insulin is produced by the pancreas and released into the bloodstream to promote sugar uptake by muscles. Thus, insulin resistance can lead to high level of blood sugar levels which, in turn, can lead to complications such as kidney failure, heart disease, and blindness. Insulin resistance is also a hallmark of type 2 diabetes, the devastating condition that, along with obesity, is fast on the rise in the US and the rest of the developed world. Adipotide showed additional promise as a diabetes drug, as it decreased insulin resistance in obese monkeys by 50 percent. Arap and Pasqualini discuss the study in the following video.

The demonstration in monkeys is a major step if Adipotide is ever to be realized as a treatment as many drugs have shown success in rodents but not primates. “All rodent models of obesity are faulty because their metabolism and central nervous system control of appetite and satiety are very different from primates, including humans,” Pasqualini explained in a press release.

So how soon could Adipotide benefit humans? The group is currently preparing for clinical trials that could begin as early as next year. They plan on giving the drug to obese patients that have advanced prostrate cancer. Mortality with prostrate cancer who are also obese is much higher than that with patients of normal weight. The patients will be given the drug for four weeks with the intent to battle both body weight and cancer simultaneously. The monkeys that took the drug displayed no indications that the drug made them feel sick, a reassuring sign that Adipotide might not have major side-effects. The monkeys did, however, show a modest degree of kidney failure. Side-effects will be a major concern during the human trials as treatment is expected to be given to the patients long term.

Another major question, of course, is whether or not the zip code strategy will be as effective in humans. If it’s less selective and attacks other blood vessels, side-effects could be dangerous. Obesity and cancer aside, the fact that it worked in monkeys is already scientifically interesting. It shows that not all blood vessels are the same, that blood vessels which supply blood to the, say, kidneys are different from those that supply blood to the prostrate. The finding opens up the possibility for site-specific drug delivery in other types of cancer and other diseases. Two companies are already working with Arap and Pasqualini to translate their drug targeting strategy to actual treatments. Ablaris Therapeutics is already working with the Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials testing Adiplotide’s potential as an obesity therapy. Alvos Therapeutics will do the same with a drug that targets prostrate-supplying blood vessels to treat prostrate cancer. A study on the drug has already been completed at M.D. Anderson but the results haven’t been reported yet.

In scientific circles, hypothesis-driven experiments are vaunted while “fishing expeditions,” such as throwing a drug at the body and seeing where it sticks, are often viewed as not ‘true’ science. But it’s hard to argue that Arap and Pasqualini’s blind, wide net approach to battling disease should be discouraged. I wonder what other “zip codes” these cancer-turned-obesity scientists discovered with their peptides. Certainly we haven’t seen the last of that data. For the sake of medicine, let’s hope that there were plenty more fish in the sea.

[image credits: Popfi, Chron.com]
[video credits: mdandersonorg via YouTube]
image 1: Obese monkeys
image 2: Scientists
video: MD Anderson

Two-thirds of adults and nearly one-third of children in the US are currently obese or overweight.

If America’s shorelines begin shrinking at an alarming rate, it may not be due to global warming. It may just be that we’re so fat we’re in danger of sinking an entire continent.

Okay, a hyperbole perhaps, but the report just out, from non-profits Robert Wood Foundation and Trust for America’s Heath (TFAH), has the feel of an environmental armageddon. And the title says it all: “F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future.” As a nation we should hang our heads, stare down at our shoes–if we can see them–and be grounded for a terrible report card.

Hitting the gym wouldn’t hurt either.

This is the sixth consecutive year that such a report has come out, but this is the first report to take a retrospective look state-by-state over the past 20 years when data from all states became available. As is the case for an increasing number of Americans, it don’t look pretty. Chew on this: going back 20 years there wasn’t a single state with an obesity rate above 15 percent. Today, there isn’t a single state that’s below 15 percent (data is combined for years 2008 to 2010).

Yeah.

And, if you think 15 percent is a lot, 12 states had obesity rates of at least 30 percent! More than two-thirds of the US has an obesity rate over 25 percent, and only one state has a rate lower than 20 percent. No, it’s not health-crazed California, but ski mecca Colorado. Executive director of TFAH Jeff Levi poignantly observes, “Today, the state with the lowest obesity rate would have had the highest rate in 1995.”

So which states really need to start pulling their inordinately-substantial weight? Look to the south. Out of the ten most obese states only two were not located in the southeast. Oklahoma and Michigan had obesity rates of 31.4 percent and 30.5 percent and ranked 7th and 10th, respectively. To make up the top ten they join, from high to low rank: Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Arkansas.

Must be all that good home cookin’.

When we take a closer look at the data it becomes a little more, well, black-and-white. The study showed that minorities and people who come from low income households or are less educated have the highest rates of obesity. Adult obesity among blacks exceeded 40 percent in 15 states, 35 percent in 35 states, and 30 percent in 40 states. Among latinos, adult obesity was above 35 percent in four states and exceeded 30 percent in 23 states. Meanwhile, adult obesity among whites reached 30 percent in only four states (Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia). Thirty-three percent of adults who did not graduate high school are obese, while obesity among people with a college or technical college degree is 21.5 percent. And 33 percent of people who earn less than $15,000 per year were obese, compared with 24.6 percent of those who make at least $50,000 per year.

“The information in this report should spur us all–individuals and policymakers alike–to redouble our efforts to reverse this debilitating and costly epidemic,” said RWJF’s president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey in a press release. “Changing policies is an important way to provide children and families with vital resources and opportunities to make healthier choices easier in their day-to-day lives.”

The children actually provide the report’s only silver lining. Well, more of a dull, gray color that you can barely make out. According to Dr. Francine Kauffman, an obesity specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, the rate of obesity among children hasn’t changed much in the past 20 years. That rate is currently at 16.4 percent. Somewhat reassuring until we recall that in 1980 only 6.5 percent of children were obese.

The prognosis is not good for Americans and their expanding girth. Obesity leads to a myriad of health complications, most notably type 2 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes the body doesn’t produce enough insulin and consequently can’t properly regulate blood sugar levels. Elevated blood sugar levels can lead to kidney failure, heart disease, nerve complications, stroke, blindness, and amputation. In 1995, when all states had an obesity rate of less than 15 percent only 4 states had a diabetes rate above 6 percent. Today, 43 states have a diabetes rate over 7 percent. Last year 18.8 million people were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and it’s estimated that another 7 million people developed the disease but went undiagnosed. That’s 25.8 million people, or 8.3 percent of the US population, with diabetes. Sound scary? How about this: at least half of Americans are expected to be diabetic or pre-diabetic by 2020.

The Center for Disease Control called American society “‘obesogenic,’ characterized by environments that promote increased food intake, nonhealthful foods, and physical inactivity.” While it’s hard to argue these claims, ours is not the only country that’s been putting on a few pounds as of late. According to a recent report by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the rate of obesity among European Union countries had doubled over the past 20 years. But whereas Colorado, the slimmest of US states is 19.8 percent obese, EU countries together average just 15 percent. In fact, the only country that could challenge us in a sumo wrestling match is the UK. With an obesity rate of 24.5 percent, they’d be one of the slimmer US states. They’re the fattest of the EU’s 27 countries. Compared to Americans, Europe remains slim and chic.

As Lavizzo-Mourey urged, it’s time to take some action. The study lists several recommendations for policymakers, including regulating meals in schools, implementing the National Physical Activity Plan to encourage Americans to get off the couch and exercise, and restore programs that improve nutrition in child care settings. Despite the harrowing data, I’m not going to hold my breath for policymakers. Many of them are instinctively against setting government regulations that would tell people what to do in general, never mind tell them what they can and can’t eat. But if you ask me, that seems inconsistent given our commitment to sin taxes. If cigarettes and booze can be disproportionately taxed, why not Big Macs? In 2009 obesity cost the US $147 billion–or, about 10 percent of total health care costs. Didn’t someone say gluttony was a sin? Anyway, I generally don’t think you can talk someone into behaving differently. Hit ‘em where it hurts, in the wallet. We’ll offset some of those health care costs and maybe shed a few pounds while we’re at it. Sounds to me like a recipe for success.

[image credits: outsmarthormones.com and Robert Wood Foundation/Trust for America's Health]
image1: Uncle Sam
image2: Graph

When I first heard that Arizona could be taxing the obese I thought it was an April Fool’s Day hoax. Looks like the joke’s mostly on Arizona. The very real proposal, endorsed by Governor Jan Brewer, would impose a $50 per year fee on childless adults who receive Medicaid in the state if they are obese or smokers. While not a true fat tax on the general public, the Medicaid flab fee has raised outcry, debate, and no small measure of support from various news sources in and out of Arizona. The chances of this sinner’s surcharge actually becoming policy may be slim, it would need to be approved by Medicaid administrators at the federal level and would undoubtedly face a host of lawsuits, but it raises an interesting question: how ARE we going to change our unhealthy habits? Estimated financial costs of obesity in the US are $147 billion per year (smoking adds another $193 billion), not to mention the social, physical, and emotional price paid by those grossly overweight. Something has to give, but will it be taxes, technology, or temperament that gets the job done?

The scale of the problem is large. According to the CDC, about 25.5% of Arizona adults were obese in 2009. According to surveys by the state’s Medicaid agency, about 46% of beneficiaries smoke. We’re talking about many millions of dollars spent on medical treatments that, largely, could be avoided if people took better care of their health. Add to that the general financial trouble facing Medicaid in nearly every state. Arizona has been cutting Medicaid funding in broad strokes, even holding back money needed for organ transplants. Every $50 collected could be used to offset losses in the Arizona Medicaid budget. The economic drivers behind the fat fee proposal are very strong – the money might be motivation enough. Yet that’s not all that is happening here.

You see, under most versions of the proposal, the $50 fee will only be applied if you do not make an attempt to curb your smoking or lose weight (as overseen by the Medicaid doctor). The surcharge is not a tax on your fat, it’s a prod to get you to remove it. In a recent interview with the New York Times the spokeswoman for Arizona’s Medicaid program, Monica Coury, made it clear that the state was focused on changing habits for long term health gains, not just short term budget goals:

Q. How did you arrive at the amount of $50? Would that be sufficient to offset the fund’s costs?

A. We’ve talked about $50 once a year. We haven’t done the math, but it’s not about how much we would collect. It is totally about testing the efficacy of this strategy. Obesity is costing us billions in health care costs, so our thought is, Let’s test some of these strategies.

Clearly the surcharge is as much, if not more, about curbing bad habits as it is collecting money to offset them.

That’s a mistake. Making recreational drugs illegal hasn’t stopped people using it, even with stiff fines and jail time facing them. Punishing people for their vices may make a difference, but it’s never going to be a total solution. This is evidenced by the millions of people who buy cigarettes despite the soaring taxes applied to them (it costs $11+ for a single pack of cigarettes in Manhattan, by the way). What makes us think that a $50 fee once a year, or even a greater tax, would significantly stop habits that take lifetimes to build, and that we choose in small doses everyday.

You can’t tax away everyone’s extra pounds. Not without starving them outright.

What can we do? Well the billions of dollars spent on health food, gyms, exercise equipment, and diets seems to show that the US wants to buy better health. As it always does, our society turns to technology for help with its problems. Is there an easy technological fix for obesity? Perhaps. A large part of your body shape is determined by genetics, a science that is rapidly evolving. We’re also delving deeper into the brain, maybe we’ll find some neurological means of keeping us skinny. Or there could be solution found in biochemistry, surgery, virtual reality…you get the idea.

The most promising technologies we’ve seen in the short term, however, are those that enable humans to make better choices on their own. We’ve seen a number of 24/7 health monitors come into the market in the last two years, allowing you to better record and analyze your habits. Perhaps seeing that data will help us fight the fat in the small daily doses in which it arrives. Cynthia Breazeal, one of the robot wizards working at MIT, even experimented with a robotic solution to managed weight loss – turn a machine into your diet buddy. I’ve cued up the following video to the appropriate part of her presentation at TED:

In the short term, science can’t wave a magic wand and end obesity. If it could, we would have already been waving it like a flag in a tornado. Instead, it will just help us do what we already should be doing: making better choices about our health.

Singularity Hub has always maintained that living a healthy life is relatively simple, even if it isn’t easy. We take our general philosophy from the so-called Blue Zones – those areas with high numbers of people naturally living passed 100 years in good health. The lessons here are clear: humans need daily exercise, real foods (mostly plants), and strong social bonds that help them manage stress. If most of us got those three things right, the obesity epidemic wouldn’t be upon us. It’s a simple plan…but one we clearly have trouble following.

Two presidents, two mustaches, two very different takes on healthy living. Obesity has been around for a while, but so has its best solutions.

Which means, for the time being, we’re going to keep turning to crazy alternatives. This isn’t the first fee on fat. Alabama state employees already face a surcharge on smoking and obesity. Similar programs exist inside many corporations with employee health insurance, sometimes with positive reinforcement rather than negative. Until we find the mental fortitude to form healthier habits, or until technology progresses to a point where the human body is easily altered on the cheap, we are going to be stuck with the obesity epidemic and its equally frightening cures. So take a good long look at Arizona. That flab fee would be funny, if it wasn’t so fruitless…and if it wasn’t so likely to be repeated again and again in the years ahead.

[source: New York Times, Time, Wall Street Journal, CDC]

[image credits: James Heilman via WikiCommons (modified)]

One liver failure, coming right up!

We have heard for years that diabetes is a serious problem in America, but people really do not like to listen. The result of such stupidity is 52% of Americans being diabetic or pre-diabetic by 2020, as predicted by United Health Group. That is more than two times the amount of diabetes cases registered in 2010 (24 million, in case you were wondering). What is really disturbing is that this trend is continuing despite rapid improvements in science and technology, all due to extremely poor lifestyle choices made by the majority of the population.

Diabetes is a metabolic condition characterized by an abnormally high blood sugar level, which disrupts the normal functioning of multiple organs. There are two main types of the disease. In Type I diabetes, the body simply does not produce enough insulin, the primary hormone in the body responsible for regulating the level of sugar within our bloodstream. This condition can usually be treated fairly effectively with supplemental insulin injections. Type I diabetes is a relatively rare immunological disorder. Sadly, however, 95% of diabetes cases are Type II diabetes, a mostly avoidable type of diabetes caused almost entirely by obesity and living an unhealthy lifestyle.

In Type II diabetes, the body’s cells simply become insensitive to insulin, and it does not matter how much of it the body produces, or someone injects into his or her self.  Normally, muscle cells are meant to store sugar, but in obese individuals, excess fat, which no longer fits in the body’s fat cells, is being stored in muscle. This prevents the muscle cells from using sugar for energy, as they are now made to use fat. All the sugar that would have been stored in the muscle is now left free to float around in the blood. The excess fat also blocks muscle cells’ insulin receptors, thus significantly lowering their sensitivity to insulin. Diabetes, over the course of many years, leads to a terrible bouquet of complications such as coronary heart disease, kidney failure, blindness, and chronic wounds with a very possible development of gangrene. Sure, it all seems like a long way off, but if you ask me, a daily junk food fix is not worth the risk of having half your fingers and toes amputated by the time you reach sixty.

As much as we may hate to admit it, the comforts afforded by today’s post-industrial lifestyle come at a very high price. The average person’s day consists of sitting in an office chair for 8-10 hours and then migrating to the living-room couch to sit in front of the TV. This sedentary routine is interrupted usually only for meals, which consist of very liberal amounts of sugar and salted meats with little, if any, fruits or vegetables. The only time physical exertion enters into such average people’s lives is when they are exercising the gas pedal on the way to and from work, or, for those who are more fortunate, when they are taking the ten minute walk to the nearest subway station. Should it come as a surprise that almost 68% of Americans are subject to the number one risk factor of diabetes – obesity?

Type II diabetes is not a result of infection, nor can it really be chalked up to genetic pre-disposition. Contracting this disease or not depends almost entirely on the lifestyle one leads. A fairly recent study by the Salk Institute has described a second link between obesity and diabetes. Excess fat stores in the body hamper protein production, which, in turn, triggers the inappropriate start of gluconeogenesis, a biochemical pathway used for glucose synthesis. With such a strong correlation between diabetes and obesity, it is only common sense that the disease can be largely, if not 100%, prevented through proper lifestyle decisions. That means eating a healthy diet – significantly reducing consumption of refined sugars and saturated fats, eating more vegetables and foods rich in vitamins, especially A, C, and E, and incorporating regular exercise into one’s daily routine.

Let us briefly consider the economic side of the growing diabetes epidemic. The past year, $194 billion were spent on diabetes-related care alone, which already accounts for 7% of total US healthcare costs. That number is said to rise to $500 billion in 2020, totaling a lofty $3.4 trillion over the next ten years, all according to the same United Health Group report. To make it more understandable, on a personal scale, diabetes cost $8,000-$12,000 per year not counting the cost of prescription drugs. However, that is all just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine a country, more than half of whose population is suffering from a debilitating and expensive disease.  How productive will such people be in the country’s economy? How many days of work will have to be missed for health reasons? In fact, it is very likely that the rise in diabetes cases will be coupled with a marked decrease of production in most sectors of industry.

Living a long life has always been respectable, regardless of time, place, or occupation. All over the world, centenarians, those lucky individuals who live to see their 100^th birthday, are recognized by gifts and certificates or official letters from their governments. However, in today’s post-industrial society, people have become too dependent on technology and medical innovations to prolong their lives. True, the last hundred years have witnessed astonishing progress: in 1911, we still rode horses as a main mode of transportation; in 2011, we send rockets to space every other week, but technology is still not at the level where it can miraculously fix all of our problems, nor will it be there any time soon. The most efficient way to live a long and, most importantly, healthy life is to make good lifestyle choices such as eating a correct diet and exercising regularly. There are no magic pills – at least not yet. Making the right choices is exactly how the residents of the so-called blue zones, which we have covered here at Singularity Hub before, achieve their longevity. Nevertheless, people continue to invest all of their hopes in technology while taking little to no responsibility for their health and making terrible lifestyle choices. The result is nearly 70% of Americans suffering from almost entirely preventable chronic illnesses such as heart disease, lung and liver cancer, and, of course, Type II diabetes.

Scared yet? You should be. This is a very real problem and not some fantasy concocted for a horror film by an insane writer. In the end, the one wielding the most power to affect a person’s health is himself, and the fact that a growing epidemic of such proportions is almost completely self-inflicted is ridiculous, not to say downright crazy. We are all very eager to reach the Singularity, but until we actually do, we have to learn to take responsibility for our actions, including our health, leaving medical devices such as the iPhone glucose tester and the silicon pancreas a no more than supporting role. Otherwise, we simply might not live long enough to see it.

[Image Credit: Sly Jones, Graham Richardson]

[Source: CDC, Salk Institute, United Health Group]

Video game enhanced exercise is turning to the social network for more fuel.

Do you feel like you need to spend more time at the gym? You’re on the internet, of course you do. Why not let video games keep you motivated to exercise? Special accessories like the Wii’s Balance Board or X-Box’s Kinect let you burn a few calories while you play, but that only goes so far. To get a really strong cardio workout, gyms have installed full-size exercise bicycles that let you pedal around an imaginary track shown on a computer screen. At some point, however, the novelty of cycling through a virtual countryside will fade as well. What’s the final tool to keep us returning to our game-enhanced exercise equipment? Competition and shame. Like so many other technologies, video gaming stationary bicycles are taking advantage of the social network to increase their appeal. Interactive Fitness Holdings’ Expresso Bike not only lets you race against other people in your gym, it helps you share your scores on Facebook and Twitter. Few things may encourage you to pedal faster than receiving a smug tweet from your friend bragging about their latest time trial. The Expresso has hit upon a very powerful hook: when you can struggle against strangers, your friends, and yourself, you’ll never run out of competition to keep you in the race.

Expresso shares your exercising efforts with friends via Facebook or Twitter.

Stationary bikes hooked up to video games are nothing new. Various forms of the Expresso have been selling for almost five years, and there are many other competing bike companies out there, not to mention the Wii Fit, EA Active, and other titles available on traditional video game consoles. “Exer-gaming” is a growing industry, and Expresso is just one of many products you could choose to help you have fun while getting in shape. That being said, the Expresso bike does have almost all of the cool features that exemplify the field. Many of which can be seen in the video below.

There are 30+ tracks, with more created every year. Music is built into the system so you can listen while you ride. The stationary bike has a steerable set of handlebars, allowing you to control where you go as well as how fast you get there. There is a gear-shifting control that varies resistance and gives you a mild mental challenge as you plan the best resistance for each terrain. Expresso also lets you play a variety of games, including chasing down moving targets, racing against a pace-setting virtual biker, or even riding alongside a ‘ghost’ that represents your position in a previous race. With the latest update to the Expresso software, you can now share all of these features with other riders in your social network. A “Ghost Challenge” lets your friends race against you even when they are miles away or arrive hours later to the gym.

For those who really like to compete, you can send a virtual avatar to a friend (a 'ghost') that will let your opponents see a recording of your performance on their screen as they bike.

The ability to play against opponents even when they aren’t available is a really cool aspect of bringing exer-gaming to the social network. We all have our different schedules, and it’s hard enough to get yourself to the gym, let alone coordinate with a partner. Asynchronous competition is a great tool that lets you benefit from the personal relationship (or all-out war) you have with a fitness buddy without their physical presence. I’m waiting for Expresso (or a competitor) to incorporate a microphone and audio recording so that you can taunt your opponents in real time or leave verbal encouragement for yourself later.

As cool as it is to see video game exercise bikes sharing through Facebook and Twitter, I have to admit that this is far from a real innovation. First, people have been able to share exercise states, dieting tips, and video game experiences over networks for years now. Second, including a social networking aspect into your company’s product isn’t visionary, it’s just plain necessary. IF Holdings has a great exercise bike in Expresso, but letting users challenge each other across the internet seems like a really obvious choice.

Still, who really cares whether or not Expresso’s move towards the social network is mind-blowing – it’s what we need. More and more of our lives are becoming interactive and exciting. The internet is spoiling us – it’s harder to pay attention to events that aren’t fun, challenging, and connected to others. Let’s face it, many of us find exercise boring and overly difficult. Why ride your bike for an hour when it’s easier to troll YouTube? Exer-gaming is a great step towards making exercising as engaging as the digital world, but it’s the social connectivity that really has the chance to make it a challenger to internet-fueled inactivity. Expect more gym equipment, full body video games, and virtual sports to jump on the social networking bandwagon in the future.

Now if they could only find a bicycle that lets you pedal and write blog posts at the same time, I would be set.

[image credits: IF Holdings]
[video credits: IF Holdings]
[sources: IF Holdings, Press Release via BusinessWire]

Obese? I've just got more stem cells to love, baby!

If you’ve been hunting for useful stem cells, look no further than your butt. Work done at Stanford University’s School of Medicine in California, and recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy for Sciences, revealed that fatty cells sucked out during liposuction could be coaxed into becoming stems cells. These induced Pluripotent Stem cells (iPS) found in fat could be useful in new treatments for diseases and therapies for injuries. Typical iPS cells have to be processed from skin cells over a period of weeks. The new fat iPS cells could be ready much faster and more efficienctly. The world of stem cell research is about to be invaded by fab flab from the lab.

With fatty tissue being a plentiful resource, the availability of stem cells is likely to increase. Of course, more stem cells doesn’t guarantee more stem cell treatments, but it will hopefully make those treatments easier to perform once they are ready. We’ve seen how stem cell therapies have the potential to cure blindness, heart disease, spinal injuries, kidney disease, diabetes, and many other illnesses. There’s a certain poetic justice in iPS cells from fatty tissue, since many of these conditions arrive from or cause obesity in the first place.

Making useful human stem cells isn’t an easy process, and typically involves utilizing mouse stem cells (called feeder cells) to coax the human ones into becoming pluripotent. Development of iPS cells from fat cells can avoid the use of these feeder cells, making the process quicker, easier, and more efficient. Those fat cells are also easy to culture, and can be harvested in large quantities without damaging a patient. Even people of average to light builds should be able to provide enough fatty tissue to develop millions of useful pluripotent stem cells.

Before fat can become the new source for iPS cells, they need to be run through a gamut of tests. Scientists must determine the exact potency of fat iPS, though it is fairly well agreed that they can become skin, bone, muscle, etc. They also have to be screened to see how likely they are to develop into cancer. If fat cells can pass the tests, there’s a good chance they’ll see wide adoption in future experiments.

While embryonic stem cells (ESC) are clearly the most potent of the bunch, iPS cells carry little of the controversy and many of the same properties. It will be interesting to see if research groups continue to invest in iPS cells now that ESCs are easily accessible again in the US. As stem cells treatments continue their slow transition from the lab to the clinic, we may see plastic surgery tagging along for the ride. Liposuction procedures and diabetes cures in the same facility? That would be an apt and popular combination.

Why are Americans living longer? (Left) Why aren't we living as long as everyone else? (Right)

Almost half of all deaths (48.5%) in this country are due to heart disease or cancer. The overall death rates for stroke, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer fell between 2006 and 2007, and lifespan rose as a result. It’s clear that those two culprits are what is keeping the US from the longevity it might otherwise have.

And longevity means a lot to us here at the hub. We’ve shown you surgical advances, and promising medical developments. We’ve given you a look at some of the oldest people in the world, and some of the healthiest places in the world. The one thing we’ve learned through it all is that the secret to a long life is really, really simple: lifestyle.

You think a futurist blog would talk about advanced nutrients, or remarkable medical cures, but the truth is much more low-tech. People live longer when they focus on wellness, not illness. In other words, the daily routines we follow have a statistically bigger impact than trips to the doctor or hospital. As we mentioned in our discussion of blue zones, a longevity-lifestyle includes daily exercise, a diet low in fats, sugars, & meats and high in fruits, vegetables, & (some kinds of) fish, and avoiding stress. These things won’t just help you live longer, they’ll help you live healthier and happier lives.

Exercise. It helps you live.

Let’s take another look at heart disease and cancer. Exercise, good diet, and low stress reduce weight gain which is linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Even cancer might be avoidable through our simple plan. As Dr. Terry Grossman mentioned at Singularity University, cancer cells live almost exclusively off of glucose in the bloodstream. Avoid high glycemic indexed foods and you starve the cancer.

The US has a “health care equals medical treatment” mind set. We focus on curing diseases, not living healthier lives. Our signature meal is a burger, fries, and a soda. Many of us complain when we have to walk across a large parking lot. We avoid routine visits to the doctor, but then rely on expensive surgeries, prescriptions, and other treatments when we get horribly ill. And we let ourselves grow very stressed over almost everything. It’s a recipe for disaster.

The ongoing debate about how to insure Americans is missing a vital point. Taking more people into any insurance system, public or private, is just treating the symptom, not the condition. As a country we need to change the way we live. Complaining about how trillions of dollars are used, may be less important than figuring out why we have to spend the money in the first place.

Have those trillions of dollars been wasted? The CDC report shows, in fact, that when it comes to diseases unrelated to exercise and diet, the US is doing very well. Take HIV/AIDS, who’s death toll was just over eleven thousand people in 2007, despite an increase in the number of cases. That’s a 10% drop from 2006 – the largest decrease in almost a decade. Improvements in treatments are obviously making a dent in the disease. Influenza and pneumonia also saw appreciable drops.

I think the CDC report reveals that we are living longer despite our bad habits. Imagine our longevity if we kept our medical funding, and also improved our lifestyle! Some of this may already be happening. I hope that the US starts to realize that health care starts in our homes, not our doctor’s office. There are some really amazing things in our future – modular robots, tactile holograms, and the singularity! We just need to live long enough to enjoy them, and a better lifestyle is more likely than a more expensive doctor to get you there.

The eScale will send your weight via cell phone signal to the Internet. Better start working out!

If Reality TV has taught us anything about weight loss it’s that the more people who are watching you, the quicker you’ll drop the pounds. Social pressure is a key ingredient in the eScale from Body Trace. This bathroom scale comes equipped with a modified cell phone module allowing it to broadcast your weight to a Body Trace “motivational webpage.” There you, or your avatar, can display the fluctuations in your weight with all the pride or shame that you want. Along with a calorie calculator, BMI graph, and health tips, the Body Trace motivational page allows you to connect with friends and strangers to share in your experience. It’s social networking meets weight loss obsession.

This isn’t the first web-based weight loss device Singularity Hub has seen. There are smart toilets that will analyze your weight as you pee, as well as analyze it for your doctor. There are big differences with Body Trace, however. First, the eScale has a GSM network module, so it connects directly to the Body Trace server straight out of the box. No WiFi or other setup necessary. You just pop in the batteries (six D-cells included) and step on the eScale. It’s that simple. Second, Body Trace is really pushing the networking aspects of their motivational page. Looking at the screen shot, I am reminded of Facebook’s wall interface. It’s a nice concept, and I have no doubt that being able to share the weight loss struggle will really help some people achieve their goals.

The Body Trace motivational page allows you to publicly (and anonymously) share your weight with friends and strangers.

The only real question I have is, is it worth the price? The eScale itself is fairly cheap (~$120 USD) but  the motivational page, and all the online services come at a rate of $20 for 3 months. If you pre-order you get three months free, and referrals also earn you three months, but any way you slice it, you’ll eventually be paying Body Trace above and beyond the price of the scale. If you’re thinking about splitting that cost among different members of your household, think again. Each scale is good for one customer only. Straight from the Body Trace FAQ (emphasis mine):

“Multiple eScales can co-exist in the same household and we actually suggest to have one for everybody in the family. Only one person can use a given eScale, so if there are more members of the family that keep track of their weight, then using multiple eScales is a good idea. You can even mark each other as “Friends” so you can keep track of each others success. “

Even at a total price for the year at $200 ($120 for the eScale and $80 for the service) I think people would pay, but to me it’s pretty outrageous that you can’t share the scale. Would including that modality really have been that hard? Also, while the sample motivational page is ads free, I think including ads is a better choice than charging clients for access. Most weight loss products would pay premium rates for ad space in a weight-loss social network. And few social networks charge for membership. I get the feeling that Body Trace has a promising and innovative product, but may be lacking in long term business acumen.

Which is unfortunate, because I think Body Trace is otherwise a very intelligent and interesting company. If nothing else you should read through their blog because it is a great look at the hi-tech entrepreneurial process. The social networking meme is one of the defining paradigms of the upcoming generation. A generation, if we are to believe the experts, will be mostly comprised of the obese. The eScale and the Body Trace motivational page make a lot of sense. They also fit in with a larger trend of body monitoring that will define our lives as technology and health care merge further. Whether you are talking scales or toilets, advanced health care is coming into our bathrooms and information is going to be streaming out. No matter how you measure it, however, tracking your weight loss and sharing that data will likely carry a heavy price tag.