Get off the treadmill, and be present in the here and now.

Q: Seniors are advised that one of the best forms of exercise is walking. The advice is to “walk briskly” for at least 150 minutes per week. There are those of us who, because of knee or hip pain, or other reasons, are not able to walk briskly. Does that mean that we shouldn’t bother to walk at all? I would think that walking slowly would be better than not walking. What would you say?

A: I would agree with you 100 percent. Any exercise you can do that is safe and fun for you is a good exercise. Walking is a great exercise for most people, and walking briskly gives you cardiovascular benefits. But, walking at a leisurely pace is much, much better than not exercising at all. 150 minutes is great, but people receive some benefit at lower amounts. So, 150 is normally a goal that many people work toward.

Most people with arthritis in the hips and knees find that regular activity, even slow walking, helps with the stiffness and allows them to do more. However, some people find that reducing the impact on the joints, such as when swimming in a pool, is better.

Q: Are there any double-blind studies verified by peer review that support the concept of alleviation of osteoarthritis (or rheumatoid arthritis) symptoms and pain by wearing a knee brace or ankle brace with copper threads? I keep seeing ads for knee braces and socks with copper threads that “cure” arthritis. I’m a skeptic, by the way. I also do not believe that BPH can be “cured” by ingesting saw palmetto, or that arthritis can be cured by ingesting fish oil!

A: I think you already know the answer. There are no studies that show that copper is helpful for arthritis. (The vast majority of older adults with arthritis pain have osteoarthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis is a serious, multisystem illness that requires urgent help by an expert to prevent permanent joint damage). Compression garments may help someone feel better, but they do not reverse, stop or slow down the progression of arthritis. The copper component has no medical value. For centuries, copper bracelets have been a folk remedy for arthritis, and I suspect that may be the reason for this marketing strategy.

Q: I’m nearly 88 years old, and I take only two medications for thyroid and high blood pressure. I have just been diagnosed with a small benign tumor on my pituitary gland, believed to be slow-growing.

My question is, should I avoid worrying about it, or should I have it removed? My doctor stated it’s been there for some time already!

A: A person can understandably get nervous about having a brain tumor, but incidentally, finding brain tumors are quite common on MRI scans. The information you sent me shows a 3 mm microadenoma, which is, as you correctly say, a small and almost certainly benign tumor. Most experts would do blood testing (for a hormone called prolactin), and if that is normal, it is unlikely that the tumor will ever bother you. I would recommend against any kind of treatment if this is the case.

Even though there is effective treatment, there is no need to consider treatment if you don’t have any symptoms. A tumor this small is unlikely to grow large enough to bother you.

Q: I am a 61-year-old white woman who is 5 feet, 5 inches tall and weighs 150 pounds. I walk 2 miles just about every day and easily hit more than 10,000 steps almost every day. I have never smoked. I do not have high blood pressure.

However, I have very high cholesterol. Here are the numbers of my last reading in February: total cholesterol was 288; triglycerides was 119; HDL cholesterol was 69; VLDL cholesterol was 21; and LDL was 198. All other measurements of blood and urine factors are within normal ranges. I took atorvastatin and had a full-blown allergic reaction, and I had a reaction to pravastatin as well. Niacin caused severe muscle pain for me.

My doctor’s office referred me to a cardiologist. My calcium score was 0. I have no family history of heart issues. I am now taking fish oil and ezetimibe, but the cardiologist implied this is of almost no value. The cardiologist has suggested he may wish to prescribe Repatha or Praluent. When I asked him the risks of these medications, he said there were none, except the possibility of a tough, itchy spot at the injection site. I don’t believe this, and in fact, this cardiologist did not inspire confidence in me. Should I consider one of these drugs?

A: Your cholesterol levels are high, and with an LDL above 190, most authorities do recommend treatment. However, you have a high to normal HDL cholesterol and no family history, which reduces your risk. You have a calcium score of 0, which also significantly reduces your risk.

The cardiologist is using his best judgment, but given your combination of risk factors and protective factors, I think it would be helpful to get some aid in doing a formal decision analysis, using an algorithm to estimate risk.

I used the MESA score to estimate yours based on your cholesterol numbers, family history, blood pressure and the results of your calcium score. Although these calculators do not take into consideration many less traditional risk factors, it is at least a starting place, and the result, which may surprise you, estimated your risk of having a CHD event (heart attack, death or need for surgery or stent) within the next 10 years is 1.6 percent. At this level, I would recommend against medication treatment of your cholesterol levels. Even though the CSK-9 inhibitors like Repatha and Praluent have low risk for side effects (pain and bruising at the injection site in 5-10 percent of people is the most common), these drugs are very, very expensive.

Unless there is more information you haven’t told me, I think the cardiologist may have experienced what we call an anchoring heuristic error, where he became so fixated on the different treatments available (which would be appropriate in a person with known blockages in the arteries) that he didn’t step back and consider how much benefit you might get from treatment. (It’s called “anchoring” because he became anchored to the idea that you need treatment.) In this case, because your estimated risk is so low, there is little potential benefit from medication treatment. The calcium score of 0 is a major reason that your estimated risk is so low. Continued exercise, a heart-healthy diet and stress management are much more likely to benefit you than medication.

Dr. Roach regrets that he is unable to answer individual letters, but will incorporate them in the column whenever possible. Readers may email questions to ToYourGoodHealth@med.cornell.edu or send mail to 628 Virginia Drive, Orlando, FL 32803.

Larhonda Biggles is still seeking justice for her son years after his death at the Harris County jail, which led to the firing of nearly a dozen guards.