By MARILYNN MARCHIONE
AP Medical Writer
Tue Dec 11, 6:29 PM ET
Mormons have less heart disease — something doctors have long chalked up to their religion's ban on smoking. New research suggests that another of their "clean living" habits also may be helping their hearts: fasting for one day each month.
A study in Utah, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is based, found that people who skipped meals once a month were about 40 percent less likely to be diagnosed with clogged arteries than those who did not regularly fast.
People did not have to "get religion" to benefit: non-Mormons who regularly took breaks from food also were less likely to have clogged arteries, scientists found.
They concede that their study is far from proof that periodic fasting is good for anyone, but said the benefit they observed poses a theory that deserves further testing.
"It might suggest these are people who just control eating habits better," and that this discipline extends to other areas of their lives that improves their health, said Benjamin Horne, a heart disease researcher from Intermountain Medical Center and the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
He led the study and reported results at a recent American Heart Association conference. The research was partly funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Roughly 70 percent of Utah residents are Mormons, whose religion advises abstaining from food on the first Sunday of each month, Horne said.
Researchers got the idea to study fasting after analyzing medical records of patients who had X-ray exams to check for blocked heart arteries between 1994 and 2002 in the Intermountain Health Collaborative Study, a health registry. Of these patients, 4,629 could be diagnosed as clearly having or lacking heart disease — an artery at least 70 percent clogged.
Researchers saw a typical pattern: only 61 percent of Mormons had heart disease compared to 66 percent of non-Mormons. They thought tobacco use probably accounted for the difference. But after taking smoking into account, they still saw a lower rate of heart disease among Mormons and designed a survey to explore why.
It asked about Mormons' religious practices: monthly fasting; avoiding tea, coffee and alcohol; taking a weekly day of rest; going to church, and donating time or money to charity.
Among the 515 people surveyed, only fasting made a significant difference in heart risks: 59 percent of periodic meal skippers were diagnosed with heart disease versus 67 percent of the others.
The difference persisted even when researchers took weight, age and conditions like diabetes or high cholesterol or blood pressure into account. About 8 percent of those surveyed were not Mormons, and those who regularly fasted had lower rates of heart disease, too.
Horne speculated that when people take a break from food, it forces the body to dip into fat reserves to burn calories. It also keeps the body from being constantly exposed to sugar and having to make insulin to metabolize it. When people develop diabetes, insulin-producing cells become less sensitive to cues from eating, so fasting may provide brief rests that resensitize these cells and make them work better, he said.
But he and other doctors cautioned that skipping meals is not advised for diabetics — it could cause dangerous swings in blood sugar.
Also for dieters, "the news is not as good as you might think" on fasting, said Dr. Raymond Gibbons of the Mayo Clinic, a former heart association president.
"Fasting resets the metabolic rate," slowing it down to adjust to less food and forcing the body to store calories as soon as people resume eating, Gibbons said.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Nervous About Nonstick?
How dangerous is nonstick cookware?
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/nervous-about-nonstick
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/nervous-about-nonstick
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Grapefruit Effect On Drug Levels Has Sweeter Side
By SYLVIA PAGÁN WESTPHAL
WSJ November 27, 2007
Many patients know that grapefruit juice doesn't mix with certain popular drugs -- notably cholesterol-busting statins such as Zocor and Lipitor. Too much Citrus paradisi, and the blood levels of some medicines can rise to toxic levels.
But the grapefruit effect may have a silver lining. Research suggests the fruit's ability to interact with drugs may be exploited to make some medicines more powerful.
At the University of Chicago, scientists are studying grapefruit juice in combination with an experimental anticancer compound, hoping to boost the drug's weak effects. In Florida, Bioavailability Systems LLC, a small biotechnology company, claims to have purified the grapefruit compounds responsible for the boosting effect and has been able to improve the blood levels of an anti-HIV drug. "This is definitely a lemons to lemonade story," says James Harris, founder and chief scientific officer of the company.
The approach aims to tackle a major problem for drug manufacturers: the great degree of variation in how people absorb drugs. Partly to blame is the fact that individuals have different levels of an enzyme in the intestines and liver, called CYP3A4, that breaks down drugs before they even have the chance to get into the bloodstream. People with very active CYP3A4 get lower amounts of drugs into their systems than those with low levels of the enzyme.
But powerful compounds in the grapefruit called furanocoumarins obliterate CYP3A4 in the gut. The result: More drug gets into the bloodstream. For some anticholesterol statins, for example, taking one tablet with a glass of grapefruit juice "is like taking at least 10 tablets with a glass of water," says David Bailey, a pharmacologist at the University of Western Ontario who discovered the grapefruit effect in the early 1990s. It's why some major blockbusters, like the statin Mevacor or the anticancer drug Gleevec, contain warnings against taking these drugs with grapefruit juice.
But for certain drugs that have a hard time reaching optimal blood levels at prescribed doses, some doctors are interested in intentionally boosting the effects with grapefruit. Generally, the idea would be to give a booster to all patients who are taking a weak drug. While some patients may have naturally low levels of the CYP3A4 enzyme and thus wouldn't need it, there's no practical way to test individuals right now, so researchers are using a blanket approach. As long as a drug does not have what is known as a "narrow therapeutic window" -- meaning that a relatively small increase in dose makes it toxic -- boosting shouldn't necessarily lead to large increases in side effects, the theory goes.
"More patients will receive meaningful therapy from the one-dose-fits-all approach," says Dr. Harris.
Still, many drugs, such as the blood thinner Warfarin and certain antibiotics, do have a narrow window. For such drugs, a blanket approach to boosting would be too risky. Boosting should be reserved for only a few disease areas -- like infectious diseases or cancer -- where the risk of side effects from higher drug levels is worth taking, says Dr. Harris. "This is not to be used to help get the ninth non-sedating antihistamine to the market."
Don't Try This at Home
Experts also warn that people should not try boosting on their own to make an expensive medication last longer or make their medicines more effective. Only a clinical trial can show whether the approach is helpful for an individual drug, they say. And it is impossible to know who will respond too strongly or not at all to the grapefruit effect. In people who take multiple drugs, the approach could backfire by interfering with the effects of other medicines that are already working well without boosting.
In one effort to home in on the best way to exploit the grapefruit effect, researchers Ezra Cohen and Mark Ratain at the University of Chicago are conducting a 30-patient study of grapefruit juice with an experimental cancer drug called rapamyicin. The drug -- sold by Wyeth as an immunosuppressant -- is usually poorly absorbed into the blood. Normally only about 14% of the amount in a pill gets into people's bloodstream, but so far, the researchers have seen that when combined with grapefruit juice, the blood levels of the drug can increase up to fourfold, says Dr. Cohen. (The scientists get a "standardized" grapefruit juice concentrate from the Florida Department of Citrus, which analyzed different batches to find one with high levels of furanocoumarins.)
Bioavailability Systems studied its grapefruit extract with a modestly effective anti-HIV drug and saw an average 40-fold increase in blood levels, says Dr. Harris. The company has created synthetic mimics of the grapefruit compounds that it plans to test in human trials next year.
The quest to capture the grapefruit effect underscores another important aspect of how drugs are metabolized: The food we ingest can have a profound impact on drug performance. It's why pharmaceutical companies routinely test their drug candidates under fasting and nonfasting conditions. Even changing the fat content of a meal can have a major effect on a drug's efficacy.
A case in point is Tykerb, an anticancer drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline PLC. A recent company-sponsored study showed that the drug's blood levels increased by 167% when taken with a low-fat meal, compared with taking the drug on an empty stomach -- and by 325% after a high-fat meal.
Drs. Ratain and Cohen argue that these kinds of food-drug interactions should be explored to lower drug costs. In a recent editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers ruffled some industry feathers by arguing that taking Tykerb with food (the label says not to) might allow patients to take lower doses, leading to a potential cost savings of 60% off the drug's $2,900-a-month price tag. Savings could be about 80% if Tykerb were taken with grapefruit juice as well, they said, since the drug interacts with CYP3A4.
Other anticancer drugs are broken down by CYP3A4, posing the "compelling" possibility of using grapefruit juice to lower their cost as well, says Dr. Cohen. "Oral oncology therapies are costing $3,000 to $5,000 a month. So it's almost like a new world when it comes to drugs costs. If we can lower the costs of those by 50%, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars saved," Dr. Cohen says.
But not everyone agrees it would be wise to "prescribe" food or drinks to patients as a drug booster. For one, the approach doesn't address the issue of patient variability. In the case of Tykerb, giving the drug with a high-fat meal increased blood levels differently depending on the person, says Peter Ho, head of cancer-drug discovery at Glaxo. That's why the company decided, together with the Food and Drug Administration, that the label should recommend taking it on an empty stomach. "At the low end it increased by twofold, but at the high end some subjects had as much as a 24-fold increase, and that's a problem," Dr. Ho says.
There is "no question" that grapefruit juice will increase the blood levels of rapamycin, adds Wyeth's head of medical affairs Joseph Camardo, but he is less convinced that the effect can be consistent. "Our position is, it is not likely to bring the variability to an acceptable level," he says.
Another concern is the variation in quality among juice brands. "The actual amount of these active ingredients varies substantially between grapefruit juices and even the same lot," says researcher Paul Watkins from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, who has done research on the grapefruit compounds.
Dr. Harris believes that one way to address some of these concerns is to standardize the grapefruit compounds into a pill with a defined dose. That would take away at least one of the variables.
"If you take the components out and put them in a pill then it becomes something that's a little more manageable," says Wyeth's Dr. Camardo.
Blocking Efficacy
Meanwhile, the grapefruit continues to surprise the scientific community. Recently, another class of compounds in the fruit was found to block a different set of proteins in the intestine known as "transporters." These transporter proteins actively shuttle drugs from the gut into the bloodstream. Blocking these transporters prevents some drugs from entering the system. This finding may mean that grapefruit is contraindicated with certain drugs for a whole new set of reasons.
One such compound called naringin affects the efficacy of the popular allergy drug Allegra by blocking these transporters. "Even a normal glass of juice will reduce the effects of Allegra by half," says Dr. Bailey, whose team made the discovery last year. "It's the tip of the iceberg," he adds. "Big pharma is very interested."
Write to Sylvia Pagán Westphal at sylvia.westphal@wsj.com
WSJ November 27, 2007
Many patients know that grapefruit juice doesn't mix with certain popular drugs -- notably cholesterol-busting statins such as Zocor and Lipitor. Too much Citrus paradisi, and the blood levels of some medicines can rise to toxic levels.
But the grapefruit effect may have a silver lining. Research suggests the fruit's ability to interact with drugs may be exploited to make some medicines more powerful.
At the University of Chicago, scientists are studying grapefruit juice in combination with an experimental anticancer compound, hoping to boost the drug's weak effects. In Florida, Bioavailability Systems LLC, a small biotechnology company, claims to have purified the grapefruit compounds responsible for the boosting effect and has been able to improve the blood levels of an anti-HIV drug. "This is definitely a lemons to lemonade story," says James Harris, founder and chief scientific officer of the company.
The approach aims to tackle a major problem for drug manufacturers: the great degree of variation in how people absorb drugs. Partly to blame is the fact that individuals have different levels of an enzyme in the intestines and liver, called CYP3A4, that breaks down drugs before they even have the chance to get into the bloodstream. People with very active CYP3A4 get lower amounts of drugs into their systems than those with low levels of the enzyme.
But powerful compounds in the grapefruit called furanocoumarins obliterate CYP3A4 in the gut. The result: More drug gets into the bloodstream. For some anticholesterol statins, for example, taking one tablet with a glass of grapefruit juice "is like taking at least 10 tablets with a glass of water," says David Bailey, a pharmacologist at the University of Western Ontario who discovered the grapefruit effect in the early 1990s. It's why some major blockbusters, like the statin Mevacor or the anticancer drug Gleevec, contain warnings against taking these drugs with grapefruit juice.
But for certain drugs that have a hard time reaching optimal blood levels at prescribed doses, some doctors are interested in intentionally boosting the effects with grapefruit. Generally, the idea would be to give a booster to all patients who are taking a weak drug. While some patients may have naturally low levels of the CYP3A4 enzyme and thus wouldn't need it, there's no practical way to test individuals right now, so researchers are using a blanket approach. As long as a drug does not have what is known as a "narrow therapeutic window" -- meaning that a relatively small increase in dose makes it toxic -- boosting shouldn't necessarily lead to large increases in side effects, the theory goes.
"More patients will receive meaningful therapy from the one-dose-fits-all approach," says Dr. Harris.
Still, many drugs, such as the blood thinner Warfarin and certain antibiotics, do have a narrow window. For such drugs, a blanket approach to boosting would be too risky. Boosting should be reserved for only a few disease areas -- like infectious diseases or cancer -- where the risk of side effects from higher drug levels is worth taking, says Dr. Harris. "This is not to be used to help get the ninth non-sedating antihistamine to the market."
Don't Try This at Home
Experts also warn that people should not try boosting on their own to make an expensive medication last longer or make their medicines more effective. Only a clinical trial can show whether the approach is helpful for an individual drug, they say. And it is impossible to know who will respond too strongly or not at all to the grapefruit effect. In people who take multiple drugs, the approach could backfire by interfering with the effects of other medicines that are already working well without boosting.
In one effort to home in on the best way to exploit the grapefruit effect, researchers Ezra Cohen and Mark Ratain at the University of Chicago are conducting a 30-patient study of grapefruit juice with an experimental cancer drug called rapamyicin. The drug -- sold by Wyeth as an immunosuppressant -- is usually poorly absorbed into the blood. Normally only about 14% of the amount in a pill gets into people's bloodstream, but so far, the researchers have seen that when combined with grapefruit juice, the blood levels of the drug can increase up to fourfold, says Dr. Cohen. (The scientists get a "standardized" grapefruit juice concentrate from the Florida Department of Citrus, which analyzed different batches to find one with high levels of furanocoumarins.)
Bioavailability Systems studied its grapefruit extract with a modestly effective anti-HIV drug and saw an average 40-fold increase in blood levels, says Dr. Harris. The company has created synthetic mimics of the grapefruit compounds that it plans to test in human trials next year.
The quest to capture the grapefruit effect underscores another important aspect of how drugs are metabolized: The food we ingest can have a profound impact on drug performance. It's why pharmaceutical companies routinely test their drug candidates under fasting and nonfasting conditions. Even changing the fat content of a meal can have a major effect on a drug's efficacy.
A case in point is Tykerb, an anticancer drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline PLC. A recent company-sponsored study showed that the drug's blood levels increased by 167% when taken with a low-fat meal, compared with taking the drug on an empty stomach -- and by 325% after a high-fat meal.
Drs. Ratain and Cohen argue that these kinds of food-drug interactions should be explored to lower drug costs. In a recent editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers ruffled some industry feathers by arguing that taking Tykerb with food (the label says not to) might allow patients to take lower doses, leading to a potential cost savings of 60% off the drug's $2,900-a-month price tag. Savings could be about 80% if Tykerb were taken with grapefruit juice as well, they said, since the drug interacts with CYP3A4.
Other anticancer drugs are broken down by CYP3A4, posing the "compelling" possibility of using grapefruit juice to lower their cost as well, says Dr. Cohen. "Oral oncology therapies are costing $3,000 to $5,000 a month. So it's almost like a new world when it comes to drugs costs. If we can lower the costs of those by 50%, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars saved," Dr. Cohen says.
But not everyone agrees it would be wise to "prescribe" food or drinks to patients as a drug booster. For one, the approach doesn't address the issue of patient variability. In the case of Tykerb, giving the drug with a high-fat meal increased blood levels differently depending on the person, says Peter Ho, head of cancer-drug discovery at Glaxo. That's why the company decided, together with the Food and Drug Administration, that the label should recommend taking it on an empty stomach. "At the low end it increased by twofold, but at the high end some subjects had as much as a 24-fold increase, and that's a problem," Dr. Ho says.
There is "no question" that grapefruit juice will increase the blood levels of rapamycin, adds Wyeth's head of medical affairs Joseph Camardo, but he is less convinced that the effect can be consistent. "Our position is, it is not likely to bring the variability to an acceptable level," he says.
Another concern is the variation in quality among juice brands. "The actual amount of these active ingredients varies substantially between grapefruit juices and even the same lot," says researcher Paul Watkins from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, who has done research on the grapefruit compounds.
Dr. Harris believes that one way to address some of these concerns is to standardize the grapefruit compounds into a pill with a defined dose. That would take away at least one of the variables.
"If you take the components out and put them in a pill then it becomes something that's a little more manageable," says Wyeth's Dr. Camardo.
Blocking Efficacy
Meanwhile, the grapefruit continues to surprise the scientific community. Recently, another class of compounds in the fruit was found to block a different set of proteins in the intestine known as "transporters." These transporter proteins actively shuttle drugs from the gut into the bloodstream. Blocking these transporters prevents some drugs from entering the system. This finding may mean that grapefruit is contraindicated with certain drugs for a whole new set of reasons.
One such compound called naringin affects the efficacy of the popular allergy drug Allegra by blocking these transporters. "Even a normal glass of juice will reduce the effects of Allegra by half," says Dr. Bailey, whose team made the discovery last year. "It's the tip of the iceberg," he adds. "Big pharma is very interested."
Write to Sylvia Pagán Westphal at sylvia.westphal@wsj.com
Eliminating Pests
Worth knowing about.
WSJ November 29, 2007
Problem: Getting rid of household bugs without harsh pesticides.
Solution: Many insects are naturally repelled by lavender, citrus and peppermint oils. Leaving soaked cotton balls around the house repels insect invaders and makes your home smell great. To protect sweaters and other winter woolens, use sachets of orange and lemon peel, cedar chips, or lavender. For ants, spray surfaces with soapy water where you've seen creatures crawling. Or sprinkle corners of areas ants frequent with pepper, bay leaves, cucumber peelings, turmeric, crushed mint, cinnamon, catnip or borax to keep them away. For fruit flies, place an open wine bottle with a few centimeters of wine in the infested area. Flies will fly into the bottle to feed on the wine and become trapped. The small moths that frequent kitchen cupboards can be kept away with the same repellents used for clothes, but sealing all grains (even unopened packages) in airtight containers will avoid insect problems in the first place.
WSJ November 29, 2007
Problem: Getting rid of household bugs without harsh pesticides.
Solution: Many insects are naturally repelled by lavender, citrus and peppermint oils. Leaving soaked cotton balls around the house repels insect invaders and makes your home smell great. To protect sweaters and other winter woolens, use sachets of orange and lemon peel, cedar chips, or lavender. For ants, spray surfaces with soapy water where you've seen creatures crawling. Or sprinkle corners of areas ants frequent with pepper, bay leaves, cucumber peelings, turmeric, crushed mint, cinnamon, catnip or borax to keep them away. For fruit flies, place an open wine bottle with a few centimeters of wine in the infested area. Flies will fly into the bottle to feed on the wine and become trapped. The small moths that frequent kitchen cupboards can be kept away with the same repellents used for clothes, but sealing all grains (even unopened packages) in airtight containers will avoid insect problems in the first place.
Report Links Increased Cancer Risk to CT Scans
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 29, 2007
Millions of Americans, especially children, are needlessly getting dangerous radiation from “super X-rays” that raise the risk of cancer and are increasingly used to diagnose medical problems, a new report warns. In a few decades, as many as 2 percent of cancers in the United States may be due to radiation from CT scans given now, according to the report.
The risk from a single CT, or computed tomography, scan to an individual is small. But “we are very concerned about the built-up public health risk over a long period of time,” said Eric J. Hall, who wrote the report with David J. Brenner, a fellow Columbia University medical physicist.
It was published in The New England Journal of Medicine today, and the study was paid for by federal grants. Some experts say that estimate is overly alarming. But they agree with the need to curb these tests particularly in children, who are more susceptible to radiation and more likely to develop cancer from it.
“There are some serious concerns about the methodology used,” but the authors “have brought to attention some real serious potential public health issues,” said Dr. Arl Van Moore Jr., chairman of the American College of Radiology’s board of chancellors.
The average American’s total radiation exposure has nearly doubled since 1980, largely because of CT scans. About 62 million scans were done in the United States last year, up from three million in 1980. More than four million were in children.
Since previous studies suggest that a third of diagnostic tests are unnecessary, that means that 20 million adults and more than one million children having CT scans are needlessly being put at risk, the authors write.
Published: November 29, 2007
Millions of Americans, especially children, are needlessly getting dangerous radiation from “super X-rays” that raise the risk of cancer and are increasingly used to diagnose medical problems, a new report warns. In a few decades, as many as 2 percent of cancers in the United States may be due to radiation from CT scans given now, according to the report.
The risk from a single CT, or computed tomography, scan to an individual is small. But “we are very concerned about the built-up public health risk over a long period of time,” said Eric J. Hall, who wrote the report with David J. Brenner, a fellow Columbia University medical physicist.
It was published in The New England Journal of Medicine today, and the study was paid for by federal grants. Some experts say that estimate is overly alarming. But they agree with the need to curb these tests particularly in children, who are more susceptible to radiation and more likely to develop cancer from it.
“There are some serious concerns about the methodology used,” but the authors “have brought to attention some real serious potential public health issues,” said Dr. Arl Van Moore Jr., chairman of the American College of Radiology’s board of chancellors.
The average American’s total radiation exposure has nearly doubled since 1980, largely because of CT scans. About 62 million scans were done in the United States last year, up from three million in 1980. More than four million were in children.
Since previous studies suggest that a third of diagnostic tests are unnecessary, that means that 20 million adults and more than one million children having CT scans are needlessly being put at risk, the authors write.
Sun May Lower Risk of Endometrial Cancer
More evidence for Vitamin D's role in cancer prevention.
NYT November 27, 2007
Women in the sunniest countries seem to get endometrial cancer less often than those who live far from the equator.
Using a large World Health Organization database, researchers have found lower rates of the cancer, which strikes the lining of the uterus, in populations with a higher exposure to UVB radiation, the ultraviolet light that causes the skin to produce vitamin D.
“There is a mathematical relationship,” said Cedric F. Garland, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and a co-author of the study, which appears in the November issue of Preventive Medicine.
The researchers assembled information on endometrial cancer in 107 countries. In both Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the higher the latitude, the higher the risk — even after adjusting for many variables. They also found that higher rates of meat eating, per capita health expenditure and the percentage of the population that was overweight were each associated with a higher risk of endometrial cancer.
Though the researchers did not measure vitamin D levels, Dr. Garland said, “we believe that vitamin D accounts for the finding, since the geographic distribution corresponds to that of other cancers which have been shown in studies of individuals to be related to levels of vitamin D.”
NYT November 27, 2007
Women in the sunniest countries seem to get endometrial cancer less often than those who live far from the equator.
Using a large World Health Organization database, researchers have found lower rates of the cancer, which strikes the lining of the uterus, in populations with a higher exposure to UVB radiation, the ultraviolet light that causes the skin to produce vitamin D.
“There is a mathematical relationship,” said Cedric F. Garland, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and a co-author of the study, which appears in the November issue of Preventive Medicine.
The researchers assembled information on endometrial cancer in 107 countries. In both Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the higher the latitude, the higher the risk — even after adjusting for many variables. They also found that higher rates of meat eating, per capita health expenditure and the percentage of the population that was overweight were each associated with a higher risk of endometrial cancer.
Though the researchers did not measure vitamin D levels, Dr. Garland said, “we believe that vitamin D accounts for the finding, since the geographic distribution corresponds to that of other cancers which have been shown in studies of individuals to be related to levels of vitamin D.”
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Fast Food For Thought
In the fight against obesity, powerful health officials want to see chain restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's display calories on their menu boards. Lesley Stahl reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3518744n
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3518744n
Saturday, November 3, 2007
More evidence for caloric restriction
Severely restricting calories could lead to longer life
By Clarisse Douaud
A study out of the University at Buffalo has linked severely restricting calories to slowing the progression of physical disability in age, which could have lifespan implications if carried over to humans.The study, published in the October issue of Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, used a rat model of life-time caloric restriction. The researchers attributed this increased lifespan to a reduction in the visceral fat that can be responsible for inflammation leading to chronic disease.Not surprisingly, longevity and enhanced quality of life is the ultimate aim of most research into diet and nutrition, but very few studies actually achieve such a link. The trick now will be to see if it can be carried over to humans - something the researchers say is highly unlikely due to the extremely restrictive nature of such a diet."This is the first study to report that caloric restriction reduced production in visceral fat of the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and enhanced performance on overall physical function assessments," said Tongjian You, assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences at UB School of Public Health and Health Professions and principal investigator in the study. Supported with grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the study was conducted with male rats in three age groups. These ranged from 18, to 24 and 29 months, which are comparable to 50 to 70 years in humans.The rats were fed either a normal or 40-percent calorie-restricted diet from birth, and then put through tests to determine grip strength, muscle tone, stamina and swimming speed. In addition, data were collected on varying kinds of body mass and fat-to-lean ratios, as well as the amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines and the chronic inflammation marker, C-reactive protein.According to the study, the results indicated the animals on the restricted calorie diet had significantly higher physical performance scores than animals fed a normal diet. However, the researchers say these positive results are not likely to be carried over to humans, as it would be nearly impossible for people to keep such diets. A 40 percent reduction in calories daily - when translated to humans - means that an average diet of 2,000 calories per day for adult women and 2,500 for men would be cut to 1,200 or 1,500 calories per day."It's very difficult for people to maintain that type of diet for short periods of time, and it would be nearly impossible over a lifetime, while staying healthy," said You. "Starting on a diet like that in the senior years would be harmful." Still, a moderate caloric restriction would likely bring about positive effects on oxidative stress and inflammatory biomarkers - something which would could be worthy of further investigation in human trials."Preclinical testing of this 8-percent regimen could be informative and beneficial in translating to humans," said You.Located in Buffalo, New York, the University at Buffalo is the largest campus of the State University of New York.
By Clarisse Douaud
A study out of the University at Buffalo has linked severely restricting calories to slowing the progression of physical disability in age, which could have lifespan implications if carried over to humans.The study, published in the October issue of Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, used a rat model of life-time caloric restriction. The researchers attributed this increased lifespan to a reduction in the visceral fat that can be responsible for inflammation leading to chronic disease.Not surprisingly, longevity and enhanced quality of life is the ultimate aim of most research into diet and nutrition, but very few studies actually achieve such a link. The trick now will be to see if it can be carried over to humans - something the researchers say is highly unlikely due to the extremely restrictive nature of such a diet."This is the first study to report that caloric restriction reduced production in visceral fat of the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and enhanced performance on overall physical function assessments," said Tongjian You, assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences at UB School of Public Health and Health Professions and principal investigator in the study. Supported with grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the study was conducted with male rats in three age groups. These ranged from 18, to 24 and 29 months, which are comparable to 50 to 70 years in humans.The rats were fed either a normal or 40-percent calorie-restricted diet from birth, and then put through tests to determine grip strength, muscle tone, stamina and swimming speed. In addition, data were collected on varying kinds of body mass and fat-to-lean ratios, as well as the amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines and the chronic inflammation marker, C-reactive protein.According to the study, the results indicated the animals on the restricted calorie diet had significantly higher physical performance scores than animals fed a normal diet. However, the researchers say these positive results are not likely to be carried over to humans, as it would be nearly impossible for people to keep such diets. A 40 percent reduction in calories daily - when translated to humans - means that an average diet of 2,000 calories per day for adult women and 2,500 for men would be cut to 1,200 or 1,500 calories per day."It's very difficult for people to maintain that type of diet for short periods of time, and it would be nearly impossible over a lifetime, while staying healthy," said You. "Starting on a diet like that in the senior years would be harmful." Still, a moderate caloric restriction would likely bring about positive effects on oxidative stress and inflammatory biomarkers - something which would could be worthy of further investigation in human trials."Preclinical testing of this 8-percent regimen could be informative and beneficial in translating to humans," said You.Located in Buffalo, New York, the University at Buffalo is the largest campus of the State University of New York.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Is Lower Blood Cholesterol Really Better?
Dr. John Briffa
Special to The Epoch Times
Oct 17, 2007
Is it in their best interests to lower their cholesterol? Very few of us will not have noticed that the last couple of decades have seen a concerted effort from health agencies and health professionals to persuade us that we should be driving our cholesterol levels down to lower and lower levels. When I was at medical school the upper limit of cholesterol was 6.5 mmol/l (255 mg/l). But it's come down steadily since then and now stands at 5.0 mmol/l (195 mg/l). My suspicion is that it will fall even lower over the years. Who knows, it may get so low that practically everyone will be classified as having raised cholesterol, and be recommended to lower this with specialized food products and/or drugs.
However, since cholesterol is a constituent in the walls of cells in the body as well as steroid hormones, there is an issue for questioning whether lower really is better.
Some have suggested that low levels of cholesterol may predispose to health problems, including those that relate to brain function.
Last month saw the publication of a study in the journal, Neurobiology of Aging, in which Dutch researchers assessed the relationship between cholesterol levels and mental function in about 1,200 individuals aged 65 or over. The participants in the study were assessed over a six-year period. Lower blood cholesterol levels in this group were associated with a reduction in both general cognition and information processing speed. The authors of this study concluded: " … lower total cholesterol may be considered as a frailty marker, predictive of lower cognitive functioning in elderly." [1]
Of course with studies of this nature, it is impossible to know whether the low cholesterol itself is responsible for the associated poorer brain function. One way to assess this might be to attempt to lower cholesterol levels and see what it does to brain function. In one study, individuals treated with lovastatin (a cholesterol-reducing drug), compared to those taking a placebo, saw significant reductions in measures such as vigilance and general cognitive function [2]. This study, though, also tested the effect of another statin drug (pravastatin), which did not appear to have this same adverse effect on brain function.
Even if we take the apparent association between lovastatin and impaired brain function at face value, we do not know whether this was due to cholesterol lowering per se or some side effect of the medication.
Another study, though, adds further evidence to support the notion that lower cholesterol levels may impair brain function. In it, a low-fat diet was pitted against a standard diet over a 12-week period [3]. Over the course of the trial, the performance of a task that required sustained attention was significantly worse in individuals who had reduced their cholesterol. And the lower the cholesterol fell, the worse the performance in this test was.
Even if it turns out that cholesterol reduction is bad for the brain, I have no doubt that proponents of the lower cholesterol concept will point to other benefits of this endeavor. Yet I think it is worth bearing in mind that the evidence shows that in essentially healthy individuals, cholesterol reduction through drugs has not been shown to save lives. And dietary approaches do not appear to reduce funeral rates either, even in those with a history of cardiovascular disease.
Furthermore, there is at least some evidence showing that in later life, higher levels of cholesterol are actually associated with enhanced longevity [4–7]. In short, there is mounting evidence, I think, which suggests that as far as cholesterol is concerned, lower is not always necessarily better.
References:
1. Van den Kommer TN, et al. Total cholesterol and oxysterols: Early markers for cognitive decline in elderly? Neurobiology of Aging. 2007 Sep 19; [Epub ahead of print]
2. Roth T, et al. Comparative effects of pravastatin and lovastatin on nighttime sleep and daytime performance. Clinical Cardiology. 1992; 15:42–432
3. Wardle J, et al. Randomized trial of the effects of cholesterol-lowering dietary treatment on psychological function. American Journal of Medicine 2000; 108(7): 547–553
4. Brescianini S, et al. Low total cholesterol and increased risk of dying: are low levels clinical warning signs in the elderly? Results from the Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003; 51(7): 991–996
5. Forette B, et al. Cholesterol as risk factor for mortality in elderly women. Lancet, 1989; 1:868–870
6. Jonsson A, et al. Total cholesterol and mortality after age 80 years. Lancet, 1997; 350:1778–1779
7. Weverling-Rijnsburger AW, et al. Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old. Lancet, 1997; 350:1119–1123
Special to The Epoch Times
Oct 17, 2007
Is it in their best interests to lower their cholesterol? Very few of us will not have noticed that the last couple of decades have seen a concerted effort from health agencies and health professionals to persuade us that we should be driving our cholesterol levels down to lower and lower levels. When I was at medical school the upper limit of cholesterol was 6.5 mmol/l (255 mg/l). But it's come down steadily since then and now stands at 5.0 mmol/l (195 mg/l). My suspicion is that it will fall even lower over the years. Who knows, it may get so low that practically everyone will be classified as having raised cholesterol, and be recommended to lower this with specialized food products and/or drugs.
However, since cholesterol is a constituent in the walls of cells in the body as well as steroid hormones, there is an issue for questioning whether lower really is better.
Some have suggested that low levels of cholesterol may predispose to health problems, including those that relate to brain function.
Last month saw the publication of a study in the journal, Neurobiology of Aging, in which Dutch researchers assessed the relationship between cholesterol levels and mental function in about 1,200 individuals aged 65 or over. The participants in the study were assessed over a six-year period. Lower blood cholesterol levels in this group were associated with a reduction in both general cognition and information processing speed. The authors of this study concluded: " … lower total cholesterol may be considered as a frailty marker, predictive of lower cognitive functioning in elderly." [1]
Of course with studies of this nature, it is impossible to know whether the low cholesterol itself is responsible for the associated poorer brain function. One way to assess this might be to attempt to lower cholesterol levels and see what it does to brain function. In one study, individuals treated with lovastatin (a cholesterol-reducing drug), compared to those taking a placebo, saw significant reductions in measures such as vigilance and general cognitive function [2]. This study, though, also tested the effect of another statin drug (pravastatin), which did not appear to have this same adverse effect on brain function.
Even if we take the apparent association between lovastatin and impaired brain function at face value, we do not know whether this was due to cholesterol lowering per se or some side effect of the medication.
Another study, though, adds further evidence to support the notion that lower cholesterol levels may impair brain function. In it, a low-fat diet was pitted against a standard diet over a 12-week period [3]. Over the course of the trial, the performance of a task that required sustained attention was significantly worse in individuals who had reduced their cholesterol. And the lower the cholesterol fell, the worse the performance in this test was.
Even if it turns out that cholesterol reduction is bad for the brain, I have no doubt that proponents of the lower cholesterol concept will point to other benefits of this endeavor. Yet I think it is worth bearing in mind that the evidence shows that in essentially healthy individuals, cholesterol reduction through drugs has not been shown to save lives. And dietary approaches do not appear to reduce funeral rates either, even in those with a history of cardiovascular disease.
Furthermore, there is at least some evidence showing that in later life, higher levels of cholesterol are actually associated with enhanced longevity [4–7]. In short, there is mounting evidence, I think, which suggests that as far as cholesterol is concerned, lower is not always necessarily better.
References:
1. Van den Kommer TN, et al. Total cholesterol and oxysterols: Early markers for cognitive decline in elderly? Neurobiology of Aging. 2007 Sep 19; [Epub ahead of print]
2. Roth T, et al. Comparative effects of pravastatin and lovastatin on nighttime sleep and daytime performance. Clinical Cardiology. 1992; 15:42–432
3. Wardle J, et al. Randomized trial of the effects of cholesterol-lowering dietary treatment on psychological function. American Journal of Medicine 2000; 108(7): 547–553
4. Brescianini S, et al. Low total cholesterol and increased risk of dying: are low levels clinical warning signs in the elderly? Results from the Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003; 51(7): 991–996
5. Forette B, et al. Cholesterol as risk factor for mortality in elderly women. Lancet, 1989; 1:868–870
6. Jonsson A, et al. Total cholesterol and mortality after age 80 years. Lancet, 1997; 350:1778–1779
7. Weverling-Rijnsburger AW, et al. Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old. Lancet, 1997; 350:1119–1123
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Twist and Ouch
Important information for all of us, not just athletes.
October 28, 2007
Most athletes will have back trouble sooner or later -- if they’re not suffering already. Here’s what to do about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/sports/playmagazine/28physed.html?ex=1351310400&en=d74dcfa901ad4b9e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
October 28, 2007
Most athletes will have back trouble sooner or later -- if they’re not suffering already. Here’s what to do about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/sports/playmagazine/28physed.html?ex=1351310400&en=d74dcfa901ad4b9e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Edible, Sure. But Just How Incredible?
The much maligned egg is one of the most healthful foods around. Egg albumin or egg white is considered to be the reference protein to which all other foods are compared to for protein quality. Egg yolk is loaded with nutrients such as lutein (a carotenoid important for eye health), and vitamins A and D. For more info on the cholesterol controversy, see October 10th blog on
Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
October 1, 2007, 12:18 pm
(Alan Zale for The New York Times)
At breakfast recently a friend of mine passed on the scrambled eggs. “I’m watching my cholesterol,'’ he said. Another woman I know only orders Egg Beaters, which are essentially cholesterol-free orange-colored egg whites.
Of all the commonly consumed foods, eggs contain the highest amounts of cholesterol, and that’s why many people shun them. Now, the American Egg Board is bringing back its “Incredible Edible Egg” campaign to reiterate the health benefits.
So are eggs good for you or bad for you? I asked Dr. Walter Willett, Harvard University’s famed nutritionist, for his take.
“Dietary cholesterol has been greatly oversold as a health concern, in part because it has a small effect on blood cholesterol levels,'’ said Dr. Willett, who has never received funding from the egg industry. Eggs, in particular, have gotten a bad rap. “Some of the foods that contain high cholesterol, such as eggs, have many other healthy components,'’ he said.
Egg yolks, organ meat, shellfish, whole-fat dairy products and red meat are rich sources of dietary cholesterol. But the biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats in the diet, not how much cholesterol you eat in food.
The average person makes about 75 percent of blood cholesterol in his or her liver, while the rest is absorbed from food. One of the biggest problems with giving up eggs is that people turn to other breakfast foods like bagels with cream cheese, pastries and muffins. These are loaded with unhealthy saturated fat, which increases blood cholesterol levels far more than the dietary cholesterol found in eggs. The downside of eggs is that many people only eat them cooked in butter or oil, or with sausage, also loaded with saturated fat.
There are a few caveats. Egg consumption has been linked to a higher risk of heart trouble in people with diabetes. And a small number of people are unusually sensitive to dietary cholesterol — in them, foods like eggs can disproportionately increase blood cholesterol.
Still, said Dr. Willett, “the large majority can consume eggs in reasonable amounts.” For a more lengthy explanation of the impact of dietary cholesterol and fats on your health, check out The Nutrition Source from the Harvard School of Public Health. And Northwestern University has a useful fact sheet comparing dietary cholesterol and saturated fat in various foods.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Industry Money Fans Debate on Fish
Much confusion about amount of fish a pregnant woman should consume. The latest recommendation from the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition actually contradicted the goverment warnings about fish consumption, encouraging pregnant women to consume higher amounts of mercury tainted fish. Now there is evidence that this organization received funds from the National Fishery Institute. What else is new?
By MARIAN BURROS
October 17, 2007
The government and a private group are at odds on tuna’s safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/dining/17fish.html?ex=1350360000&en=6aed88dd50be347c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
By MARIAN BURROS
October 17, 2007
The government and a private group are at odds on tuna’s safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/dining/17fish.html?ex=1350360000&en=6aed88dd50be347c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
This is brilliant and timely since we discussed the cholesterol controversy in class last night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?ex=1349668800&en=67642ef2330f51af&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?ex=1349668800&en=67642ef2330f51af&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Kids' Use of Heartburn Drugs Surges
This is really frightening. Acid blockers are among the most commonly used drug in the US by adults, so what now? Shall we begin poisoning our children? Do people realize that by suppressing stomach acid (HCl), we reduce the absorption of minerals, some vitamins and amino acids? This can lead to anemia, brittle bones, and what about reduced zinc absorption? Will we begin seeing cases of hypogonadal dwarfism and macular degeneration? What about the overgrowth of bacteria and increased risk of infections? Maybe parents should take an interest in what their kids are eating and modify their diets before looking for some easy fix. By the way, I don't know any kids or adults for that matter who have a deficiency of Prilosec, Prevacid, Tagamet or Zantac, do you?
October 4, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHICAGO (AP) -- The number of young children on prescription drugs for heartburn and other digestive problems jumped about 56 percent in recent years and researchers say obesity and overuse might be contributing to the surprising increase.
The surge was found in a Medco Health Solutions Inc. analysis released Thursday of U.S. prescription data for 2002-2006. It suggests that more than 2 million U.S. children 18 and under used drugs for digestive or gastrointestinal complaints last year.
''It's a signal that something's going on that we need to keep an eye on,'' said Dr. Robert Epstein, Medco's chief medical officer. ''Whether it's parents getting their children diagnosed more frequently, or obesity,'' or other factors, ''it bears further study,'' he said.
Researchers at Medco, a pharmacy benefits management company based in Franklin Lakes, N.J., analyzed prescription drug claims of more than 575,000 U.S. children.
They calculated that 557,259 infants and children up to age 4, or about 3 percent of youngsters in that age range, were taking these drugs last year. That's about a 56 percent increase from 2002.
There was a 31 percent increase among children aged 5 to 11, climbing to an estimated 551,653 children, or 2 percent in that age group in 2006, the analysis found.
Almost 1 million children aged 12 to 18 had prescriptions for the drugs last year, but that was up only 6 percent over 2002.
Acid-reducing drugs called proton pump inhibitors are the most common medicines prescribed for GI problems, the analysis said. They are used for acid reflux associated with heartburn, and a related condition called gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD.
Some of these, including Prevacid, were approved for use in children during the study period, which likely also contributed to the prescription surge, said Dr. Benjamin Gold, an Emory University specialist in children's digestive diseases.
Heartburn is a common complication of being overweight and the surge happened during the nation's rising obesity epidemic, said Dr. Renee Jenkins, president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She noted that more than 10 percent of U.S. preschoolers and 30 percent of older children are considered overweight.
Gold said there's no hard data on how many children have acid reflux or GERD. But there's some evidence that the numbers are rising, and obesity could be playing a role, he said.
Heartburn and acid reflux are also extremely common in infants and young children. Many of them outgrow it and drug treatment often isn't needed, so the increase raises concerns about whether these drugs are sometimes being used unnecessarily, said Jenkins, a Howard University pediatrics professor.
While some children do require treatment including prescription drugs, many get better with no treatment or lifestyle changes such as smaller, more frequent meals or cutting down on fatty foods, she said.
Still, parents increasingly are demanding that doctors prescribe medicine for reflux, in part because of direct-to-consumer marketing, Gold said. But also, symptoms including frequent spitting up, irritability and stomach aches are troublesome and many parents prefer a quick fix, he said.
Gold said reflux drugs are generally safe but there is some evidence linking long-term use with an increased risk of infections including pneumonia and bowel inflammation.
To avoid overuse, Jenkins said parents should be willing to try non-drug approaches for treating reflux and other digestive problems in young children.
October 4, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHICAGO (AP) -- The number of young children on prescription drugs for heartburn and other digestive problems jumped about 56 percent in recent years and researchers say obesity and overuse might be contributing to the surprising increase.
The surge was found in a Medco Health Solutions Inc. analysis released Thursday of U.S. prescription data for 2002-2006. It suggests that more than 2 million U.S. children 18 and under used drugs for digestive or gastrointestinal complaints last year.
''It's a signal that something's going on that we need to keep an eye on,'' said Dr. Robert Epstein, Medco's chief medical officer. ''Whether it's parents getting their children diagnosed more frequently, or obesity,'' or other factors, ''it bears further study,'' he said.
Researchers at Medco, a pharmacy benefits management company based in Franklin Lakes, N.J., analyzed prescription drug claims of more than 575,000 U.S. children.
They calculated that 557,259 infants and children up to age 4, or about 3 percent of youngsters in that age range, were taking these drugs last year. That's about a 56 percent increase from 2002.
There was a 31 percent increase among children aged 5 to 11, climbing to an estimated 551,653 children, or 2 percent in that age group in 2006, the analysis found.
Almost 1 million children aged 12 to 18 had prescriptions for the drugs last year, but that was up only 6 percent over 2002.
Acid-reducing drugs called proton pump inhibitors are the most common medicines prescribed for GI problems, the analysis said. They are used for acid reflux associated with heartburn, and a related condition called gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD.
Some of these, including Prevacid, were approved for use in children during the study period, which likely also contributed to the prescription surge, said Dr. Benjamin Gold, an Emory University specialist in children's digestive diseases.
Heartburn is a common complication of being overweight and the surge happened during the nation's rising obesity epidemic, said Dr. Renee Jenkins, president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She noted that more than 10 percent of U.S. preschoolers and 30 percent of older children are considered overweight.
Gold said there's no hard data on how many children have acid reflux or GERD. But there's some evidence that the numbers are rising, and obesity could be playing a role, he said.
Heartburn and acid reflux are also extremely common in infants and young children. Many of them outgrow it and drug treatment often isn't needed, so the increase raises concerns about whether these drugs are sometimes being used unnecessarily, said Jenkins, a Howard University pediatrics professor.
While some children do require treatment including prescription drugs, many get better with no treatment or lifestyle changes such as smaller, more frequent meals or cutting down on fatty foods, she said.
Still, parents increasingly are demanding that doctors prescribe medicine for reflux, in part because of direct-to-consumer marketing, Gold said. But also, symptoms including frequent spitting up, irritability and stomach aches are troublesome and many parents prefer a quick fix, he said.
Gold said reflux drugs are generally safe but there is some evidence linking long-term use with an increased risk of infections including pneumonia and bowel inflammation.
To avoid overuse, Jenkins said parents should be willing to try non-drug approaches for treating reflux and other digestive problems in young children.
Mmm, Phytonutrients: New Respect for a Humble Juice
Wall Street JournalKaty McLaughlin
September 25, 2007
For years, many pediatricians, child-rearing books and parenting Web sites have warned parents against apple juice, casting it as "sugar water" with fewer nutrients than other fruit juices. Parents have found this advice hard to swallow, because kids tend to love apple juice.
Now it appears that parents have been vindicated by new research showing that apples contain more beneficial nutrients than previously thought. The new thinking builds on scientists' growing understanding of the importance of phytochemicals (plant chemicals) in fighting chronic disease and promoting health. While much of the research underscores the importance of eating whole fruit, the findings also rehabilitate apple juice -- particularly the unfiltered kind -- as a source of valuable antioxidant compounds.
The new research shows that apples contain many of the same benefits of exotic fruits like pomegranates, Noni fruit and açai that are being marketed as antioxidant powerhouses. Studies at Cornell University's Department of Food Science have found that the unique combination of thousands of phytochemicals in apples -- mainly concentrated in the peel -- retard tumor growth in cell cultures and in animals. In particular, apples are high in triterpenoids, which have "very potent activity in tumor cell growth," says lead researcher Rui Hai Liu.
Dr. Liu believes that apples pack a powerful health benefit because the many phytochemicals work together, and he is currently studying how this potential synergy works. He says each phytochemical is metabolized differently, suggesting that a package can be effective on many different levels in the body.
Another series of studies, conducted over the past five years by researchers at the Center for Cellular Neurobiology and Neurodegeneration Research at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, found that apple juice improved cognitive function in mice. The center is currently studying the juice's effect on Alzheimer's patients, says Tom Shea, the lead researcher.
Both sets of studies received some funding from the U.S. Apple Association and the Apple Products Research and Education Council, trade groups for the industry; the Cornell research also got funds from the American Institute for Cancer Research. Study results were published in peer-reviewed journals.
Doctors and nutrition experts warn that apple juice can still be overdone. For children, it is important to serve pure juice, with no sugar added, and limit total fruit-juice consumption to amounts recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics: four to six ounces per day for children ages 1 through 6, and eight to 12 ounces for 7- to 18-year-olds. The limits are key because the sugars in juice can be hard for some children to digest and can cause gastrointestinal problems.
Nutritionists recommend eating whole fruit, which provides not only the entire peel but about 3.3 grams of fiber per medium-size apple. But apple juice can provide some of the benefits of whole fruit, says Suzanne Farrell, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.
Consumers can get more of a health benefit from juice by drinking unfiltered varieties, sometimes called apple cider. A study published this year by Polish scientists in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture showed that unfiltered, or cloudy, apple juice is 50% to 80% more effective as an antioxidant than clear juice. Cloudy apple juice is made by shredding apples, straining the resulting juice and bottling it. Filtered juice goes through extra-fine sieves that remove more solids, which means it often contains less peel.
Most apple juice, filtered or unfiltered, is pasteurized. (The Food and Drug Administration requires that all fruit juice be pasteurized, or carry a label outlining the risks of unpasteurized juice, which has been linked to illness and a death in the past.) While pasteurization has been shown to reduce the level of some phytonutrients in apple juice, Dr. Liu says it could be possible that others actually become more potent through processing -- much as cooking tomatoes increases their lycopene content. More research is needed to determine pasteurization's exact effect.
Now it appears that parents have been vindicated by new research showing that apples contain more beneficial nutrients than previously thought. The new thinking builds on scientists' growing understanding of the importance of phytochemicals (plant chemicals) in fighting chronic disease and promoting health. While much of the research underscores the importance of eating whole fruit, the findings also rehabilitate apple juice -- particularly the unfiltered kind -- as a source of valuable antioxidant compounds.
The new research shows that apples contain many of the same benefits of exotic fruits like pomegranates, Noni fruit and açai that are being marketed as antioxidant powerhouses. Studies at Cornell University's Department of Food Science have found that the unique combination of thousands of phytochemicals in apples -- mainly concentrated in the peel -- retard tumor growth in cell cultures and in animals. In particular, apples are high in triterpenoids, which have "very potent activity in tumor cell growth," says lead researcher Rui Hai Liu.
Dr. Liu believes that apples pack a powerful health benefit because the many phytochemicals work together, and he is currently studying how this potential synergy works. He says each phytochemical is metabolized differently, suggesting that a package can be effective on many different levels in the body.
Another series of studies, conducted over the past five years by researchers at the Center for Cellular Neurobiology and Neurodegeneration Research at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, found that apple juice improved cognitive function in mice. The center is currently studying the juice's effect on Alzheimer's patients, says Tom Shea, the lead researcher.
Both sets of studies received some funding from the U.S. Apple Association and the Apple Products Research and Education Council, trade groups for the industry; the Cornell research also got funds from the American Institute for Cancer Research. Study results were published in peer-reviewed journals.
Doctors and nutrition experts warn that apple juice can still be overdone. For children, it is important to serve pure juice, with no sugar added, and limit total fruit-juice consumption to amounts recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics: four to six ounces per day for children ages 1 through 6, and eight to 12 ounces for 7- to 18-year-olds. The limits are key because the sugars in juice can be hard for some children to digest and can cause gastrointestinal problems.
Nutritionists recommend eating whole fruit, which provides not only the entire peel but about 3.3 grams of fiber per medium-size apple. But apple juice can provide some of the benefits of whole fruit, says Suzanne Farrell, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.
Consumers can get more of a health benefit from juice by drinking unfiltered varieties, sometimes called apple cider. A study published this year by Polish scientists in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture showed that unfiltered, or cloudy, apple juice is 50% to 80% more effective as an antioxidant than clear juice. Cloudy apple juice is made by shredding apples, straining the resulting juice and bottling it. Filtered juice goes through extra-fine sieves that remove more solids, which means it often contains less peel.
Most apple juice, filtered or unfiltered, is pasteurized. (The Food and Drug Administration requires that all fruit juice be pasteurized, or carry a label outlining the risks of unpasteurized juice, which has been linked to illness and a death in the past.) While pasteurization has been shown to reduce the level of some phytonutrients in apple juice, Dr. Liu says it could be possible that others actually become more potent through processing -- much as cooking tomatoes increases their lycopene content. More research is needed to determine pasteurization's exact effect.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/health/research/06hyper.html?ex=1347508800&en=5a188f2e22742dd8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
This is good: "In response to the study, some pediatricians cautioned that a diet without artificial colors and preservatives might cause other problems for children." What "other problems" are they referring to? Do they mean it might cause problems for doctors and drug companies when the prescriptions for ritalin, adderall, prozac, zoloft and other "necessary" medications will be drastically reduced?
This is good: "In response to the study, some pediatricians cautioned that a diet without artificial colors and preservatives might cause other problems for children." What "other problems" are they referring to? Do they mean it might cause problems for doctors and drug companies when the prescriptions for ritalin, adderall, prozac, zoloft and other "necessary" medications will be drastically reduced?
The ‘Poisonous Cocktail’ of Multiple Drugs
How do the elderly survive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/health/18brod.html?ex=1347768000&en=b266560c94be0680&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Medication errors and the effects of polypharmacy are among the most common causes of serious illnesses, injuring or killing at least 1.5 million people a year with at least $3.5 billion a year in extra hospital costs.
And what about drugs that have been approved by the FDA that can cause serious harm? The Institute of Medicine found the FDA’s system of drug approval and regulation to be in poor condition. IOM filed a report last year in response to criticism over their failure to withdraw Merck’s prescription painkiller Vioxx for over 2 years when it was found to increase the risk of heart attack. Over one million prescriptions sold for Vioxx before the dangers were exposed:
140,000 cases of serious heart disease
55,000 deaths
Why did it take the FDA so long to take the drug off the market? Could it be that the pharmaceutical industry plays a role in the decision making process at the FDA or do they just exert a bit of influence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/health/18brod.html?ex=1347768000&en=b266560c94be0680&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Medication errors and the effects of polypharmacy are among the most common causes of serious illnesses, injuring or killing at least 1.5 million people a year with at least $3.5 billion a year in extra hospital costs.
And what about drugs that have been approved by the FDA that can cause serious harm? The Institute of Medicine found the FDA’s system of drug approval and regulation to be in poor condition. IOM filed a report last year in response to criticism over their failure to withdraw Merck’s prescription painkiller Vioxx for over 2 years when it was found to increase the risk of heart attack. Over one million prescriptions sold for Vioxx before the dangers were exposed:
140,000 cases of serious heart disease
55,000 deaths
Why did it take the FDA so long to take the drug off the market? Could it be that the pharmaceutical industry plays a role in the decision making process at the FDA or do they just exert a bit of influence?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Can we trust scientific studies?
There is a number of questions being raised about the credibility of scientific research findings.
NY Times MAGAZINE
Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?
By GARY TAUBES (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?ex=1347595200&en=ce44128eb0042a76&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Much of what we’re told about diet, lifestyle and disease is based on epidemiologic studies. What if it is just bad science?
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118972683557627104.html
Cited: PLoS Med. 2005 August; 2(8): e124.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722
NY Times MAGAZINE
Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?
By GARY TAUBES (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?ex=1347595200&en=ce44128eb0042a76&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Much of what we’re told about diet, lifestyle and disease is based on epidemiologic studies. What if it is just bad science?
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118972683557627104.html
Cited: PLoS Med. 2005 August; 2(8): e124.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
How Much Fish Should Women Consume?
This just about sums it up. I would go a step further and advise pregnant women and women contemplating pregnancy to just completely avoid consuming tuna fish and reduce the consumption of farm raised fish to avoid unecessary exposure to mercury, PCBs and other contaminants. But they should make sure to get their Omega 3 Fatty Acids preferably by taking a contaminant free fish oil.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/242/popup/index.php?cl=4044852
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/242/popup/index.php?cl=4044852
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Prevention: Older Bones See Benefit of Calcium and Vitamin D
A review of 29 randomized trials including more than 63,000 men and women older than 50 found that the risk for fracture could be reduced 12 percent with calcium and vitamin D supplements. The rate of bone loss was reduced by about 0.5 of 1 percent at the hip and 1.9 percent at the spine. Fracture risk was reduced by nearly one-quarter in studies in which people took their supplements conscientiously.
The review, published in the Aug. 25 issue of The Lancet, found that the effect was best with doses of 1,200 milligrams of calcium and 800 international units of vitamin D. The recommended dietary allowance for calcium in people over 50 is 1,200 milligrams, but the recommendation for vitamin D is 400 international units for people 50 to 70 and 600 for those 71 and older.
Adding vitamin D to calcium did not appear to offer increased protection. But the studies lacked enough figures on high doses of the vitamin. Still, the authors recommend that if vitamin D is to be used as an adjunct, it should be in doses that exceed 800 international units.
“For anyone over 50, especially postmenopausal women, you should see your family doctor and address with him the issue of taking calcium supplementation,” said Dr. Benjamin M. P. Tang, the lead author and a researcher at the University of Western Sydney in Australia. “It’s always better to have overall health assessed before undertaking supplements.”
The review, published in the Aug. 25 issue of The Lancet, found that the effect was best with doses of 1,200 milligrams of calcium and 800 international units of vitamin D. The recommended dietary allowance for calcium in people over 50 is 1,200 milligrams, but the recommendation for vitamin D is 400 international units for people 50 to 70 and 600 for those 71 and older.
Adding vitamin D to calcium did not appear to offer increased protection. But the studies lacked enough figures on high doses of the vitamin. Still, the authors recommend that if vitamin D is to be used as an adjunct, it should be in doses that exceed 800 international units.
“For anyone over 50, especially postmenopausal women, you should see your family doctor and address with him the issue of taking calcium supplementation,” said Dr. Benjamin M. P. Tang, the lead author and a researcher at the University of Western Sydney in Australia. “It’s always better to have overall health assessed before undertaking supplements.”
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
BC email not working
Brooklyn College email has been in and out of service since Saturday September 1st. If you sent me an email during that time and did not get a response, it is likely I did not receive it. If you must reach me please call my office to leave a message or try again at a later date. I don't know when we will be back on line.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Yes, Deep-Fried Oreos, but Not in Trans Fats
What's Next? Deep-fried pepsi? I must be psychic.
Can you imagine? This is front page news in the New York Times!
With all this focus on substituting vegetable oils for trans fats we will begin to see major problems using large quantities of polyunsaturated fats. These fatty acids are very vulnerable to oxidation- becoming rancid, promoting free radical production and increasing risks for cancer and heart disease.
Indianapolis Journal, August 21, 2007
The leaders of the Great Indiana State Fair have banned oils with trans fats from all its fryers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/21fat.html?ex=1345521600&en=5774a18c4423159b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Can you imagine? This is front page news in the New York Times!
With all this focus on substituting vegetable oils for trans fats we will begin to see major problems using large quantities of polyunsaturated fats. These fatty acids are very vulnerable to oxidation- becoming rancid, promoting free radical production and increasing risks for cancer and heart disease.
Indianapolis Journal, August 21, 2007
The leaders of the Great Indiana State Fair have banned oils with trans fats from all its fryers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/21fat.html?ex=1345521600&en=5774a18c4423159b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Sunday, August 12, 2007
More bad news for heartburn drugs
Disturbing studies on two popular heartburn drugs Prilosec and Nexium.
F.D.A. Is Reviewing Heartburn Drugs After Studies Find Possible Heart Risk
August 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/health/10drug.html?ex=1344484800&en=2ab45853ff6e4a8d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
In 2006, researchers found that these drugs also make it more difficult for the body to absorb calcium since they reduce stomach acid.
Study Finds a Link Between Some Heartburn Drugs and Hip Injuries in People Over 50
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/health/27bone.html?ex=157680000&en=ee198b60407599fa&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
F.D.A. Is Reviewing Heartburn Drugs After Studies Find Possible Heart Risk
August 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/health/10drug.html?ex=1344484800&en=2ab45853ff6e4a8d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
In 2006, researchers found that these drugs also make it more difficult for the body to absorb calcium since they reduce stomach acid.
Study Finds a Link Between Some Heartburn Drugs and Hip Injuries in People Over 50
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/health/27bone.html?ex=157680000&en=ee198b60407599fa&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Monsanto Goes GMO-Free - in its Cafeteria
BUT WAIT!!! The FDA says GMO is safe for Americans? So why is GMO foods banned in the cafeteria of Monsanto employees in England?
Ode Magazine, June 2007
Speaks for itself, doesn't it? For more commentary on this news item, click here.
From now on, staff at the British headquarters of biotech giant Monsanto will be eating only non-genetically modified products on their lunch breaks. Foods containing genetically modified soy and corn are no longer available in the company cafeteria. Granada Food Services, which manages the canteen, is said to be concerned about health risks. Monsanto's press department contends the action was not the result of a boycott initiated by worried employees of theU.S. multinational.
Ode Magazine, June 2007
Speaks for itself, doesn't it? For more commentary on this news item, click here.
From now on, staff at the British headquarters of biotech giant Monsanto will be eating only non-genetically modified products on their lunch breaks. Foods containing genetically modified soy and corn are no longer available in the company cafeteria. Granada Food Services, which manages the canteen, is said to be concerned about health risks. Monsanto's press department contends the action was not the result of a boycott initiated by worried employees of theU.S. multinational.
Grocery giant switching to milk free of synthetic hormones
The Associated Press August 6, 2007
ST. LOUIS — One of the nation's largest retail grocery chains has announced plans to switch to milk free of synthetic hormones.
The announcement Wednesday from Kroger Co. is another blow to Monsanto Co., which already had been reducing inventory of its milk production-boosting hormone as Starbucks Coffee Co. and other retailers rejected it.
Monsanto markets the hormone rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the brand name Posilac. The Food and Drug Administration and the company insist the hormone is safe.
Kroger said consumer preference prompted its decision. The retailer began moving toward rBST-free milk this year in Louisiana and Texas stores. By February, Kroger plans to sell only milk certified as free of synthetic hormones at the 2,458 stores it operates in 31 states.
Also see WSJ: Big Grocer's MoveDeals a New Blow To Maker of Posilac
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636276357988890.html
ST. LOUIS — One of the nation's largest retail grocery chains has announced plans to switch to milk free of synthetic hormones.
The announcement Wednesday from Kroger Co. is another blow to Monsanto Co., which already had been reducing inventory of its milk production-boosting hormone as Starbucks Coffee Co. and other retailers rejected it.
Monsanto markets the hormone rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the brand name Posilac. The Food and Drug Administration and the company insist the hormone is safe.
Kroger said consumer preference prompted its decision. The retailer began moving toward rBST-free milk this year in Louisiana and Texas stores. By February, Kroger plans to sell only milk certified as free of synthetic hormones at the 2,458 stores it operates in 31 states.
Also see WSJ: Big Grocer's MoveDeals a New Blow To Maker of Posilac
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636276357988890.html
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Mercury in Tuna
All about mercury in fish and what is safe to eat:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19441470/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19441470/
Monday, July 30, 2007
Blueberries may prevent colon cancer
Pterostilbene, a compound in blueberries, reduced preneoplastic lesions in male rats.
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/350
http://www.newstarget.com/021951.html
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/350
http://www.newstarget.com/021951.html
A compound found in blueberries called pterostilbene reduced pre-cancerous lesions and inhibited genes involved in inflammation. . "This study underscores the need to include more berries in the diet, especially blueberries," said study leader Bandaru Reddy, Ph.D., a professor in the chemical biology department at Rutgers. Although the blueberry compound won't cure colon cancer, it represents a strategy for preventing the disease naturally, said Reddy, who specializes in studying the relationship between nutrition and colon cancer.The researchers studied 18 rats in which colon cancer had been induced in a manner similar to human colon cancer development. All of the animals were placed on a balanced diet, with half of the animals' diets supplemented with pterostilbene. After eight weeks, the rats fed pterostilbene had 57 percent fewer pre-cancerous colon lesions compared to the control group. The researchers also noted that pterostilbene inhibited certain genes involved in inflammation, considered a colon cancer risk factor. Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. It has been linked to a high intake of saturated fats and calories common in Western diets. Pterostilbene may be able to reverse this process, possibly by lowering lipids, Reddy said. Reddy cited a recent study by co-author Agnes Rimando of the Department of Agriculture. Rimando demonstrated that blueberries, particularly their skins, can lower cholesterol when fed to animals. Some thirty different species of blueberries are native to North America. The berries are rich in anthocyanins, widely recognized for their antioxidant qualities. Blueberries are also a good source of ellagic acid, which blocks metabolic pathways that can lead to cancer.
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/350
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/350
GMO Foods Lack Investors
So shall we rely on the FDA to conduct rigorous studies to determine safety? The same regulatory agency who approved aspartame?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal.html?ex=1343534400&en=36b102d7cfdc9974&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal.html?ex=1343534400&en=36b102d7cfdc9974&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Sunday, July 29, 2007
WSJ.com - Should You Sip Your Vitamins Through a Straw?
Soda, juice and other drinks are being fortified with vitamins and minerals, not exactly providing the DRIs and yet one student created a group on Facebook called " I Get All My Vitamins from Propel" a vitamin-enhanced water made by PepsiCo. But what else are in these drinks? They are also loaded with either sucrose, high fructose corn sweeteners and/or artificial sweeteners like sucrolose and aspartame.
http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB118523686276375626-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB118523686276375626-lMyQjAxMDE3ODI1OTIyMzk2Wj.html
http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB118523686276375626-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB118523686276375626-lMyQjAxMDE3ODI1OTIyMzk2Wj.html
Study on the effect of echinachea on the common cold
A review of more than 700 studies has concluded that the herb has a substantial effect in preventing colds and in limiting their duration.
see NYTimes link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/health/24echi.html?ex=1343188800&en=a31563d6ba015c66&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
From the The Lancet: Infectious Diseases
Evaluation of Echinacea for the Prevention and Treatment of the Common Cold: A Meta-Analysis
see NYTimes link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/health/24echi.html?ex=1343188800&en=a31563d6ba015c66&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
From the The Lancet: Infectious Diseases
Evaluation of Echinacea for the Prevention and Treatment of the Common Cold: A Meta-Analysis
Monday, July 23, 2007
Another Benefit Is Seen in Buying Organic Produce
A new study finds that organically grown tomatoes have higher levels of flavonoids, which may protect against cardiovascular disease.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/health/nutrition/17nutr.html?ex=1342324800&en=26f73ba16682498c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/health/nutrition/17nutr.html?ex=1342324800&en=26f73ba16682498c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers' beef consumption during pregnancy
The authors found that men whose mothers ate more than 7 beef meals per week during their pregnancies had sperm concentrations 24.3% lower and a risk of fertility problems three times the normal rate.
Could it be because that the cattle in the US and Canada is still being pumped up with sex hormones? The FDA still allows the use of these hormones while it has been completely banned in Europe since 1988.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/1497
Could it be because that the cattle in the US and Canada is still being pumped up with sex hormones? The FDA still allows the use of these hormones while it has been completely banned in Europe since 1988.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/1497
One Billion People Don't Get Enough Vitamin D
July 19, 2007 08:40:37 PM PST
THURSDAY, July 19 (HealthDay News) -- Vitamin D deficiency is a common problem that can lead to a number of serious health conditions, but it can be prevented, says one expert.
People get vitamin D from sun exposure, diet and supplements. Yet vitamin D deficiency is all too common.
In utero and in childhood, not getting enough vitamin D can cause growth retardation, skeletal deformities and increase the risk of future hip fractures. In adults, too little vitamin D can lead to or exacerbate osteopenia, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, fractures, common cancers, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases.
In the July 19 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Michael Holick, director of the General Clinical Research Center at Boston University School of Medicine and director of the Bone Healthcare Clinic at Boston Medical Center, published an overview of his work on vitamin D.
According to Holick, it has been estimated that one billion people in the world are vitamin D deficient or insufficient.
Without vitamin D, only 10 percent to 15 percent of dietary calcium and about 60 percent of phosphorus is absorbed by the body. This can have a direct effect on bone mineral density.
There is evidence that people who live at higher latitudes -- where the angle of the sun's rays is not sufficient to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D in the skin -- are more likely to develop and die of Hodgkin's lymphoma, colon, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, breast and other cancers. And there is an association between low levels of vitamin D and increased risk for type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
Holick says that the current recommended adequate intake for vitamin D needs to be increased to 800 to 1,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 per day.
"However, one can not obtain these amounts from most dietary sources unless one is eating oily fish frequently. Thus, sensible sun exposure (or UVB radiation) and/or supplements are required to satisfy the body's vitamin D requirement," Holick said in a prepared statement.
Holick added, "The goal of this paper is to make physicians aware of the medical problems associated with vitamin D deficiency. Physicians will then be able to impart this knowledge to their patients so they, too, will know how to recognize, treat and most importantly, maintain adequate levels of this important vitamin."
More information
The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements has more about vitamin D.
THURSDAY, July 19 (HealthDay News) -- Vitamin D deficiency is a common problem that can lead to a number of serious health conditions, but it can be prevented, says one expert.
People get vitamin D from sun exposure, diet and supplements. Yet vitamin D deficiency is all too common.
In utero and in childhood, not getting enough vitamin D can cause growth retardation, skeletal deformities and increase the risk of future hip fractures. In adults, too little vitamin D can lead to or exacerbate osteopenia, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, fractures, common cancers, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases.
In the July 19 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Michael Holick, director of the General Clinical Research Center at Boston University School of Medicine and director of the Bone Healthcare Clinic at Boston Medical Center, published an overview of his work on vitamin D.
According to Holick, it has been estimated that one billion people in the world are vitamin D deficient or insufficient.
Without vitamin D, only 10 percent to 15 percent of dietary calcium and about 60 percent of phosphorus is absorbed by the body. This can have a direct effect on bone mineral density.
There is evidence that people who live at higher latitudes -- where the angle of the sun's rays is not sufficient to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D in the skin -- are more likely to develop and die of Hodgkin's lymphoma, colon, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, breast and other cancers. And there is an association between low levels of vitamin D and increased risk for type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
Holick says that the current recommended adequate intake for vitamin D needs to be increased to 800 to 1,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 per day.
"However, one can not obtain these amounts from most dietary sources unless one is eating oily fish frequently. Thus, sensible sun exposure (or UVB radiation) and/or supplements are required to satisfy the body's vitamin D requirement," Holick said in a prepared statement.
Holick added, "The goal of this paper is to make physicians aware of the medical problems associated with vitamin D deficiency. Physicians will then be able to impart this knowledge to their patients so they, too, will know how to recognize, treat and most importantly, maintain adequate levels of this important vitamin."
More information
The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements has more about vitamin D.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Study Finds Dietary Link to Risk of Eye Disorder
Certain kinds of carbohydrates may play a role in the development of age-related macular degeneration, a new study suggests.
Heavy consumption of foods with a high glycemic index has been implicated in the development of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers, according to background information in the paper, which appears in the July issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/health/17eye.html?ex=1342324800&en=14b9827e71ef7897&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Heavy consumption of foods with a high glycemic index has been implicated in the development of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers, according to background information in the paper, which appears in the July issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/health/17eye.html?ex=1342324800&en=14b9827e71ef7897&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Can meditation extend our lives?
Finding Clues to Aging in the Fraying Tips of Chromosomes
Elizabeth H. Blackburn studies aging and biochemical changes in cells that are related to the diseases of old age and may have a shot at the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
As we age the telomeres found at the tips of our chromosomes shorten and the enzyme that helps to repair the telomeres, telomerase, diminishes. We know that chronic stress has a detrimental effect on health, and researchers have found that the higher the stress levels in the body, the shorter the telomeres and the less telomerase available for repair. Other research suggests that reducing stress may actually increase levels of telomerase. A study is now being conducted to evaluate the effects of meditation on increasing telemerase levels. This has tremendous implications for the benefits of meditation and other mind/body approaches in reducing stress related diseases and diseases of aging.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/science/03conv.html?ex=1341201600&en=9b27725a20b0f884&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Elizabeth H. Blackburn studies aging and biochemical changes in cells that are related to the diseases of old age and may have a shot at the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
As we age the telomeres found at the tips of our chromosomes shorten and the enzyme that helps to repair the telomeres, telomerase, diminishes. We know that chronic stress has a detrimental effect on health, and researchers have found that the higher the stress levels in the body, the shorter the telomeres and the less telomerase available for repair. Other research suggests that reducing stress may actually increase levels of telomerase. A study is now being conducted to evaluate the effects of meditation on increasing telemerase levels. This has tremendous implications for the benefits of meditation and other mind/body approaches in reducing stress related diseases and diseases of aging.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/science/03conv.html?ex=1341201600&en=9b27725a20b0f884&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
More about chocolate and blood pressure
A Bite of Chocolate a Day May Keep Blood Pressure at Bay
TUESDAY, July 3 (HealthDay News) -- Chocolate lovers can rejoice again: More research has found that the antioxidants in dark chocolate can help slightly lower blood pressure.
But the good news comes with a caveat -- the chocolate portions have to be limited to 30 calories a day, which works out to slightly more than one Hershey's Kiss.
Such small amounts of the flavanol-rich cocoa found in dark chocolate "may be a promising behavioral approach to lower blood pressure in individuals with above-optimal blood pressure," the German researchers reported in their study.
Unlimited quantities of chocolate won't work, they added, because "the potential blood pressure reduction contributed by the flavanols could be offset by the high sugar, fat and calorie intake with the cocoa products."
The current study, published in the July 4 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 44 adults between the ages of 56 and 73 who either had blood pressure levels in the upper range of normal (considered prehypertension) or they had stage 1 high blood pressure.
None of the study volunteers had other risk factors for heart disease, which means they weren't overweight, didn't smoke, didn't have diabetes or high cholesterol or kidney disease. Additionally, the study participants didn't take additional vitamins or supplements, and the only cocoa-containing products they consumed during the study period were those provided by the researchers.
For 18 weeks, half of the group was asked to consume 30 calories a day of dark chocolate containing polyphenols (a type of antioxidant), while the other half was given 30 calories a day of white chocolate, which has nearly all of the same ingredients as the dark chocolate but no polyphenols.
By the end of the study, the average systolic blood pressure (the top number, which measures the force of blood coming from the heart) dropped by 2.9 mm Hg and the average diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number, which measures the force of blood returning to the heart) dropped by 1.9 mm Hg in the dark chocolate group. There was no change in blood pressure for the white chocolate group.
"Although the magnitude of the BP reduction was small, the effects are clinically noteworthy. On a population basis, it has been estimated that a 3-mm/Hg reduction in systolic BP would reduce the relative risk of stroke mortality by 8 percent, of coronary artery disease mortality by 5 percent, and of all-cause mortality by 4 percent," the authors reported in a prepared statement.
The research was led by Dr. Dirk Taubert, of University Hospital of Cologne, who has done previous research on the effects of cocoa on high blood pressure.
The authors suspect that dark chocolate may increase levels of nitric oxide, a compound that helps to relax and open the blood vessels.
An American nutrition expert found the results promising.
"If you're someone with marginal high blood pressure, and if you eat chocolate anyway, switching to a small piece of dark chocolate daily may give you some benefit. It lowered the upper number about 3 points," said Jo Ann Carson, a professor of clinical nutrition at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
Carson recommended looking for dark chocolate that has cocoa content higher than 50 percent. She also pointed out that people who are sensitive to caffeine's effects should be careful about consuming dark chocolate, because the caffeine content is higher than in milk chocolate.
"Dark chocolate doesn't give you as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, but if you start eating it in the evening, you might notice the caffeine," she said.
Additionally, if you have underlying health problems, this study's results probably don't apply to you, according to nutritionist Angela Kurtz, from New York University Medical Center.
"This study was designed to look at the effects of chocolate in individuals who didn't have severe hypertension or other medical problems, and they weren't overweight. If you're diabetic or you have kidney disease, you cannot add chocolate to your diet," she said.
"Moderation is the key. As long as you can have good control of your eating habits, and you can balance chocolate consumption with physical activity to offset the calories, then you can enjoy it," Kurtz added.
But she also cautioned that "chocolate is not a magic bullet but is one little tool for people who are relatively healthy."
More information
The American Heart Association details a previous study on the benefits of dark chocolate for blood pressure.
TUESDAY, July 3 (HealthDay News) -- Chocolate lovers can rejoice again: More research has found that the antioxidants in dark chocolate can help slightly lower blood pressure.
But the good news comes with a caveat -- the chocolate portions have to be limited to 30 calories a day, which works out to slightly more than one Hershey's Kiss.
Such small amounts of the flavanol-rich cocoa found in dark chocolate "may be a promising behavioral approach to lower blood pressure in individuals with above-optimal blood pressure," the German researchers reported in their study.
Unlimited quantities of chocolate won't work, they added, because "the potential blood pressure reduction contributed by the flavanols could be offset by the high sugar, fat and calorie intake with the cocoa products."
The current study, published in the July 4 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 44 adults between the ages of 56 and 73 who either had blood pressure levels in the upper range of normal (considered prehypertension) or they had stage 1 high blood pressure.
None of the study volunteers had other risk factors for heart disease, which means they weren't overweight, didn't smoke, didn't have diabetes or high cholesterol or kidney disease. Additionally, the study participants didn't take additional vitamins or supplements, and the only cocoa-containing products they consumed during the study period were those provided by the researchers.
For 18 weeks, half of the group was asked to consume 30 calories a day of dark chocolate containing polyphenols (a type of antioxidant), while the other half was given 30 calories a day of white chocolate, which has nearly all of the same ingredients as the dark chocolate but no polyphenols.
By the end of the study, the average systolic blood pressure (the top number, which measures the force of blood coming from the heart) dropped by 2.9 mm Hg and the average diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number, which measures the force of blood returning to the heart) dropped by 1.9 mm Hg in the dark chocolate group. There was no change in blood pressure for the white chocolate group.
"Although the magnitude of the BP reduction was small, the effects are clinically noteworthy. On a population basis, it has been estimated that a 3-mm/Hg reduction in systolic BP would reduce the relative risk of stroke mortality by 8 percent, of coronary artery disease mortality by 5 percent, and of all-cause mortality by 4 percent," the authors reported in a prepared statement.
The research was led by Dr. Dirk Taubert, of University Hospital of Cologne, who has done previous research on the effects of cocoa on high blood pressure.
The authors suspect that dark chocolate may increase levels of nitric oxide, a compound that helps to relax and open the blood vessels.
An American nutrition expert found the results promising.
"If you're someone with marginal high blood pressure, and if you eat chocolate anyway, switching to a small piece of dark chocolate daily may give you some benefit. It lowered the upper number about 3 points," said Jo Ann Carson, a professor of clinical nutrition at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
Carson recommended looking for dark chocolate that has cocoa content higher than 50 percent. She also pointed out that people who are sensitive to caffeine's effects should be careful about consuming dark chocolate, because the caffeine content is higher than in milk chocolate.
"Dark chocolate doesn't give you as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, but if you start eating it in the evening, you might notice the caffeine," she said.
Additionally, if you have underlying health problems, this study's results probably don't apply to you, according to nutritionist Angela Kurtz, from New York University Medical Center.
"This study was designed to look at the effects of chocolate in individuals who didn't have severe hypertension or other medical problems, and they weren't overweight. If you're diabetic or you have kidney disease, you cannot add chocolate to your diet," she said.
"Moderation is the key. As long as you can have good control of your eating habits, and you can balance chocolate consumption with physical activity to offset the calories, then you can enjoy it," Kurtz added.
But she also cautioned that "chocolate is not a magic bullet but is one little tool for people who are relatively healthy."
More information
The American Heart Association details a previous study on the benefits of dark chocolate for blood pressure.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Welcome to the BC CAM Blog
Welcome to the Brooklyn College CAM nutrition blog. This blog has been created for Health and Nutrition Science majors who have taken HNS 73, Recent Trends in Nutrition, to keep abreast of all the latest info on nutrition and complementary and integrative medicine. You will have the opportunity to post your opinions as well. So let's begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
