MILK IS GOOD FOR YOU

It would be surprising if it were not. The study below shows that old ladies who drink lots of milk and eat lots of cheese get less breast cancer. As usual, the reasons are speculative. Pinpointing vitamin D and calcium is just a pretense to knowledge. The effects were in any case tiny -- shown only by comparing extreme quintiles. So no general need to start making dairy farmers rich but those who drink no milk at all might do well to start drinking some

Intakes of Calcium and Vitamin D and Breast Cancer Risk in Women

By Jennifer Lin et al.

Background: Animal data suggest the potential anticarcinogenic effects of calcium and vitamin D on breast cancer development. However, epidemiologic data relating calcium and vitamin D levels to breast cancer have been inconclusive.

Methods: We prospectively evaluated total calcium and vitamin D intake in relation to breast cancer incidence among 10 578 premenopausal and 20 909 postmenopausal women 45 years or older who were free of cancer and cardiovascular disease at baseline in the Women's Health Study. Baseline dietary intake was assessed by a food frequency questionnaire. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

Results: During an average of 10 years of follow-up, 276 premenopausal and 743 postmenopausal women had a confirmed diagnosis of incident invasive breast cancer. Higher intakes of total calcium and vitamin D were moderately associated with a lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer; the hazard ratios in the group with the highest relative to the lowest quintile of intake were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.92) for calcium (P = .04 for trend) and 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.00) for vitamin D intake (P = .07 for trend). The inverse association with both nutrients was also present for large or poorly differentiated breast tumors among premenopausal women (P = 04 for trend). By contrast, intakes of both nutrients were not inversely associated with the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.

Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that higher intakes of calcium and vitamin D may be associated with a lower risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer. The likely apparent protection in premenopausal women may be more pronounced for more aggressive breast tumors.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1050-1059





WORKERS DRINK LESS ALCOHOL IF THEIR BOSSES DISCOURAGE IT

Earth-shattering conclusion? That's what the paper below tells us. Don't ask me why it was thought to be worth publishing

Drinking Social Norms and Drinking Behaviours: a Multilevel Analysis of 137 Workgroups in 16 Worksites

By Tonatiuh Barrientos-Gutierrez et al.

Objectives: Previous studies on worksite drinking norms showed individually perceived norms were associated with drinking behaviours. This study examines whether restrictive drinking social norms shared by workgroup membership are associated with decreased heavy drinking, frequent drinking and drinking at work at the worker level.

Methods: The sample included 5,338 workers with complete data nested in 137 supervisory workgroups from 16 U.S. worksites. Multilevel models were fitted to examine the association between workgroup drinking norms and heavy drinking, frequent drinking and drinking at work.

Results: Multivariate adjusted models showed participants working in workgroups in the most discouraging drinking norms quartile were 45% less likely to be heavy drinkers, 54% less likely to be frequent drinkers and 69% less likely to drink at work than their counterparts in the most encouraging quartile.

Conclusions: Strong associations between work-group level restrictive drinking social norms and drinking outcomes suggest public health efforts at reducing drinking and alcohol related injuries, illnesses and diseases should target social interventions at worksites.

Occup Environ Med., 24 May 2007

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

A COSMETIC THAT WORKS?

Rather to my surprise, I can't see much wrong with the study immediately below. Nice to see some double-blind evidence instead of epidemiological garbage. What was shown is that rubbing vitamin A cream into yourself puffs up your skin and so reduces wrinkles

Improvement of Naturally Aged Skin With Vitamin A (Retinol)

By Reza Kafi et al.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of topical retinol (vitamin A) in improving the clinical signs of naturally aged skin.

Design: Randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, left and right arm comparison study.

Setting: Academic referral center.

Patients: The study population comprised 36 elderly subjects (mean age, 87 years), residing in 2 senior citizen facilities.

Intervention: Topical 0.4% retinol lotion or its vehicle was applied at each visit by study personnel to either the right or the left arm, up to 3 times a week for 24 weeks.

Main Outcome Measures: Clinical assessment using a semiquantitative scale (0, none; 9, most severe) and biochemical measurements from skin biopsy specimens obtained from treated areas.

Results: After 24 weeks, an intent-to-treat analysis using the last-observation-carried-forward method revealed that there were significant differences between retinol-treated and vehicle-treated skin for changes in fine wrinkling scores (-1.64 [95% CI, -2.06 to -1.22] vs -0.08 [95% CI, -0.17 to 0.01]; P<.001). As measured in a subgroup, retinol treatment significantly increased glycosaminoglycan expression (P = .02 [n = 6]) and procollagen I immunostaining (P = .049 [n = 4]) compared with vehicle.

Conclusions: Topical retinol improves fine wrinkles associated with natural aging. Significant induction of glycosaminoglycan, which is known to retain substantial water, and increased collagen production are most likely responsible for wrinkle effacement. With greater skin matrix synthesis, retinol-treated aged skin is more likely to withstand skin injury and ulcer formation along with improved appearance.

Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:606-612





DO SPROUTS STOP CANCER?

There is a whole industry telling us how good for us Brussels sprouts are -- which is entirely predictable from the fact that they taste bad. So after the sound study above we need a laugh, so let us have a look at some epidemiology about sprouts.

The big hole in epidemiological studies is that you can never be certain what caused an observed difference. Just suggest a reasonable alternative causal chain to that advanced in the original study and the original study proves nothing. So I will just suggest my old favourite -- the one that most medical researchers zealously ignore -- the role of social class.

The basic question that the study raises is: Why would healthier people say they eat more sprouts? My guess is because economically more successful people are better at saying the "right" things. So the study has really only separated out the dummies from the smarties -- and it is an old and general truth that dumber and poorer people have worse health. This study is another instance of it. It proves nothing about actually eating sprouts!

The abstract is pretty heavy going even after I have paragraphed it so I start below with a media summary and then give the abstract:

BRUSSEL sprouts may not be a dinner-party favourite, but they could protect you against bladder cancer. In the International Journal of Cancer this week, researchers report that so-called "cruciferous" vegetables, such as brussel sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, turnips, cabbage, radish and watercress help to prevent cancer because they are rich in chemicals called isothiocyanates (ITCs). The study included 697 patients who had recently been diagnosed with bladder cancer and 708 healthy controls. Participants completed a dietary survey to assess their intake of ITCs. Bladder cancer patients had a significantly lower daily intake of ITCs than the cancer-free controls. Overall, high ITC intake was associated with a 29 per cent lower risk of bladder cancer. This anti-cancer effect was stronger in men, in patients aged 64 or older, and in smokers.

Source

Dietary isothiocyanates, GSTM1, GSTT1, NAT2 polymorphisms and bladder cancer risk

By Hua Zhao et al.

Isothiocyanates (ITCs) are nonnutrient compounds in cruciferous vegetables with anticarcinogenic properties. ITCs down-regulate cytochrome P-450 biotransformation enzyme levels, activate Phase II detoxifying enzymes and induce apoptosis. On the other hand, ITCs also serve as a substrate for GSTs. Experimental evidences suggest that ITCs have anticarcinogenic effect on bladder cancer. Therefore, we evaluated dietary intake of ITCs, GSTM1, GSTT1 and NAT2 polymorphisms, and bladder cancer risk in a case-control study.

There were 697 newly diagnosed bladder cancer cases identified from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and 708 healthy controls matched to cases by age (~5), gender and ethnicity. Participants underwent an in-person interview, in which epidemiologic and food frequency questionnaires were administered to collect demographic and dietary intake data.

Median ITC intake per day was statistically significantly lower in cases than in controls (0.23 vs. 0.33, p < 0.001). High ITC intake was associated with 29% decreased risk of bladder cancer [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.57, 0.89]. The protective effect was more evident in older individuals ( 64-years-old), men, ever smokers and heavy smokers in stratified analysis. Compared with NAT2 rapid acetylator, NAT2 slow acetylator had an increased risk of bladder cancer in Caucasians (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.02, 1.69). There was no main effect associated with the GSTM1 or GSTT1 genotypes. The protective effect of ITCs against bladder cancer was not modified by GSTM1, GSTT1 or NAT2 genotypes. This is the first epidemiological report that ITCs from cruciferous vegetable consumption protect against bladder cancer.

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Widespread influence of genes confirmed

An unprecedented selection of genes that contribute to common diseases has been identified by the biggest survey of the human genome. The discovery promises to transform treatment and diagnosis of everyday health problems. The study, which screened DNA samples from 17,000 British volunteers, has identified 24 genetic variants that influence six common conditions that together affect tens of millions of people. Half the genes have effects that are new to science, and the findings open new approaches to research into type 1 and type 2 diabetes, heart disease, Crohn's disease, bipolar disorder and rheumatoid arthritis. Genetic variants that may affect a seventh disorder, high blood pressure, have also been highlighted, though these links have yet to be confirmed.

The discovery by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium is a landmark in humanity's ability to understand our genetic code, illustrating how variations in DNA make different people susceptible to diseases. As the seven studied conditions and the genes that influence them are common, the results should help scientists to design therapies and screening techniques from which millions will benefit.

Many of the new genes lie in areas of the genome that were not previously thought to be related to the diseases in question. As all the variants have small effects, which predispose to disorders rather than inevitably causing them, the study should also reveal environmen-tal factors that matter as well. "We have known for a long time that genes play a large role in common human diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and many psychiatric disorders," said Professor Peter Donnelly, of the University of Oxford, who led the research team. "What we have not known is which parts of the genome are involved." "Many of the most common diseases are very complex, part nature and nurture, with genes interacting with our environment and lifestyles. By identifying the genes underlying these conditions, our study should enable scientists to understand better how disease occurs, which people are most at risk and, in time, produce more effective, more personalised treatments."

In the study, published in the journal Nature, more than 200 scientists took DNA samples from 2,000 individuals with each of the seven diseases and from 3,000 healthy control subjects. The study compared 500,000 genetic markers to identify which were more common in people with disease. This technique, whole genome association, can find genetic variants that have small effects. The new variants are carried by between 5 per cent and 40 per cent of the population. Most raise the risk of developing a disease by up to 40 per cent if one copy is inherited, and by double this in people with two copies.

Details of several genes identified by the consortium have already been published, including the FTO gene that influences obesity and a cluster that affects type 2 diabetes.

The most exciting results concern type 1 diabetes and Crohn's disease, a bowel disorder. Specialists in each disease will be watching progress in the others in search of clues. "If there is a breakthrough in Crohn's disease, we will be looking at it in type 1 diabetes," said Professor John Todd, of the University of Cambridge, who led the type 1 diabetes arm of the research.

Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, said: "This research shows that it is possible to analyse human variation in health and disease on an enormous scale."

Hope for six conditions:

Bipolar disorder: Psychiatric illness that affects 100 million people worldwide. One new genetic area reliably linked. Many other genes likely to have a small effect on risk

Coronary heart diseaseL Britain's biggest killer, causing 105,000 deaths annually. Genetic area on chromosome 9 doubles risk in the 20 per cent of people who have two copies, increases risk by 50 per cent in the 50 per cent of people with one copy of the variant

Crohn's disease: Inflammatory bowel disorder that affects up to 60,000 people in Britain. Three new genes discovered that raise the risk by 40 per cent. The study confirms six other previously identified genes are also linked

Rheumatoid arthritis: Auto-immune condition affecting 387,000 people in Britain. One genetic region confirmed to have impact on women

Type 1 diabetes: Insulin-dependent form of the condition that usually begins in childhood, affecting 350,000 people in Britain. Four genes found that have an effect, raising risk by up to 40 per cent when people have one copy. Effect of three other genes confirmed

Type 2 diabetes: Adult-onset form of the condition, affecting 1.9 million people in Britain. Three new genes that affect risk identified, including the FTO gene that contributes to the risk of obesity

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

SMOKING AND ASTHMA

I am extremely dubious about the study below. I accept that the incidence of asthma has risen in recent decades and I accept that a probable cause of that is insufficient challenge to the immune system in early childhood. What I do NOT accept is that smoking has increased in recent years. Everything I have read tells me that decades of health warnings have gradually had an effect and that smoking has DECREASED in recent decades. The article below asks us to believe the opposite of that. I think it is just another politically correct attack on smoking. How the author jimmied her data to get her desired conclusion I think I know (I suspect that she ignored recent decades and just looked at the century-wide trend) but I can't be bothered wasting my time by looking into it. This is really epidemiology at its worst. Smoking MAY aggravate asthma -- I expect it does -- but this study does not prove it

Environmental tobacco smoke and the epidemic of asthma in children: the role of cigarette use

By Renee D. Goodwin

Abstract

Background: Asthma is the most common chronic disease affecting youth worldwide. The prevalence of asthma has increased at least 3-fold during the past several decades. The reason for this increase remains unknown.

Objective: To examine one possible factor that may be affecting the increase in prevalence of asthma among youth.

Methods: Data on the incidence of asthma among youth were aggregated using the National Health Interview Survey (sample of 4,500 children) and were compared on an ecologic level with data on cigarette consumption in the United States from 1900 to 2003 from the American Lung Association.

Results: Our results suggest a parallel increase in the rates of cigarette use among adults and asthma in children. These findings show an increase in cigarette use during the past 4 birth cohorts, with subsequent leveling off at a population level with a progressively more prominent increase in cigarette use among women in the United States.

Conclusion: We present one possible factor that may be contributing to the epidemic of childhood asthma. We hypothesize that (1) there has been a marked increase in smoking during the past century, (2) this increase in smoking has resulted in a substantial increase in exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among children, and (3) increased exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has contributed to the increase in childhood asthma. Data on trends in cigarette use among adults and asthma prevalence among children during the past century are presented as ecological evidence in support of this hypothesis. Future studies will be needed to confirm these findings with community-level analyses in a variety of geographic regions.

Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 2007, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 447 - 454





The blind to see again?

A routine operation to restore the sight of people with the most common cause of blindness will be available within a decade, scientists believe. A team of British doctors said that a groundbreaking stem-cell treatment for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which affects a quarter of people over 60 to some degree, should become widely available. The condition is responsible for the blindness of 14 million Europeans. The doctors are recruiting patients for the first clinical trials, scheduled to take place within five years. The team said that, after earlier studies, they were confident of success.

AMD is caused by the failure of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells - the support cells under the retina that process light. The macula - the central area of the retina - then degenerates and gradually knocks out central vision. The doctors from University College London, Moorfields Eye Hospital in London and the University of Sheffield have already repaired the vision of a handful of patients with AMD using cells from the patients' own eyes. The London Project to Cure AMD, which was launched yesterday with 4 million pounds funding from an anonymous American donor, intends to carry out the same operation using retinal cells grown in the laboratory from embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are immature, dormant cells with the ability to turn into different cell types. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from early-stage embryos the size of a pinhead.

There are two types of AMD: "wet" and "dry". While much progress has been made in tackling wet AMD, which is characterised by leaking blood vessels and accounts for 10 per cent of cases, no treatment is available for dry AMD. It is believed that the new development will offer hope even to patients with the dry form.

Lyndon da Cruz, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon at Moorfields Eye Hospital, has carried out an operation in a few patients with wet AMD to take cells from the healthy periphery of the eye and transplant them into the affected area. The procedures have been successful but are associated with complications, take more than two hours and require two operations. To make it quicker, easier and more widely available researchers at the University of Sheffield have grown RPE cells from embryonic stem-cell lines. The hope is that this can be processed into a layer that can be injected into the patient's eye during a simple 45-minute operation. Tests of the laboratory-grown RPE cells in rats with AMD showed that they restored vision.

Professor Pete Coffey, the project director from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London, said that although they had grown RPE cells successfully they now needed to make sure that the cells were safe enough to be used in humans. "Using stem cells - which are far more adaptable - can only improve success of what has already been achieved and in addition establish this as a global therapy. "The goal is within five years to have a cohort of patients to put the cells into," said Professor Coffey, whose team is preparing the laboratory-derived cells for transplant. Given that AMD could affect up to one third of the population by 2070, with the majority suffering from dry AMD, the benefits could be substantial. "The potential to create a treatment strategy for this condition is critical and may have a major impact on vision loss," Mr da Cruz said.

He added that if in ten years the proposed 4mm by 6mm transplant patch of stem cells was not in global use, something major would have failed in the research. "We have the RPE, we have the evidence that doing this can restore vision. [We are dealing with] practicality issues rather than a big unknown."

More operations are also planned with patients' own cells in those suffering from dry AMD to test the procedure's effectiveness. Barbara McLaughlan, from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, said that taking the research from the laboratory into human trials was exciting. "This is particularly good news for the 150,000 people in the UK with dry AMD which currently has no treatment," she said. "However, even if all goes well with this project, potential treatment being made available on the NHS is still five to seven years away."

Last year The Times revealed that thousands of patients whose sight could be saved by the new drug Macugen were being denied treatment on the NHS on the ground of cost. Later an insurance company offered to cover the cost of drugs for older patients for an annual premium equal to their age in years.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

COFFEE IS GOOD FOR GOUT!

My day, like that of many millions of other people, starts with a cup of hot, sweet coffee. The caffeine in it lifts the mood as it sweeps away early-morning inertia. The sugar taken with the coffee is an admirable way of correcting any hypo-glycaemia. I repeat the dose when I reach my office. Is the small luxury of drinking coffee evidence of an addiction to caffeine, popularly supposed to be a noxious chemical and regularly attacked in the health and beauty columns of magazines? Or is it, as I prefer to believe, regularly but falsely maligned, and not only harmless but, when taken in moderate amounts, beneficial to someone's health?

Most doctors have been brought up to believe, as the health and beauty correspondents do, that the world would be a better place without coffee drinking. Doctors mutter darkly that coffee could be responsible for an increased risk of a fast heart rate, other cardiac arrhythmias, high blood pressure and heart attacks. They even hint that it could cause cancers, including cancer of the pancreas.

Few of those who preach against coffee have studied the evidence. If they did, they might realise that many of the stories that have circulated about coffee since it was discovered 1,300 years ago in the Middle East are myths. Recent research has suggested that for most people it is clinically harmless, and for many medically helpful. The latest benefit attributed to coffee is its ability to reduce the levels of uric acids in the blood, cutting the number of attacks of gout that periodically afflict some people. This conclusion resulted from work at the Harvard School of Public Health, the Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Arthritis Research Centre at the University of British Columbia.

The evidence that research teams have collected and analysed on the benefits of coffee for gout sufferers has been published in the latest issue of Arthritis and Rheumatism. The conclusion was that drinking four or more cups of coffee a day dramatically reduces the risk of gout in men.

[Drama is in the eye of the beholder. Only 1.6% of the sample got gout so for most people drinking coffee or not is irrelevant. It should also be noted that decaffeinated coffee was recorded as having similar effects. What it means that most gout sufferers did not drink much coffee is however entirely speculative. Perhaps it just means that they preferred drinking port!]

The study was based on the analysis of people drawn from the 50,000 health professionals whose medical condition has been carefully followed for the past 12 years.

Other university work includes a smaller study of 757 patients who had been found to be suffering from gout. Researchers assessed the risk of having attacks of acute gout and related this to the amount of coffee drunk. The likelihood of an attack of gout was 40 per cent lower in those patients who drank four to five cups of coffee, but reduced by a dramatic 59 per cent for those who drank six or more cups daily.

Nearly all the myths surrounding coffee that have terrified its drinkers over the years have been exploded. For example, a former patient of mine told me this week that his father had forbidden him to have coffee as it caused liver cirrhosis. An old belief, but absolute nonsense. Six years ago Dr Arthur Klatsky, a well-known American research physician, and other investigators showed that coffee, but no other caffeine-based drink, tended to delay the onset of alcoholic and nonalcoholic cirrhosis.

Eight years ago research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that coffee drinking reduced the incidence of gallstones and gall bladder disease. More recently, it has also been shown to lessen the likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes.

Harvard studies have cleared coffee of the frequent charge that it increases the chances of strokes and heart attacks. Now there is convincing evidence that it certainly has no adverse effect on the heart attack or stroke rate, but shows a slight benefit. However, the advantage of taking it as a cardio-protective drug is so small that it is safer to describe its influence as neutral.

Nor has there ever been any evidence that coffee causes cancer. Its influence on rectal cancer has been debated for many years but the current opinion is if it has one, it is likely to be beneficial.

Is there such a thing as too much coffee? It is probably safer to take coffee and all other pharmacologically active substances in moderation, but three or four cups are unlikely to hurt anyone. As it increases alertness and sensitivity, it would be as well to avoid it altogether if you have insomnia, or a heart rate that behaves erratically when stimulated in other ways. Pregnant women should also take it in strict moderation. Everyone else should enjoy their early-morning coffee. It's not a vice but a pleasure. As they drink it, they should remember that it even reduces the suicide rate in women.

Source




The flavonol crusade continues

The wonders of flavonols seem to be most promoted in connection with chocolate but double-blind studies have not borne out the epidemiological enthusiasms -- e.g. Farouque HM et al. "Acute and chronic effects of flavanol-rich cocoa on vascular function in subjects with coronary artery disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study." Clinical Science, 2006 . Pesky, isn't it?

Researchers may have the answer: a dietary supplement containing a compound found in common foods like grapes, tea, cocoa, and blueberries, coupled with a little exercise. In a study conducted in mice, animals fed a diet enriched with the compound, known as epicatechin, showed signs of better brain functioning than mice that ate a typical diet. When the supplement was combined with regular exercise, the advantages went up significantly.

The investigators believe epicatechin, which is a type of chemical known as flavonols, helps the brain work better by promoting blood vessel growth in a part of the brain responsible for learning and memory. It may also play a role in developing mature nerve cells. When epicatechin is combined with exercise, it also appears to favorably impact genes important in protecting learning and memory, and dampen down the effect of genes responsible for inflammatory and neurodegeneration.

The researchers plan more studies to confirm the beneficial effects of epicatechin. "A logical next step will be to study the effects of epicatechin on memory and brain blood flow in aged animals," study author Henriette van Praag, Ph.D., of the Salk Institute, was quoted as saying, "and then humans, combined with mild exercise." She and her fellow investigators write in the paper, "An active lifestyle combined with a flavonol-rich diet may prevent aging-related cognitive disorders and/or neurodegenerative disease."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

WHO HAS FAT KIDS?

Some really weird results here, which I will discuss at the end. Media summary below followed by journal abstract:

Researchers have found the children of single mothers are more likely to grow up to be overweight or obese. The findings in the Medical Journal of Australia suggest that things such as family conflict or negative events do not have much of an impact on a child's weight.

But Lisa Gibson from the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research says the health and relationship status of their mother does. "We found that having an overweight mother or coming from a single [parent] family were the most important predictors of a child being overweight or obese," she said. Dr Gibson says it is possible single mothers do not have the time or resources to feed their children nutritious foods, or to give them exercise and recreational facilities. She says when it comes to children with an overweight mother, the link is probably a mixture of genetics and a shared environment.

Source

Journal abstract follows:

The role of family and maternal factors in childhood obesity

By Lisa Y Gibson et al.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between a child's weight and a broad range of family and maternal factors.

Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional data from a population-based prospective study, collected between January 2004 and December 2005, for 329 children aged 6-13 years (192 healthy weight, 97 overweight and 40 obese) and their mothers (n = 265) recruited from a paediatric hospital endocrinology department and eight randomly selected primary schools in Perth, Western Australia.

Main outcome measures: Height, weight and body mass index (BMI) of children and mothers; demographic information; maternal depression, anxiety, stress and self-esteem; general family functioning; parenting style; and negative life events.

Results: In a multilevel model, maternal BMI and family structure (single-parent v two-parent families) were the only significant predictors of child BMI z scores.

Conclusion: Childhood obesity is not associated with adverse maternal or family characteristics such as maternal depression, negative life events, poor general family functioning or ineffective parenting style. However, having an overweight mother and a single-parent (single-mother) family increases the likelihood of a child being overweight or obese.

A journal abstract is supposed to be a strictly factual summary of the full article. In this case the abstract represents the conclusions of the article but not its results. Box 2 of the full article showed that it was OVERWHELMINGLY single mothers who had fat kids. But the really odd thing is that having a fat mother had virtually NO effect on how fat the kid was. The multivariate analysis did not alter that much. What the multivariate analyses DID bring out, however, was that mothers who had never attended primary school (aborigines, most likely) were highly likely to have fat kids.

That fat mothers did not tend to have fat kids flies in the face of all previous research, however, so I think we must completely dismiss this article as based on either corrupted data, flawed analysis or hopelessly unrepresentative sampling. I am greatly surprised that it was published.

If I had been asked to referee the article I would have asked for at least the zero-order correlation matrix plus some crosstabs so that readers would have SOME hope of figuring out what was going on -- but asking me to referee ANY medical article would require a courageous editor -- given the frequency with which I detect nonsense





The stupidity of a British medical journal

The editor of "The Medical Journal of Australia" comments below on an editorial in a typically politicized British medical journal: "Australia: the politics of fear and neglect". Lancet 2007; 369: 1320. The Australian editor is too diplomatic to mention it but a journal from the home of the ever-decaying "National Health Service" lecturing Australia on its health system really is hilarious. See Matthew 7:3-5

From the first days of European settlement, our colonies were bombarded with bureaucratic edicts from the Motherland, until Federation and Australia's emergence as a proud and independent nation put an end to our dependency. But the Motherland's long-lost role was recently revived in an editorial in The Lancet entitled Australia: the politics of fear and neglect. Short, simplistic and sensational, it proclaimed that Australia's progressive and inclusive culture was burdened by a dark underbelly of political conservatism.

It further asserted that the Australian Government had effectively silenced dissent in the scientific community, and propagated a political view "that those who spoke up for indigenous health were simply `establishing politically and morally correct credentials'". To top it off, the Prime Minister was portrayed as ruthlessly exploiting Australia's strong undercurrent of political conservatism.

And The Lancet's solution? Gratuitous advice to oust the conservatives at this year's federal election and usher in a new era of "enlightenment" for Australian health and medical science!

Significantly, the editorial was silent on the concerted efforts of dedicated Australian researchers and doctors working to improve Indigenous health, and the fearless advocacy of this goal by various professional bodies and this Journal. Despite The Lancet's assertion of "silenced" scientists, its editorial was strangely silent on the conservative government's unprecedented investment in health and medical research.

Following The Lancet's edict, a commentary in The Australian warned scientific and medical journals not to engage in politics+ and put their public standing, independence and integrity at risk. As long as there remain unresolved issues in the delivery of health care to all Australians, requiring political attention and action, the MJA will never heed this injunction. But, in pursuit of this goal, the recent edict from London is hardly an example to emulate.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Antagonism to a life-prolonging product

First they came for the pregnant women, and I did not speak out because I was not a pregnant woman . . . After Friday's dishonest attempt to tell pregnant women not to drink a drop comes news of more alcophobic idiocy. From next year, all drinks are to carry health warnings - "voluntarily", but if anybody refuses to do as they're told, the Government will make it the law.

Labels will spell out how many units of alcohol the drink contains, official guidelines about how much (ie, little) to drink, and "advice" such as "Drink responsibly" and "Know your limits". Caroline Flint, the Public Health Minister, says they are "about helping people to make the right choice". Which, of course, is always not to have another drink.

If Ms Flint seriously believes that those on a binge will study labels to "calculate at a glance whether they are staying within sensible drinking guildelines", she should get out more (preferably not in any pub I might use). But these seemingly pointless moves do matter, as signs of the creeping advance of what is called "the new politics of behaviour". As with all Newspeak, "public health" here means the opposite - policing our personal habits.

Many women have understandably objected to the Department of Health's revised advice which, unsupported by any medical evidence, treats them as hormone slaves who cannot be trusted to have a drink without falling down the slippery slope and drowning their unborn in booze. But pregnant tipplers are only the, er, thin edge of the wedge, singled out as a vulnerable and health-conscious group on whom to experiment.

The guidelines about how many alcohol units the rest of us can drink are similarly unscientific and arbitrary. The advice on those labels will be that men should drink no more than 3-4 units a day (one pint of strong lager or best bitter = 3), women no more than 2-3 units (a small glass of wine = 2). I often drink more than that and, according to the BBC, so do more than seven million others. The authorities want to teach all seven million a lesson. We are all pregnant now.

Ms Flint generously says: "There is no reason why you or I should not be able to enjoy alcohol safely and healthily" (Doesn't that sound like fun?). But no doubt they would like to expand the guidleines to cover many of the errant millions: "Avoid alcohol if pregnant; if aged 18-25; if standing in a crowded pub; if watching football, on holiday, or after midnight; if wearing short skirts or tattoos; if you've already had some."

Time, ladies and gents, to tell the alcocops where to stick their labels. "Drink responsibly"? For adults that should mean "as you choose, so long as you take responsibility". "Know your limits"? That is one piece of advice the public health zealots would do well to swallow themselves.

Source





When Totalitarianism Comes to America, It Will Come Wrapped in a Whole-Grain, Low-Sodium, Decaffeinated, Re-Usable, Non-Carbon-Footprint Wrapper

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is sponsoring more food totalitarianism for the purpose of suitably herding the kiddies in their daily food round-ups in public schools. An Institute of Medicine committee - set up at the behest of congress - is proposing strict standards for all foods available in the government's daily internment camps.

Ayn Rand or George Orwell couldn't have fictionalized it any better. The Committee for Food Control, as we'll call it, is proposing that food and beverages be individually categorized into defined "tiers." The committee will collectively determine what food and beverages belong in either Tier 1 or Tier 2. Each tier of food and beverage items will come with varying availability according to the time of day and/or the child's grade level.

Tier 1 snacks contain no more than 200 calories per portion, and entr‚e items that could be sold … la carte do not exceed calorie limits on comparable school lunch program items. Tier 1 items have no more than 200 milligrams of sodium per snack portion or 480 milligrams per … la carte entr‚e item. They contain no more than 35 percent of total calories from fat; less than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fats; no trans fats; and no caffeine except in naturally occurring trace amounts. They also contain no more than 35 percent of calories from total sugars; exceptions to this guideline are flavored milk, which may contain up to 22 grams of sugars per 8-ounce serving, and yogurt, which should not exceed 30 grams of sugars per 8-ounce portion.

Got that? This means that yogurt with the inexcusable "fruit-on-the-bottom" will likely exceed the sugar limit and thus be tossed into the "less healthy" Tier 2. In fact, we're told that Tier 1 foods include stuff like carrot sticks, whole-grain, low-sugar cereals, whole fruit, skim or soy milk, and raisins. There would be a cap on juices because of their calorie-laden, sugary nature - 8 ounces for high school kids and 4 ounces for middle and elementary school students.

Tier 2 foods are the borderline sinful items - stuff like low-sodium whole-wheat crackers, caffeine-free diet soda, and seltzer water. These food items can only be made available after school hours and must conform to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Sports drinks, like Powerade or Gatorade, may only be ingested when the child has participated in "one or more hours of vigorous activity." That one ought to make for some great union jobs in providing for oversight and enforcement.

These standards will be applied to food and beverages sold on school grounds, including vending machines; … la carte cafeteria items; and "other foods and drinks that are available outside of - and therefore compete with - federally reimbursable school meals, which already must conform to some nutrition guidelines."

The criticism here is obvious. For starters, there is no room in a free society for lifestyle decrees of this nature - the government has overstepped its boundaries when it extends its coercive powers into the realm of the family and strives to regulate individual human eating habits. An unconstitutional action, yes. But even more so, it's preposterous to think that any group of people can be empowered to determine what kind of nutritional substance (or lack thereof) you can or can't put into your child's body. This proposed esophageal terrorism on the part of big government - under the pretext of making us all healthier - is indeed invasive and controlling enough to justify the term "food totalitarianism."

In reality, in order to enjoy good health and clean eating individuals do not need to categorize all foods as strictly "bad" or "good." They need to balance the healthy foods with the less healthy and moderate their overall diet so that, in total, their bodies are receiving a net advantage of solid, nutritional foods. Self-moderation on the part of the individual eventually brings on more knowledge, better decision-making, and cleaner eating habits. Taking the road from being a sloppy eater who subsists on fast food, sweet stuff, and highly-processed foods toward a life of clean eating is typically not a forced sprint; it is a voluntary walk along the path of knowledge when one strives for personal betterment through enhanced nutritional habits.

Another critique - that complements the comments above - is the government's "one-size-fits-all" proposal. The notion that what is good or bad for one person is necessarily the same for all others is collectivist in its foundation as well as scientifically unsound. Our bodies are so supremely individualistic that no group of us will achieve the same results from a given form of exercise or food program. As for children, there are many determining factors for diet type. A child's natural body type, growth pattern, metabolism, and level of activity will determine what he should be eating and when he should eat it. A centrally-planned food program with calorie ceilings, rigorously-defined good and bad foods, and shared time management techniques is both physically and mentally unhealthy. Envision the negativity that children would experience when eating becomes forced and authoritarian, and falls under yet another set of harsh rulemaking.

Furthermore, there is no totalitarian decree that can effectively centralize the health and food diets of millions of children via random commands from one gigantic central planning commission - made up of establishment doctors, government agencies, health special interests, busybody citizens, and corporatist food interests - headquartered in Washington D.C. In effect, the establishment of twinkie control and calorie constraints is oppressive and inhumane, and surely, it works against the very foundations of freedom that we should savor and preserve.

True, bad eating habits will lead to grim consequences later in life, if not in the here-and-now. However, one's body is one's own to take care of or not. When an obese person - or any individual for that matter - makes the choice to consume a Big Mac or deep-fried, processed corn dogs as opposed to non-fat yogurt and broccoli, they are choosing food consumption as the way to immediate happiness instead of thinking long-term and putting off instant gratification for future health benefits. Done continuously, it's a bad choice, but it is a choice. Poor choices like these are ripe for criticism and open to persuasion from onlookers, but they can never be taken away from individuals if we value self-ownership and the notion of negative liberty - the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property - as espoused by classical liberal philosophers.

Looking through the proposal, I guess there's one thing for which we can be "grateful" concerning this latest episode of obesity scaremongering: "The standards apply only to competitive items sold or available on campuses, not to federal school meals or to bagged lunches or snacks that children bring to school."

Then again, before you consider this latest oppressive scheme for food control to be only a problem of food served in the public schools, consider the ramp-up in food totalitarianism that we have been witnessing all around us. One thing for certain is that government central planners are always predictable: given the opportunity, they will collectively assimilate all people everywhere into one big kettle and dole out equitable slices of compulsory recommendations that are backed up by the supremacy of law. This is so that we can all share in the same perceived benefits in the same equal amounts as identified by them - the chosen caretakers. Never mind that what may be beneficial to one man may be detrimental to another man. Blessed be thy caretakers. They are spinning Orwell in his grave.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

When eating "right" goes too far

EXTREME healthy eating is becoming such an obsessive ritual that it is risking young women's health and spawning a new eating disorder - orthorexia. A term coined by international doctors in the past decade, orthorexia is when sufferers - particularly adolescent girls - become hooked on healthy and "pure" eating and put serious and damaging restrictions on their diets.

One leading Sydney expert, who said she was seeing an increasing number of teenage girls with the condition, said orthorexia could have short and long-term effects on bone quality, mood and immunity. The Children's Hospital at Westmead dietician Susie Burrell told The Saturday Daily Telegraph the signs of orthorexia were hallmarks of a serious eating disorder to come. "These are usually girls who only want things very healthy, they are very fat-phobic, they cook the meals themselves, they are very fussy about what they will and won't eat," she said. "There is a focus on keeping lean and thin and looking good and it's often smart girls who are doing well; they get very good grades, they're a good daughter and it goes to the next extreme."

Sufferers of the modern food affliction tend to control their meal portions to the extent where they avoid processed foods entirely and eat very small amounts and sometimes exercise obsessively. Unlike clinically diagnosed eating disorders such as anorexia, orthorexia is characterised by sufferers who have a fixation with food, rather than with weight loss.

Anthea Durrell, 14, said she saw schoolgirls in her year who became fanatical about what they ate and said messages about obesity could be misconstrued. "Lots of celebrities these days are really skinny, like Nicole Richie, and they have such a bad impact on what girls see as beautiful," she said. "It gives them messages that it is really bad to be even on the edge of being chubby.

Eating Disorders Foundation chief executive Amanda Jordan said current messages in regard to childhood obesity and increased weight gain could be wrongly interpreted in young, image-obsessed women. "You get really valuable messages that are getting interpreted in a way that actually works against a person's health," she said. Ms Jordan said orthorexia could become an obsession cycle of self-starvation which then escalated into life-threatening eating disorders. "There is a clear trend in people thinking there is a right way to eat and people going too far in following those guidelines," Ms Jordan said. "It's good to be working against having an obese population, particularly in children but the message over time is getting confused with the message that all fat is bad. "The tendency is sometimes to go overboard and I am really worried it will lead to an increase in eating disorders."

Source





Ex-FDA researcher: Many dietary supplements tainted

The $22 billion dietary supplement industry operates with minimal oversight from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, despite a history of suspect quality and safety. About one in four dietary supplements tested don't meet quality or safety standards, according to former FDA research scientist William Obermeyer, a co- founder of the independent testing firm, ConsumerLab.com, which tests thousands of supplement products.

Some are tainted with pesticides, salmonella, glass, bacteria or heavy metals such as lead and cadmium. Others fail for a variety of reasons, including a lack of ingredients, improper ingredients, failure to break down properly and mislabeling.

Because manufacturers seek low-cost ingredients, Obermeyer said it's a safe bet that some of the tainted products contain ingredients from China, which typically are cheaper.

Under a 1994 federal law, most dietary supplements -- vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids and other substances such as enzymes and metabolites, which are taken orally and intended to augment the diet -- don't need to be registered or approved by the FDA. FDA inspections have found supplement manufacturing plants with pest infestations, defective equipment and pipes that leak liquid onto products. But after more than 10 years of development, the FDA still hasn't set minimum standards for the safe manufacture of dietary supplements. Instead, manufacturers set their own standards.

Because supplements are classified as food, they aren't regulated by the same strict guidelines that govern drugs. Supplement manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products are safe and include all the ingredients listed on the package label. And like food manufacturers, supplement makers don't have to record, review or provide the FDA with reported injuries or illnesses that result from their products. Reporting is voluntary.

If safety, health or mislabeling problems develop, the FDA can restrict or remove a supplement from the market. Drugs, on the other hand, must be deemed safe and effective before they can be prescribed or sold.

China's emergence as a leading ingredient supplier for the supplement industry has raised new fears since a recent pet food scare was traced to adulterated Chinese wheat flour. Earlier this year, a shipment of bacteria-contaminated vitamin A from China also was flagged before it could be added to infant formula in Europe. And the FDA will start testing toothpaste imported from China after a poisonous ingredient used in antifreeze was found in Chinese-made toothpaste in Panama. Record requirements allow officials to track ingredients to the country and plant where they were manufactured.

Supplement companies are urged to buy quality ingredients from reputable firms, whatever country they're in, said Judy Blatman, spokeswoman for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which represents supplement manufacturers and suppliers. "Quality has to be the No. 1 priority for ingredient suppliers and manufacturers," Blatman said. "We need to have high-quality products in order to maintain consumer confidence in them." That confidence was shaken in 2004, when the FDA banned the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra, which caused tremors and heart palpitations and was cited as a factor in numerous deaths.

In February 1997, the FDA proposed mandatory rules outlining "good manufacturing practices" for the safe production of dietary supplements. But more than 10 years later, those rules still haven't been finalized.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

New theory about Black Death

There can be various causes of "buboes" (swollen lymph nodes) so the new theory is plausible

For centuries, rats and fleas have been fingered as the culprits responsible for the Black Death, the medieval plague that killed as many as two thirds of Europe’s population. But historians studying 14th-century court records from Dorset believe they may have uncovered evidence that exonerates them. The parchment records, contained in a recently-discovered archive, reveal that an estimated 50 per cent of the 2,000 people living in Gillingham died within four months of the Black Death reaching the town in October 1348.

The deaths are recorded in land transfers lodged with the manorial court which – unusually for the period – sat every three weeks, giving a clear picture of who had died and when. The records show that 190 of the 300 tenants holding land in the town died during the winter of 1348-49, at a time when a form of bubonic plague spread by rat fleas would have been dormant. Experts now believe that the Black Death is more likely to have been a viral infection, similar to haemorrhagic fever or ebola, that spread from person to person.

The records came to light after they were donated to the Dorset History Centre by a firm of solicitors in whose office attic they had been stored. The historian Dr Susan Scott, of the University of Liverpool, said the documents backed up her theory that the outbreak was not caused by bubonic plague. She said: “Bubonic plague relies on fleas breeding and it is too cold during winter in Britain for this to happen.”

Source





Doubts over obesity pill claims

Some of the health benefits claimed for a new weight loss drug may not be justified, say experts. Rimonabant, launched in the UK last summer, has been shown to aid weight loss by reducing appetite. But a Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin paper suggests claims that it also has an additional positive impact on the body's chemistry have not been proved. However, the manufacturers said the findings had proved consistent across all trials.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) is currently appraising the drug for use on the NHS. Manufacturers Sanofi-Aventis claim it has been shown to cut levels of potentially harmful cholesterol, fats and sugars in the blood to a greater extent than would be expected by weight loss alone. In theory, this should help to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

But the DTB paper argued that research had failed to prove that any positive impact on body chemistry was solely down to taking the drug. It was possible, for instance, that it was down to advice given to patients taking the drug to lead a more healthy lifestyle, and take more exercise. The paper also highlighted the fact that in trials rimonabant had no effect on levels of "bad" cholesterol, and little or no effect on blood pressure.

It said the drug had not been effectively compared with other, cheaper weight loss drugs, such as Xenical (orlistat) and Reductil (sibutramine), which are both approved for NHS use. The DTB paper stated: "Orlistat is the drug for obesity for which there is the most evidence for efficacy and safety to date, and we have previously concluded that it is a reasonable option for obese patients where diet and exercise and/or behavioural measures alone have failed."

However, Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of the charity Weight Concern, said research did suggest that rimonabant had an extra effect on body chemistry over and above that expected through losing weight alone. He said this might be a direct result of the unusual way it works on fat cells. Dr Campbell said: "It's a new drug and we need more time to become fully aware of all its effects. "It is more expensive than other available drugs but should be considered when the benefits of weight loss for the patient can justify the investment."

A spokeswoman for Sanofi-Aventis said the effects on body chemistry had been consistently seen in all the trials of rimonabant. Further trials were underway to examine the effects of the drug further. She said there was no doubt that adopting a healthier lifestyle could have a positive impact, but in trials people given a dummy drug also improved their general lifestyle without the same level of effect seen in those taking rimonabant.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) rejected a complaint last year that an advert for rimonabant had exaggerated its benefits. A spokesman for the MHRA said it would examine the latest claims.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************