Teens can fight “fatso” gene with exercise

Exercise?? But anything more energetic than walking has largely been banned from schools as unsafe. Kids run around all the time if you let them

One hour of moderate to vigorous exercise a day can help teens beat the effects of a common obesity-related gene with the nickname "fatso," according to a new European study.

The message for adolescents is to get moving, said lead author Jonatan Ruiz of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. "Be active in your way," Ruiz said. "Activities such as playing sports are just fine and enough."

The study, released Monday, appears in the April edition of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

The research supports U.S. guidelines that tell children and teenagers to get an hour or more of physical activity daily, most of it aerobic activity such as running, jumping rope, swimming, dancing and bicycling.

Scientists are finding that lifestyle and genes cause obesity, and they're just learning how much diet and exercise can offset the inherited risk.

One gene involved with obesity, the FTO gene, packs on the pounds when it shows up in a variant form. Adults who carry two copies of the gene variant - about 1 in 6 people - weigh on average 7 pounds more than people who don't.

In the new study, 752 teenagers wore monitoring devices for a week during waking hours to measure their physical activity.

Exercising an hour or more daily made a big difference for the teens who were genetically predisposed to obesity. Their waist measurements, body-mass-index scores and body fat were the same, on average, as the other teenagers with regular genes.

But the teens with the gene variant had more body fat, bigger waists and higher BMI if they got less than an hour of exercise daily. The results were similar for boys and girls.

SOURCE





The lying obesity propaganda never stops

There is not even epidemiological evidence behind the assertions below. The epidemiology shows that it is people of MIDDLING weight, not slim people, who live longest

OBESITY has overtaken smoking as the leading cause of premature death and illness in Australia, as experts say the federal government is woefully unprepared for a tsunami of weight-related health problems.

Fat was rapidly becoming the biggest public health challenge Australia had to face, said the president of the Public Health Association of Australia, Mike Daube, who is also the deputy chairman of the government's National Preventative Health Taskforce.

New figures from Western Australia, which are expected to be echoed across Australia, show the contribution of excessive weight to ill health has more than doubled in just six years [And how do they judge that? It's just opinion. You can bet that the death certificates concerned say things like "myocardial infarction", not "obesity"], and by 2006 accounted for 8.7 per cent of all disease. Tobacco's role has fallen by a quarter, and now causes 6.5 per cent of illness and early death.

"The obesity crisis is not on its way - it is already here," Professor Daube said. "What we have done about obesity is not working. This issue needs concentrated and determined action."

He said that while the federal government had done more than its predecessors there was an urgent need for the issue to be high on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments meeting in Canberra on April 19.

"Our political leaders should be considering not only improvements to the hospital system but how to stop literally hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths," he said.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has signalled he will use the COAG meeting to push the states to accept his hospital reform plan. Critics have said it might not work well for complex diseases such as those caused by obesity, which is linked to increased rates of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

More than 60 per cent of Australian adults and one in four children are overweight or obese. In 2008 the cost of obesity in NSW alone was $19 billion, according to NSW Health.

Ian Olver, chairman of the Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance, criticised the government for its lack of action on the taskforce's recommendations last year. Professor Olver said governments had acted strongly against tobacco but had failed to tackle obesity adequately. "They have access to evidence-based policy and they need to act on it," he said.

The leader of the study, Victoria Hoad, said she expected the rest of the country to reflect the findings in Western Australia. "Smoking traditionally has been the leading preventable cause of disease but people have been getting fatter and quitting smoking," she said.

Timothy Gill, from the Boden Institute at Sydney University, said people in their 30s and 40s did not understand they faced health problems caused by obesity that in the past were more commonly seen in people in their 60s and 70s. "There has been a degree of normalisation of the problems," he said. It took 50 years to lower the rates of tobacco use in Australia but there was not that time left to deal with obesity, he said.

A spokesman for the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said that the government was investing $872 million in preventive health.

SOURCE

The made-up "five a day" rule bites the dust

No effect on cancer found but vege-eaters get less heart disease. Or do they? The effect on heart disease is just speculation, as the last sentence below acknowledges

Official guidelines recommend at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day in order to be healthy but new research has found that this may not have a substantial effect on cancer.

For every extra two portions consumed the risk of cancer reduced by just three per cent, the research conducted by a team at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in New York suggested.

It comes after other experts said thousands of cases of cancer could be avoided if Britons drank less alcohol and maintained a healthy weight.

More than 400,000 people were involved in the respected EPIC trial from across Europe, including Britain and the results are published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Average, across the whole group, was around 335 grams of fruit and vegetables a day, or around four portions. This varied greatly between the countries with people in Sweden eating the least and those in Spain eating the most.

Experts said that although the link between fruit and vegetables and cancer incidence was weak there was strong evidence that the diet reduced the risk of heart disease and should still be recommended.

Dr Walter Willett, of the Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston, America, said: "In summary, the findings from the EPIC cohort add further evidence that a broad effort to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables will not have a major effect on cancer incidence.

"Such efforts are still worthwhile because they will reduce risks of cardiovascular disease, and a small benefit for cancer remains possible. Research should focus more sharply on specific fruits and vegetables and their constituents and on earlier periods of life."

He said those eating five portions a day had a 30 per cent lower risk of cardiovascular disease than those eating an average of 1.5 portions a day.

Meanwhile other experts said even a modest link between fruit and vegetable consumption on cancer risk, if applied to the whole population still meant thousands of cancers could be avoided with a healthier diet.

Dr Rachel Thompson, Science Programme Manager for World Cancer Research Fund, said: “This study suggests that if we all ate an extra two portions of fruits and vegetables a day, about 2.5 per cent of cancers could be prevented.

“Given the fact that there are many types of cancer where there is no evidence eating fruits and vegetables affects risk, it is not surprising that the overall percentage is quite low. But for the UK, this works out as about 7,000 cases a year, which is a significant number.

“If you look at specific types of cancer, including mouth, pharynx and larynx, stomach and oesophagus, the evidence shows that eating plenty of fruits and vegetables probably reduces risk.

“Even if fruits and vegetables did not directly reduce risk, it would still be a good idea to eat them because people who eat plenty of fruits and vegetables are less likely to become overweight. Scientists now say that, after not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight is the most important thing you can do for cancer prevention.”

Yinka Ebo, health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “This study, the largest on diet and cancer to date, shows that eating lots of fruits and vegetables can slightly reduce your cancer risk.

“It’s still a good idea to eat your five-a-day but remember that fruits and vegetables are pieces in a much larger lifestyle jigsaw. There are many things we can do to lower our chances of developing cancer such as not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, cutting down on alcohol, eating a healthy balanced diet, being physically active and staying safe in the sun.”

The researchers found that high fruit and vegetable consumption was more beneficial for those who drank heavily.

The authors added that the results may be skewed because people who ate lots of fruit and vegetables were also likely to be healthier overall, with fewer smokers, lower alcohol consumption and greater physical activity levels.

Source





Study explains near-death experiences

People who have "near-death experiences," such as flashing lights, feelings of peace and joy and divine encounters before they pull back from the brink may simply have raised levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood, a study suggests.

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by between 11 and 23 per cent of survivors of heart attacks, according to previous research. But what causes NDEs is strongly debated. Some pin the mechanisms on physical or psychological reasons, while others see a transcendental force.

Researchers in Slovenia, reporting on Thursday in a peer-reviewed journal, Critical Care, investigated 52 consecutive cases of heart attacks in three large hospitals. The patients' average age was 53 years. Forty-two of them were men.

Eleven patients had NDEs, but there was no common link between these cases in terms of age, sex, level of education, religious belief, fear of death, time to recovery or the drugs that were administered to resuscitate them.

Instead, a common association was high levels of CO2 in the blood and, to a lesser degree, of potassium.

Further work is needed to confirm the findings among a larger sample of patients, say the authors, led by Zalika Klemenc-Ketis of the University of Maribor.

Having an NDE can be a life-changing experience, so understanding its causes is important for heart-attack survivors, they say.

SOURCE

"Gender-bending" chemicals 'triggering early puberty in girls and putting them at risk of diabetes and cancer'?

Not Phthalates and Bisphenol again! This is just the usual scare-mongering based on the weakest possible evidence and some very long chains of inference. It has been going on for years but no amount of negative evidence seems to get believers to give up. They plough on until they find SOMETHING!

Amusing that some of the "evil" substances concerned apparently delayed puberty while others accelerated it! So no effect overall? As an epidemiological study, it's all just speculation anyway. Note the "believe" statements below. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese but that does not make it so

Journal abstract here. The differences observed were between extreme quintiles -- meaning that the researchers ignored the majority of their data in order to find their weak correlations!

Apparently a substantial part of the sample was black ghetto kids. Combining black and white kids in one sample is absurd as blacks mature earlier. Maybe all the study shows is that inner-city blacks have more exposure to the demonized chemicals. Despite the praise for it below, this study has more holes than a colander! It's amazing what passes for science these days.

Gender-bending chemicals used in food cans, shower curtains and toys may be triggering early puberty in girls - and putting them at greater risk of cancer and diabetes, researchers say.

A study has found evidence that three classes of hormone-mimicking chemicals disrupt the bodies of girls approaching adolescence. Although the association is 'weak', the scientists say it raises serious questions about the causes of early puberty.

The average age of puberty in girls - ten years and three months - has fallen by more than a year in a single generation. Doctors say improved diet and higher body weights of children is mostly to blame.

But some researchers believe environmental chemicals that mimic the sex hormone oestrogen could also be a factor. The latest study found that exposure to three chemical classes - phthalates, phenols and phytoestrogens - can 'disrupt the timing of pubertal development' in young girls.

Phthalates are banned in cosmetics in Europe, but are allowed in the U.S. Phenols include the widely used chemical Bisphenol A - which is used in the lining of food cans and shatter-proof baby bottles. Phytoestrogens are naturally occurring chemicals found in soya, bread, cereals and nuts.

In tests, girls with the highest concentrations of some of the substances in their bodies tended to develop breasts and pubic hair earlier than those with the lowest levels.

'Research has shown that early pubertal development in girls can have adverse social and medical effects, including cancer and diabetes later in life,' said Dr Mary Wolff, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

'Our research shows a connection between chemicals that girls are exposed to on a daily basis and either delayed or early development. While more research is needed, these data are an important first step in evaluating the impact of these common environmental agents in putting girls at risk.'

The findings come from a study of 1,151 American girls. The girls were aged between six and eight at the start of the study and were monitored for up to two years.

The scientists-found that all three chemicals were widely detectable in the girls' urine samples.

High exposure to some of the hormone-mimicking chemicals was 'weakly associated' with early signs of puberty. Exposure to others appeared to delay puberty. The strongest links were seen with phthalates and phytoestrogens.

'We believe that there are certain periods of vulnerability in the development of the mammary gland, and exposure to these chemicals may influence breast cancer risk in adulthood,' Dr Wolff said.

Around a third of the girls in the study were showing signs of early puberty.

Hormone-disrupting chemicals can interfere with the body by mimicking oestrogen - or by blocking it. Their impact depends on the dose and their location in the body.

British puberty expert Professor Fran Ebling, of Nottingham University, said: 'Most of the associations in this study were weak and we know that weight is a much better predictor of early puberty. But this is a very well-designed study.

'There really is evidence that the average age girls are starting to develop breasts and pubic hair is getting lower so there's a lot of controversy as to why this is.

'Most of the evidence points at body, but there's a faint suspicion that environmental chemicals could be playing a role too.'

SOURCE






Fast food can be good for you

Some years ago an anti-corporate Lefty spent a month at McDonald's consuming vast amounts of food in a very short period of time—far more than the average person would possibly consume. He then produced a film about the evils of McDonald's, as opposed to the evils of moronic, self-inflicted harm. After this documentary became something of a fad on the Left other people went on McDonalds' diets but with different results.

Soso Whaley decided she would try the same thing but with different rules. For two months she only ate at McDonald's. Instead of eating more than average she paid attention to the calories, eating between 1,800 and 2,000 calories per day. Where the film producer, eating extra meals per day, gained 25 pounds in a month, Whaley lost 18 pounds during her experiment. She ate every item on the menu at least once and didn't restrict herself to salads either. Chris Coleson, of Virginia, at two meals a day a McDonald's over a period of some months and lost 86 lbs. Merab Morgan went on a McDonald's only diet for 90 days and lost 37 lbs.

I tend to eat two meals a day and only do three when I have long days at conferences. And, according to various calorie calculators I can have somewhere around 2,000 to 2,100 calories per day without gaining weight. Based on that it would mean I could have two Big Mac meals per day at McDonald's without gaining weight. The average Big Mac is 540 calories, the average large fries is 500. I drink diet Coke at McDonald's which is zero calories. So two Big Mac meals per day would put right in the zone where I'm supposed to be. I could do worse with a salad actually, depending on the dressing I use. A Caesar salad with chicken and salad dressing could be 560 calories, or 20 more than a Big Mac.

Similarly we have seen people eat at Subway and lose weight and eat at Taco Bell and lose weight.

My schedule is such that during the day I tend to stop for fast food but usually make dinner at home in the evening. About nine months ago I weighed myself and was a bit shocked. I hadn't done so for some time and discovered that I was about 30 lbs heavier than I had assumed. So I started paying attention to calories. I still do fast food every day but I changed how I eat.

My work week is pretty much the same. I like variety so I have five different restaurants I frequent for lunch. I have roast beef sandwich with regular chips and a side salad one day per week. I have a salad bar one day per week. I eat a foot-long sub at Subway one day per week, and eat four tacos at Taco Bell one day per week. And I repeat one of these on another day. Every couple of weeks I even have a large Big Mac meal.

Everywhere I went to only diet drinks with zero calories, which actually helps a lot. I also started drinking non-fat milk at dinner. I cut out doughnuts, except as a rare treat, stopped having bowls of ice cream and chocolate bars. Again, all of this I will eat sometimes. And the result, without any extra exercise, has the loss of between 37 lbs and 38 lbs. Yet I eat at one of those evil "fast food" establishment almost daily.

What all this tells me is that the anti-obesity crusaders, like most prohibitionists, have it wrong. Food doesn't cause weight gain, people do. We have entire campaigns blaming inanimate objects for what people do. Porn doesn't rape. Guns don't kill. Big Macs don't cause weight gain. All these things are what people do. Thinking, rational human beings, make decisions as to how they will use inanimate objects and some make bad decisions. But the fault doesn't lie with the object acted upon but with the human making the choice.

You can lose weight at fast food restaurants if you choose to do so. And you can grow morbidly obese eating only the "healthiest" of foods.

The salad bar I frequent once a week attracts some very obese individuals. And it is something to watch them eat and eat and eat. I get a large plate of salad and add carrots, cucumbers and olives and use the low-fat French dressing. I take two small bowls of grapes. I have three garlic bread sticks and two pieces of a blueberry bread along with diet Coke. That is my meal there.

The beached whales however, frequently end up with two or three plates full of selections from the salad bar. They might consume four or five whole eggs along with copious amounts of breads, pizza slices and the like. Their plates tend to be piled high with foods. I would estimate that some of these people consume more calories in that one meal than they should consume during the full day. Of course, one excuse the obese use to justify their self-destruction is that they are "eating healthy" while ignoring the amounts of food they shovel into their mouth at each meal.

When my weight shot up it was my fault. And when I realized what I had done I changed how I acted and that changed the results. I take responsibility for it.

People are responsibile agents. Objects are not. You can lose weight on fast food diets and you can gain weight on them as well. To blame McDonald's for your obesity, to blame porn if you are a rapist, or to blame guns for crime, is just so much bullshit. Rape is the responsibility of the rapists, not a magazine. The crime is caused by the person holding the gun, not the gun. And it is the piggy shoveling copious quantities into his gut who is responsible for his obesity—not the food that is on his plate.

And now, for me, I'm going to head out for a late lunch at whatever fast food place I can find that is open.

Source

Pill-poppers nightmare: All those vitamins might be BAD for you

Do multivitamin pills raise the risk of breast cancer? Tumour threat up by 20 per cent, says study -- but a 20% relative increase is tiny in overall terms and is incapable of supporting causal inferences

Women who take a daily multivitamin pill to ward off illness may actually be increasing their risk of breast cancer, according to a study. Researchers found middle-aged and older women who regularly took supplements were almost 20 per cent more likely to develop a tumour.

They stressed the findings did not prove vitamin pills were to blame for an increase in cancer cases, as it is possible women may be compensating for an unhealthy lifestyle that puts them at increased risk.

However, the experts warned the results were worrying and called for in-depth studies to determine whether or not multivitamins are safe. They believe supplements may trigger tumour growth by increasing the density of breast tissue, a known risk factor for cancer. Studies suggest taking supplements containing vitamins and minerals may increase breast tissue by more than 5 per cent.

It is also possible folic acid found in multivitamin pills could be a factor, as studies suggest high doses may promote tumour growth.

Experts from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, tracked more than 35,000 women aged between 49 and 83 over a ten-year period. They found those who regularly took multivitamins were 19 per cent more likely to have developed a breast tumour.

Even when researchers took account of whether the women smoked, took much exercise, or had a family history of the disease - all strong risk factors - they still found a significant link with multivitamin use. They told the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: 'These results suggest multivitamin use is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. This is of concern and merits further investigation.'

Researchers stressed that, on an individual basis, the risks to women remain small and the vast majority of vitamin users will not develop cancer.

In the study, women did not say what brands of vitamins they took - they simply reported whether or not they took them.

The study could also be flawed as it relies on women to recall whether they took the pills in the past. Studies that ask people to describe past behaviour are vulnerable to a well-known statistical phenomenon called recall bias.

It is estimated nearly a quarter of all UK adults take antioxidant supplements or multivitamins on a regular basis. The market for supplements is worth £500million a year. But in 2007 a study of nearly 300,000 men found those taking supplements more than once a day were 32 per cent more likely to develop an aggressive form of prostate cancer.

And a 2008 Copenhagen University investigation found high doses of vitamin A, vitamin E and beta-carotene appeared to increase the chances of an early death.

Every year around 40,000 women in Britain are diagnosed with breast cancer, the equivalent of more than 100 a day. A woman has a one in nine chance of developing the disease at some point in her life.

Kat Arney, Cancer Research UK's science information manager, said last night: 'Like several other recent studies, this research adds to the evidence that multivitamins may not actually be beneficial for your health. 'Most can get all the nutrients they need from a healthy balanced diet, rich in fruit and vegetables.'

Dr Gilbert Ross, medical director for the American Council on Science and Health, said: 'If you really want to take multivitamins, this study is no reason to stop. Of course, on the other hand, I would advise anyone concerned that there is no good health or medical reason to take multivitamin supplements, except in rare cases of malnutrition.'

The Health Supplements Information Service, funded by supplements manufacturers, said: 'This does not provide any proof that multivitamins are linked to breast cancer.

'Given the low intakes of micronutrients in women across the UK and the continuing lack of improvement in our national dietary patterns, a multivitamin can make an important contribution to the vitamin and mineral intake in this population group.'

SOURCE







For those struggling to lose weight there is a perfect excuse... it is all down to genes

A rare recognition of reality

Slavishly following a diet but not losing any weight? Blame your genes. Research suggests that how well you do on a particular weight loss plan may be down to your DNA. Some women, it seems, are genetically programmed to do better on high-fat diets and others will succeed if they cut down on the fry-ups and stock up on carbs.

The finding, by researchers from Stanford University in the U.S., could help explain why the fat-rich Atkins diet suits some slimmers, while others swear by reducing fat, Rosemary Conley-style. It could also go some way to explaining why some women simply can't lose weight, no matter how closely they follow the instructions.

The researchers took mouth swabs from more than 100 overweight women who had tried various diets and analysed their DNA for five genes linked to how the body uses fat and carbohydrate.

Those whose diet had matched their genotype, or genetic make-up, lost almost a stone on average over a course of a year - almost three times more than the other women.

Waist size also went down by 2.6 inches, compared with 1.2 inches, the American Heart Association's annual conference heard.

Stanford researcher Dr Christopher-Gardner said: 'The differentiation in weight loss for individuals who followed a diet matched to their genotype versus one that was not matched to their genotype is highly significant and represents an approach to weight loss that has not previously been reported in literature.'

He added that using genetic information would 'be important in helping to solve the pervasive problem of excessive weight in our society'.

The study used a £100 test marketed by U.S. firm Interleukin Genetics. Customers are sent a kit they use to swab inside their mouth. After it is posted back to the lab, it is analysed for five genes linked to the body's ability to burn off fat and carbohydrates. Based on the result, dieters are advised to follow a low-fat diet, a low-carb diet, or one that contains a little of both. The firm, as yet, has no plans to sell the kit in the UK, but British dieters need not lose heart.

The split between those who should be low-carb and low-fat dieters is roughly 50:50, with just a few falling in between. This means if you have tried a low-carb diet, like Atkins, and it didn't work, you should try a low-fat one instead.

SOURCE

Blonde women are more successful

BLONDE women may be traditionally labelled as fun-loving and less intelligent but a new Australian study reveals they earn seven percent more on average than women with other hair colours. They also marry wealthier men, who earn six percent more than the husbands of other women, the University of Queensland study revealed.

The study, which surveyed 13,000 women, found that the difference in pay remained the same even when factors such as education, height and education were removed.

No other hair colour had the same effect. The research, reported in journal Economics Letters, does not explain just why blondes earned more and have wealthier husbands.

But Dr David Johnston, who led the study, said: "Blonde women are often depicted as being more attractive than other women, but also less intelligent. "But it seems the association between blondes and beauty dominates any perception that they have low intelligence. "This could explain why the 'blondeness effect' is evident in the marriage market."

Olga Uskova, president of the International Blondes Association, said: "Blondes have wealthier husbands because we are more fun and outgoing, and men are more attracted to us. "Blondes also have a lot of confidence so we can date men who are powerful or important. "We also do better in the workplace because when we make a mistake we can say, 'Oh, sorry about that, it's because I'm blonde' and get away with it."

SOURCE





Blood test 'spots breast cancer early' and may save hundreds of lives

A simple blood test that can detect early signs of breast cancer in women could save the lives of hundreds of patients a year, scientists believe. The test can spot tumours much earlier than traditional scans - meaning action can be taken to stop the cancer before it spreads.

The test - which is already available privately - could be in regular use on the Health Service within five years.

The test can pick up a cancer the size of a small seed before a woman has developed any symptoms. Normal screening checks using X-rays detect a tumour only once it is three of four times bigger, by which time it may have started to spread beyond the breast.

More than 45,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK every year.

The test, developed by Norwegian company Diagenic ASA, indicates a tumour is present by looking for raised levels of chemical ' markers' for cancer in blood.

It has been proven to be 75 per cent effective at detecting early cancer in a number of small trials published in the journal Breast Cancer Research.

In younger women, mammography can miss a quarter of cases, and its developers hope the blood test can pick up some of these.

The Diagenic BCtect test is being evaluated by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and a trial involving 6,000 women at high risk of developing breast cancer is to start next year.

It is currently available at a private Harley Street clinic for 499 pounds. Dr James Mackay, an oncologist and researcher at University College London, said: 'This test will be particularly useful for younger women who are at risk of developing breast cancer. 'They tend to have denser breast material which mammograms cannot easily penetrate.

'What we are suggesting is that they have a mammogram and combine it with this test so that there is a greater chance of detection.'

Women who are found to have cancer by the test will be offered an MRI scan so the tumour can be located, biopsied and, if necessary, removed.

Experts say there have not been enough trials to be sure the test works as well as its makers believe. But if bigger trials are successful and the test is adopted by the NHS, it would be carried out every three years - the same period as for mammograms at the moment.

Dr Mackay said he would advise women at high risk of breast cancer to have the test, which is available at the London Breast Clinic, once a year.

Professor Kefah Mokbel, a consultant breast surgeon at London's St George's Hospital, said: 'We need more trials before this can be taken on by the NHS but it is an interesting development. 'The results so far are interesting and it would be an extremely useful advance which could be combined with a mammogram to find tumours at an early stage.'

Dr Fiona MacNeil, a breast surgeon at London's Marsden Hospital, said: 'The initial research studies show some promise but the usefulness of the test needs to be established by more detailed trials.'

SOURCE

Smokers have lower IQs

I had a paper to this effect published years ago but this is an unusually high-quality study. Eysenck saw personality as a mediating factor -- with extroverts more likely to smoke and more likely to engage in risky behaviour. The association betweeen smoking and sexual promiscuity among women was quite strong. So smoking is most likely to be a symptom of a low IQ rather than its cause

That Sartre and his fellow French intellectuals smoked suprises me not at all. They were much more purveyors of attitudes than improvers of knowledge

A cigarette dangling lazily from the mouth was once the telltale sign of an intellectual, but new evidence suggests it may have signalled quite the opposite.

Smokers have lower IQs than those who abstain, with intelligence decreasing the more one smokes, researchers have found. A study of 18 to 21-year-old men revealed that the IQs of smokers averaged 94 – seven points lower than non-smokers on 101.

IQ scores in a healthy population of young men fall between 84 and 116, but those who smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day averaged just 90 between them.

Researchers in Israel took data from more than 20,000 healthy men before, during and after they spent time in the Israeli military.

About 28 per cent of their sample smoked one or more cigarettes a day, three per cent considered themselves ex-smokers, and 68 per cent said they never smoked.

Professor Mark Weiser, of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychiatry, said: "In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighbourhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools. "But because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor."

The study also measured effects in twin brothers – and in the case where one twin smoked, the non-smoking twin registered a higher IQ on average.

Prof Weiser said: "People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health. "People with lower IQs are not only prone to addictions such as smoking. These same people are more likely to have obesity, nutrition and narcotics issues. "Our study may help parents and health professionals help at-risk young people make better choices."

The study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction.

SOURCE




Drinking too much cola could lower men's sperm count

Here we go again: The usual "correlation is causation" fallacy. It is probably working class people who drink most Coke and they are less healthy anyhow. At least the last sentence below is honest

Men who drink around a litre of cola every day could be harming their sperm, according to a new Danish study. On average, these men's sperm counts were almost 30 per cent lower than in men who didn't drink cola.

While most of the sperm counts would still be considered normal by the World Health Organization, men with fewer sperm generally have a higher risk of being infertile.

The link is unlikely to be due to caffeine, the researchers say, because coffee did not have the same effect, even though its caffeine content is higher. Instead, other ingredients in the beverage or an unhealthy lifestyle could be involved.

Kold Jensen, who led the new research, said only a few studies have looked at caffeine's impact on reproductive health in men. The participants have generally been a very select group, such as infertile men, and the results have been conflicting.

Because Danish youth has been upping their consumption of caffeine-containing soft drinks over the last decades, the researchers decided to study how this might affect their reproductive health.

More than 2,500 young men were included in their study. Those who didn't drink cola had better sperm quality - averaging 50 million sperm per millilitre semen - and tended to have a healthier lifestyle. In contrast, the 93 men who drank more than one litre a day had only 35 million sperm per millilitre. However, they also ate more fast foods, and less fruit and vegetables.

When looking at caffeine from other sources, such as coffee and tea, the decrease in sperm quality was much less pronounced. It is still not clear if the cola or the unhealthy lifestyle, or both, is to blame and the scientists said further research was needed.

Source

Breastfeeding reduces diabetes risk

There may be something in this but it may also show that people who have poorer health anyway -- perhaps working class mothers or mothers who lead risky lifestyles -- are less likely to breastfeed

MOTHERS who do not breastfeed have a 50 per cent increased risk of developing type-2 diabetes later in life compared with childless women, Australian research has found.

But a mother's likelihood of developing type-2 diabetes was slashed by 14 per cent for every year of breastfeeding, the researchers said.

Lead author Bette Liu, of the University of Western Sydney, said the research involved more than 52,000 women selected randomly from the Australian national universal health insurance database.

About 89 per cent of the women had given birth at least once and 6 per cent had been diagnosed with type-2 diabetes.

All were recruited in 2008 as part of Australia's 45-and-up study.

Dr Liu said breastfeeding a child for three months reduced a mother's risk of developing type-2 diabetes.

The researchers took into account factors such as a woman's age, family history of type-2 diabetes, body mass index, smoking, and alcohol consumption.

SOURCE





Breastfeeding a lifesaver?

The above study is a recent one from Australia. Below is another study from last year in the USA with even more extravagant claims. The same doubts apply -- plus the additional doubt that the data consists of self-reports about events in the distant past. Now that breastfeeding is very fashionable in the USA, maybe elderly middle class mothers exaggerated the degree to which they breastfed in their youth

WOMEN who breastfeed their babies for as little as a month are protecting themselves against heart disease, stroke and even heart attacks in later life, research shows. A study of almost 140,000 women found those who breastfed for more than a year were 10 per cent less likely to develop the conditions than women who had never breastfed.

But even breastfeeding for a month could help cut the chances of women developing diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, which are all linked to heart disease.

University of Pittsburgh researchers studied women who had gone through menopause; most of whom had not breastfed for 30 years. Those who breastfed for more than a year in total were 12 per cent less likely to have high blood pressure, about 20 per cent less likely to have diabetes and high cholesterol and 10 per cent less likely to have heart disease than women who never breastfed.

"We have known for years that breastfeeding is important for babies' health, we now know it is important for mothers' health as well," report co-author Eleanor Bimla Schwartz said. "The longer a mother nurses her baby, the better for both of them. "Our study provides another good reason for workplace policies to encourage women to breastfeed their infants."

Other studies have shown breastfeeding helps protect mothers against ovarian and breast cancer and osteoporosis in later life.

"These findings build on a growing body of literature that demonstrates that lactation has beneficial effects on blood pressure, risk of developing diabetes and lipid metabolism," Dr Schwartz said

SOURCE

HRT 'does NOT raise risk of breast cancer'

Is that discredited scare truly dead at last?

Confusion about the safety of HRT grew yesterday as a study showed it does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Analysis of the health records of millions of British women in their 50s and 60s found no correlation between use of the controversial treatment and rates of the disease.

Fears over the drug’s safety were first raised in 2002, when a major U.S. study linked it to a range of ills, including breast cancer and heart disease.

Following the scare, hundreds of thousands of British women abandoned the treatment, with the number taking hormone replacement therapy to help them through the menopause halving to one million by 2005.

But the Women’s Health Initiative study did not focus on women in their 50s – the most common age for HRT users in the UK. Reanalysis of the data found the health risks may apply only to older women, who have already gone through the menopause and who are not typical HRT users.

However, worries about the treatment – which usually contains a combination of the sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone – have refused to go away. Many women are still scared to take HRT and, just a year ago, fears about its link to breast cancer were reignited when a study concluded that taking the drug could double the risk of developing the disease.

It reported that using HRT for as little as two years increased the danger. However, it added that when patients stopped the therapy, their odds quickly improved, returning to normal two years later.

Now, in an attempt to resolve the argument, researchers from Bristol University have looked at whether the rates of various diseases changed during the years that women turned their backs on the drug. If HRT does raise the risk of breast cancer, incidences of the disease should have fallen after 2002 as HRT use declined.

But the scientists found that the treatment’s drop in popularity did not affect breast cancer rates at all, suggesting HRT is not a factor in developing the disease. Similarly, use of HRT was found to have no association with rates of bowel cancer or hip fractures, the Journal of Public Health reports.

Like the U.S. study, the British analysis did suggest that HRT is associated with a higher risk of serious blood clots – but the researchers were not confident the drug was to blame.

However, they did not give HRT a completely clean bill of health, saying that the exercise should be repeated over a longer timescale to detect any cancers or other problems that take a long time to develop.

HRT is used to combat symptoms of the menopause, such as hot flushes, mood changes and night sweats. The treatment can be taken via a range of methods, including tablets, implants, skin gels and patches. Its long-term benefits may include a reduced risk of osteoporosis.

SOURCE






Chinese medicine sellers face regulation crackdown in Britain

It has always amazed me that regular pharmaceuticals are so tightly regulated when "alternative" medical practitioners can give people all sorts of dangerous and damaging stuff

Shops and clinics selling herbal and Chinese medicine are to be regulated for the first time. Health Secretary Andy Burnham has indicated he will tighten the law in an attempt to protect the public from ill-trained and bogus practitioners.

Almost 2,500 qualified herbalists and Chinese medicine practitioners will lose the right to supply a wide range of medicines because they are not signed up to a statutory regulation scheme.

Fears have been raised about the lack of regulation around herbal and Chinese medicine, which is often sold via high street shops, online and in private clinics.

Last month a judge criticised the lack of regulation after hearing of the case of Patricia Booth, 58, who was treated for a skin condition for five years with pills sold by a Chinese herbal medicine retailer - and later suffered bladder cancer and kidney failure.

Mr Burnham said yesterday that he was ‘minded to legislate’ so practitioners supplying unlicensed medicines have to register with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council. However, the CHNC is a voluntary body, unlike the Health Professions Council which oversees statutory regulation of chiropractors and osteopaths.

Further talks are to be held with professional bodies and devolved governments before a decision is made on changing the law.

Fears have been raised about the lack of regulation around herbal and Chinese medicine, which is often sold via high street shops, online and in private clinics. Last month a judge slammed the lack of regulation after hearing of the death of a Patricia Booth, 58, who was treated for five years with cancer-causing pills sold by a Chinese herbal medicine retailer.

Mr Burnham insisted the new register 'will increase public protection' without placing 'unreasonable extra burdens on practitioners'. He has not yet decided whether to regulate acupuncture treatment.

But the European Herbal and Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association said the plan was a 'cop-out' because the CHNC lacks the structure, staff, financial resources or legal power to provide statutory regulation.

Chairman Michael McIntyre said 'Herbalists should be regulated like other statutorily regulated healthcare practitioners or the public will lose access to properly regulated herbalists and a wide range of herbal medicines.

'The Government must give detailed assurances that the legal and structural basis of statutory regulation is fit for purpose or it will betray the millions of people who regularly consult herbal practitioners. 'So far the Government has singularly failed to provide these guarantees.'

At least six million Britons have consulted a herbal practitioner in the last two years, according to Ipsos Mori research. As many as one in 12 adults has used herbal medicines obtained from a Western or traditional Chinese practitioner.

Prince Charles, a long-standing supporter of complementary therapies, met Mr Burnham when he voiced his support for formal regulation of herbal practitioners.

Dr Michael Dixon, medical director to the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, said he hoped a full statutory scheme would be introduced because 'light touch' regulation or licensing would fail to protect the public. He said 'It would be an extraordinary combination of carelessness about patient safety with more nanny state interference.

'It could allow those with no more than 4 – 6 weeks basic training to access powerful herbs, prepare their own remedies and offer treatment to the public. That will risk more cases of serious harm to patients treated by inexperienced, inadequately trained practitioners.

'A bizarre consequence of anything less than statutory regulation would be that, combined with EU rules, it would effectively ban even those with full training and qualifications from providing many herbal medicines currently in use. They would not be permitted access to manufactured or pre-prepared herbal remedies.

Emma Farrant, secretary of the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, said 'The CNHC was formed to regulate complementary health practitioners on a voluntary basis, and as currently constituted, is not equipped for statutory regulation. 'The apparent decision to exclude acupuncturists from full regulation is bizarre and regrettable.'

Mike O'Farrell, chief executive of the British Acupuncture Council, said 'It is our belief that statutory regulation is in the best interest of public health.'

SOURCE

A high fat bacon and eggs meal is healthiest start to the day (but only first thing)

Another rodent study of dubious generalizability to humans. Let's see a double-blind study of it among humans. Should not be hard. I would actually be rather annoyed if I found that my customary breakfast is "healthy" -- but the annoyance would be shortlived as the next piece of research would say it is "unhealthy"

Bacon, sausages, eggs, beans, mushrooms, tomatoes, black pudding... if that's what you had for breakfast, scientists say you've chosen the healthiest way to start your day.

No, seriously. Hot on the heels of yesterday's chocolate-is-good-for-you findings, researchers say a full English breakfast is better for the heart, waistline and blood pressure than carbohydrate-rich cereals, breads and pastries.

It is thought that a fried breakfast sets up the metabolism for the rest of the day, making it easier to burn off other meals and snacks.

Cereal, however, appears mainly to prime the body to break down only carbohydrates, the International Journal of Obesity reports. The U.S. researchers advocate a big, fatty breakfast for optimum health, followed by a smaller lunch and a light evening meal. Indeed, the old saying - 'eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper' - may be the key to a healthy body and mind.

Their study looked at the effects of eating different types of food - and of eating them at different times in the day. Mice fed a high fat meal after waking remained healthy, but those given a carb-rich breakfast, followed by a fatty dinner, did not fare as well. They put on weight and had trouble processing sugar, raising their risk of diabetes.

Blood tests also flagged up other problems that raised their risk of heart disease and strokes.

Dr Martin Young, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said: 'The first meal you have appears to programme your metabolism for the rest of the day. 'This study suggests that if you ate a carbohydrate-rich breakfast it would promote carbohydrate utilisation throughout the rest of the day, whereas if you have a fat-rich breakfast, you (can) transfer your energy utilisation between carbohydrate and fat.'

Co-researcher Professor Molly Bray added: 'Studies have looked at the type and quantity of food intake, but nobody has undertaken the question of whether the timing of what you eat and when you eat it influences body weight.' With most people eating a wide variety of foods throughout the day, the findings have a clear implication for the human diet.

Professor Bray added: 'Our study seems to show that if you really want to be able to efficiently respond to mixed meals across a day, a meal in higher fat content in the morning is a good thing.'

The research is not the first to confirm the importance of a big breakfast. A South American study found that women who ate half of their daily calories first thing lost more weight in the long-term than those who ate a small breakfast.

In contrast to the U.S. study, it said eating carbs for breakfast was beneficial, with a sweet treat, such as chocolate, cutting sugar cravings later in the day.

SOURCE







CDC grants: Government looks to dictate our diets

Just when you thought that the federal government couldn’t possibly usurp more of our individual freedoms, their prerogative shifts to working to micromanage and control the nutrition of its constituents. This governmental campaign seeks to levy “life-style tax hikes” on food items that the government considers to be unhealthy.

In essence, this regulatory program would allocate funds to states and local communities that outline comprehensive strategies that would limit consumption of food items such as “trans-fats, sodium, snack foods and soda.” This grant program, also known as “Communities Putting Prevention to Work,” would be administered by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The funds would be coming from the “stimulus package” otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But isn’t this stimulus money supposed to be stimulating job creation and streamlining our economy, as opposed to contributing towards the manipulation of consumer choice?

FoxNews reports on some of the hidden motives of this schema: "While descriptions for some of the latest projects funded under the program sound almost laughable -- what exactly do you think they mean when they talk about “increasing point-of-decision health prompts at stairwells and elevators in public venues”? -- it becomes abundantly clear that this is a concerted effort to advance government control over our consumption decisions when reviewing the CDC’s guideline document for grantees."

Furthermore, FoxNews proceeds to discuss the implications of this program: "Strategies listed range from outright product bans, over zoning, to media and advertising restrictions for “unhealthy” foods and drinks and tobacco products. And when Delaware receives more than $1 million to “educate leaders and decision-makers about the benefits of increasing the price on other tobacco products,” Oregon receives $3 million to “support a policy proposal to increase tobacco price,” your “stimulus” dollars are likely going towards hiring lobbyists to promote tax increases (which by the way would seem to violate one of CDC’s own lobbying restrictions)."

Why does the federal government sincerely believe that they should have the authority to tell the American people what not to eat? This type of government initiative only further reinforces a trend that promotes and allows for an ever-expanding government. Much like the federal government’s newly enacted health care overhaul, as well as their current attempts to pass financial regulatory reform, this CDC grant program also represents an effort on behalf of the federal government that aims to increase revenues and expand its authoritative reach by means of intervening in private lives. More taxes, more government, and a restriction of consumer choice is not the caliber government that the American people want when they vote at the polls. Therefore, it is imperative that this increasing level of government jurisdiction be stopped.

SOURCE