Salt: Just a teaspoon a day 'dulls the mind' and increases your risk of Alzheimer's disease (?)



Epidemiological rubbish. Middle class people are more likely to hear and heed the constant warnings about salt and they have better health anyway



Too much salt could be bad for your brain as well as your heart, doctors have warned. Elderly people who have salt-rich diets and do little exercise suffer a quicker mental decline than those who are more prudent with their intake, a study has found. Worryingly, just over a teaspoon of salt a day could dull the mind and raise the risk of Alzheimer’s, the study suggests.



Salt’s danger to the heart is well known but the latest study is the first to link it to deterioration of brain health in the elderly.



The Canadian team tracked the salt consumption and levels of physical activity of 1,262 healthy men and women aged between 67 and 84 over a three-year period. They also assessed the mental health of the participants at the start of the study and once a year for the duration, using a battery of tests more commonly used to diagnose Alzheimer’s.



‘The results of our study showed that a diet high in sodium, combined with little exercise, was especially detrimental to the cognitive performance of older adults,’ said Dr Alexandra Fiocco from the University of Toronto.



‘But the good news is that sedentary older adults showed no cognitive decline over the three years that we followed them if they had low sodium intake.’ A high level was defined as more than 3,090mg of pure sodium a day – or just over a teaspoon of salt a day at 7.7g.



This is the equivalent of 15 bags of crisps, three-and-a-half Big Macs or almost two full English breakfasts. But some of those taking part in the study were eating almost three times this, the journal Neurobiology of Aging reports.



The researchers said that knowledge of the link between salt and declining brain power could help people age healthily. ‘These findings are important because they help people know they can be proactive in retaining healthy brains as they age,’ said Carol Greenwood, a professor at the University of Toronto and another one of the authors.



‘Baby Boomers especially need to know that sitting on the couch watching television for long periods of time and eating salty snacks is not good for them.’



Deborah Barnes, a dementia expert at the University of California in San Francisco, said: ‘This is one of the first studies that looks at sodium. It’s another important point about diet. You need to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and stay away from processed foods.’



In the UK, the Food Standards Agency recommends that adults should eat no more than 6g of salt, or one teaspoon, per day. But the average Briton’s intake is well over the limit at 8.6g.



Research suggests people who reduce salt in their diet by about 3g a day – the equivalent of six slices of bread – can reduce their chances of developing cardiovascular disease by a quarter.



Children aged one to three should eat no more than 2g per day, rising to 3g per day for four to six-year-olds and 5g for seven to tens.



A recent major review of the evidence on the dangers posed by salt created controversy by concluding that lowering consumption has little effect on health. But other experts say that one in five strokes and heart attacks would be prevented if everyone just ate a third of a teaspoon less of salt a day.



SOURCE












Medical Magellans



Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules are supposedly intended to ensure the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medical devices. It is FDA’s technology gatekeeper role—its power to approve or reject medical innovations in a one-size-fits-all fashion—that I would sacrifice willingly.



I seek the freedom to explore the medical frontier, to have access to experimental medicines and medical devices that the FDA has not approved, and to go out (as I’ll explain) as a hero.



I agree that taxes and government spending are out of control. These forms of government intervention are troubling, but at least they are receiving attention. Yet taxing and spending are relatively transparent compared to regulation, whose costs are off budget and whose impacts are diffused throughout the economy. Regulatory reform has received too little attention in the current fiscal debate. That is unfortunate, because the burdens of federal regulations are massive, now estimated at almost $2 trillion annually.



My proposal would save relatively little taxpayer money directly, but the larger impact of a more liberalized medical exploration process would be tremendous. It would enhance individual liberty and the range of medical options for countless Americans. It would also increase economic growth and harness the cost-reducing impact of technological innovation.



It is important to note that the costs imposed by FDA regulation are measured also in terms of human lives. FDA restrictions have significantly increased the costs of research and time of diffusion for the development of new, health-enhancing products. On average, it may take an innovator up to 15 years and as much as $1 billion to move a drug from the laboratory to FDA approval.



Health care innovations face much greater impediments than innovations in most other sectors of the economy. Elsewhere, entrepreneurs conceive new products that they believe offer value to consumers, introduce them to the market, and hope that consumers will buy them.



In health care, nothing can be introduced until it has received FDA approval. However, as a government agency that cannot be made immune to politics, the FDA is highly sensitive to any unintended mishap for which it might be blamed. For example, former FDA Commissioner Alexander M. Schmidt noted in 1974: “In all of FDA’s history, I am unable to find a single instance where a congressional committee investigated the failure of FDA to approve a new drug. But, the times when hearings have been held to criticize our approval of new drugs have been so frequent that we aren't able to count them. . . . The message to FDA staff could not be clearer.”



The message is that the agency should always err on the side of over-caution.



There is no such thing as a perfectly safe drug or medical device, thus approvals sometimes create identifiable “victims.” On the other hand, the victims of FDA intransigence—those who never get a chance to benefit from the health-enhancing treatments that the agency has blocked or delayed—are unknown and politically invisible, and thus the agency is held blameless for them. Medical innovation is an inherently complex process, with just one of every 250 drugs which begins clinical testing ever making it to market.



Clearly, another strategy for medical innovation is needed. Milton Friedman argued that the quality of our health care would advance more rapidly if the FDA were abolished. My suggestion is a bit more modest. I would simply liberalize the FDA’s gatekeeper policies, allowing each of us—if we wish—to escape our “victim” status and to allow us one last chance, at the end of our lives, to dare the unknown, to perform one last heroic act.



At some point, a doctor will say, “Mr. Smith, there’s nothing more I can do for you.” Yet in many cases, although no approved intervention may exist, there will be a list of potential interventions that might address my “incurable” ailment. Must we check out as victims, or might we instead be given the opportunity to go out as heroes?



Naturally, some paths will lead literally to dead ends. Taking the wrong path entails both high costs and great dangers. Unlike Lazarus, we are all on a one-way trip through life, and sometimes fate or our bad choices shorten that trip. We would have to develop a reasonable informed consent protocol: Volunteers should be aware that their selected intervention is unlikely to succeed and that they might experience painful side-effects or an earlier death. They should give up the right to sue, and they may need to bear the costs of treatment themselves. Offsetting this, however, would be the individualist value of being in control of the final leg of one’s life journey. I’d like to have that opportunity, and millions of other Americans would, too.



Thus, my recommendation is to allow us all to elect to perform for our fellow citizens (and our descendants) one final heroic act. As free individuals, shouldn’t we be allowed to volunteer as Medical Magellans to explore those possible passages to a healthier world?



SOURCE

Will oats prevent heart attacks?



This is a very confused study with all sorts of potential effects involved. And there was NO evidence of impact on heart disease



Eating more nuts and oats – rather than simply avoiding fatty foods – could boost efforts to reduce cholesterol, say scientists. They found a diet rich in foods known to lower cholesterol levels was more effective than cutting out saturated fats alone.



The diet that worked best in the study also included soy products such as milk, tofu and meat substitutes, while eating more peas, beans and lentils was encouraged.



Canadian researchers discovered that a six-month change to the diet could result in a ‘meaningful’ 13 per cent reduction in blood levels of LDL cholesterol, often known as ‘bad’ cholesterol.



Following the diet for longer would give a predicted reduction of almost 11 per cent in heart disease risk over a ten-year period.



In the study, 345 patients, all of whom suffered from high cholesterol, were split into three groups, one of which was merely recommended to adopt a low-fat diet that included fruit and vegetables.



The other two were advised on a dietary ‘portfolio’ consisting of specific foods known to lower LDL cholesterol such as nuts, oats, soy products and lentils.



One group was counselled during two clinic visits while the other underwent an ‘intensive’ course of seven visits.



After six months the low-fat group had experienced a drop in LDL cholesterol levels of 3 per cent.



However, switching to a diet that actively lowered LDL cholesterol led to a reduction of over 13 per cent: 13.1 per cent in the group that had two visits and 13.8 per cent for the group that had seven visits.



The researchers, led by Dr David Jenkins, from the University of Toronto, reported their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.



The scientists pointed out that the study participants were already on modified diets aimed at improving their cholesterol readings. Larger reductions in LDL cholesterol might be seen in people with diets ‘more reflective of the general population’, they said.



Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietician at the British Heart Foundation, said: ‘This study is encouraging. ‘However, people need to be aware that following this type of plan in the long term takes commitment. Eating a few nuts or having the odd portion of soya beans won’t make up for an otherwise poor diet.



‘All the people in this trial were already eating a low-saturated fat diet, and this remains our first and foremost advice to people who want or need to reduce their cholesterol.’



SOURCE












Girls at risk of talking too much, scientists find



Girls who talk to their friends at length about their problems could be making them worse, psychologists have warned.



The scientists conducted a series of studies and found that girls hoped to feel more cared for, understood and less alone by talking things through. However, they said it could actually lead to depression and stress. They advised parents to try to persuade their children that there were other tactics to cope with issues than merely talking.



Four different studies were conducted including surveys and observations of nearly 2,000 children and teenagers.



Amanda Rose, associate professor of psychological sciences in the University of Missouri College of Arts and Science, who led the research, said: “Many girls are at risk for excessive problem talk, which is linked with depression and anxiety, so girls should know that talking about problems isn't the only way to cope.”



The research also confirmed the widely held view that boys think that discussing their problems is a waste of time.



Prof Rose added: “For years, popular psychologists have insisted that boys and men would like to talk about their problems but are held back by fears of embarrassment or appearing weak. “However, when we asked young people how talking about their problems would make them feel, boys didn't express angst or distress about discussing problems any more than girls. “Instead, boys’ responses suggest that they just don't see talking about problems to be a particularly useful activity.”



Prof Rose said the study could have help adult romantic relationships and suggest that the why women often insist on talking about problems while men are not interested is that women think it will help, while men have other tactics for dealing with the issues.



She added: “Men may be more likely to think talking about problems will make the problems feel bigger, and engaging in different activities will take their minds off of the problem. “Men may just not be coming from the same place as their partners.”



SOURCE

Sugary diet link to womb cancer risk: Regular sweet snacks increase threat 33%



This is just data dredging. After looking at lots of things they found one tiny difference -- as they would by chance alone



Snacking regularly on biscuits, buns or cakes can significantly increase a woman’s chances of developing womb cancer, a study shows.



Women who gave themselves such a treat two to three times a week were 33 per cent more likely to suffer the disease than those who rarely raided the biscuit tin.



Among those indulging more than three times a week, the risk of falling ill with a tumour jumped by 42 per cent.



However, their overall chances were still low as the odds of the average woman in the study developing the disease during the 18-plus years of the research were just over 1 per cent.



The researchers described the size of the effect as ‘modest’ but said it warranted further investigation.



British cancer experts emphasised that it is too early to draw any firm conclusions.



To look for a link between sugary foods and womb cancer, the Swedish scientists studied data from thousands of women who, between 1987 and 1990, had answered dozens of questions on diet, lifestyle, weight and general health. Ten years later, those still alive answered an even more extensive battery of questions on their eating habits.



In 2008, the researchers matched up the women’s answers with their medical records, specifically looking for diagnoses of endometrial cancer – the most common form of womb cancer. They found 729 cases out of the 61,226 women studied.



There was little or no increase in risk from eating certain high-sugar items such as sweets, soft drinks, jam or marmalade.



But women who snacked frequently on cakes, buns or biscuits were up to 42 per cent more likely to get cancer than those who had them once a fortnight or less.



It isn’t clear why some sweet treats were linked to the cancer but others were not.



The study looked at how often volunteers ate such treats but not specifically how much. However, those exceeding a total intake of more than 35 grams of sugar a day – equivalent to about seven teaspoons – faced a 36 per cent increase in tumour risk.



The scientists, from Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute, say there are several ways that sweet snacks could push up the risk of the disease. One is that sugar overload makes the body release more insulin, which can stimulate the excessive growth of cells in the endometrium, the lining of the womb.



Another is that it boosts levels of the hormone oestrogen, which has been shown to trigger the uncontrolled growth of cells, a key characteristic of cancer.



Their findings were published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.



Yinka Ebo, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, said keeping a healthy weight and staying physically active were the best ways to reduce womb cancer risk.



She added: ‘This study shows eating lots of sugar and certain sugary foods may increase the risk of womb cancer, but we would need to see these results repeated in other large studies like this before we can draw any firm conclusions.’



Endometrial cancer affects around 6,400 women a year in the UK and kills an estimated 1,000 annually.



Risk goes up with age, weight and with having a mother who had the disease. However, having children appears to lower the risk.



SOURCE










That dangerous WATER!



Eloquent confirmation that the toxicity is in the dose



A man died after suffering devastating brain damage after drinking 'pint after pint' of water. His family believe the problems started when an Ecstasy pill was slipped into his drink during an evening out.



Matthew Ellis, 29 died more than seven months later from a chest infection in hospital in Sheffield. He was rushed to intensive care after collapsing at his father's home on Boxing Day last year.



Matthew's mother Maureen warned others about the little known but catastrophic dangers of drinking too much water. The drug made him crave water and the excess liquid he drank caused his salt levels to plummet bringing on a rare brain condition called extrapontine myelinolysis.



Mrs Ellis, 62, said: 'There is no health warning, water is good for you if you have a certain amount,'. 'But we want to make people more aware not to drink that much. Matthew went through absolute hell and it's such a waste of a young life.'



Mrs Ellis, a council technical support officer, said Matthew had been working in Wales before Christmas and had taken time off over the holiday period and was staying in Sheffield with his family. He had been due to start a job at Doncaster Prison in January.



He stayed out late drinking on Boxing Day before going back to spend the night at the home of his 66-year-old father Ken in Lowedges, Sheffield. 'The following day he felt poorly and started drinking lots of water,' said Mrs Ellis.



'He was drinking pints and pints . We don't know exactly home much but he was drinking constantly throughout the day. 'The next day my eldest son Andrew phoned and said Matthew was starting to fit and had nearly fallen down the stairs. Then he collapsed in the kitchen.' He suffered five seizures in the ambulance on the way to hospital and eventually died on August 4.



Mrs Ellis added: 'A consultant told me that Matthew must have unknowlingly been slipped an Ecstasy tablet. 'He never took drugs of any kind. He like to go out but not on a regular basis and might go six months without having a drink.'



He suffered irreversible brain damage after slipping into a coma - and his mother gave the hospital permission to switch off his life support machine. However, he came round again in January although he could no longer remember who he was.



His funeral is due to be held on Saturday.



Nutrition expert Mayur Ranchordas, who lectures in physiology and nutrition at Sheffield Hallam University said water intoxication or hyponatraemia can have devastating effects. He added: 'Extrapontine myelinolysis is a very rare condition. Too much water is actually very, very bad for you.



'Hyponatraemia is quite common among recreational runners on half marathon and marathon events. 'They're not running at a high intensity but they're still stopping at all the water stations, taking on large amounts of water and trying to stay hydrated.'



SOURCE

Food is not alone in making us fat - stress, insomnia and allergies are also factors(?)



This is a bit if a cop-out. Various things may impede dieting but your excess of input over output is still what makes you fat



IT'S one of those questions too many people torture themselves with: "Why can't I lose any weight?" You can cut back on the junk food, exercise more frequently but are still unable to shift those unwanted kilos.



A leading American physician will tell an Australian audience today that allergies, stress, insomnia and being toxic are all reasons people struggle to lose weight.



In her new book, A Guide to Solving Your Weight-Loss Puzzle: Why You Can't Lose Weight, Dr Pamela Waritan Smith says that it is not as simple as what you eat and what you burn.



"It's not just calories in and out - if it were that simple everyone in the world would be the way that they want to be," Dr Smith told The Sunday Telegraph.



The co-director of the Metabolic and Nutritional Program at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Dr Smith said for every extra 0.45kg someone carries on their frame, they put 1.36 million kg of stress on their joints each year.



"Sometimes it's confusing to people if they have an allergic response. You can have two kinds of allergic response, one is what we call an IgE, which can be shrimp, and is pretty immediate, for example, resulting in shortness of breath or a rash.



"The other which is termed as an IgG response, is an allergy which can usually happen a couple of days later. "People may gain weight, get a stomachache or a headache, but they don't equate it to the food (they have eaten)." Symptoms include abdominal pain, backache, dark circles under the eyes, diarrhoea, dizziness, hives, muscle aches and pains, a persistent cough and memory changes.



Her book is being launched today at the Australasian Academy of Anti-Ageing Medicine (A5M) Conference in Melbourne, where Dr Smith is giving a series of talks.



Dr Smith said lack of sleep and stress were also contributing to weight gain. "When people stay stressed they put weight on around the middle," she said. "And I do think modern life affects it for many different reasons. "Insomnia and sleep deprivation, people that don't get 6 1/2 hours a night of good solid sleep also suffer."



The book also reveals being toxic is another key factor. Symptoms of toxicity include abdominal bloating, belching, cramping, gas, heartburn and weight gain, depression, itching, muscle aches and pains and skin rashes.



Dr Smith advised seeing a "specialised practioner or physician" to determine if your weight gain was due to allergies or toxicity.



SOURCE












New weapon in battle against C-diff as scientists work out how to stop its poisons



So far this seems to be research in laboratory glassware only



Doctors could soon have a new weapon in the war against C. diff, the superbug that kills thousands of Britons each year. C. diff produces poisons which, in the worst cases, can cause a potentially fatal infection of the abdomen.



U.S. scientists used two molecules to deactivate the toxins, preventing them from causing harm. They now plan to test the technique on people for the first time. A similar strategy could be deployed against other bacteria, say the University of Texas researchers writing in the journal Nature Medicine.



The bug thrives in filthy conditions and has been blamed for almost 18,000 deaths in the last decade – more than MRSA. Numbers are falling, but the superbug was still linked to almost 4,000 deaths in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available.



Although antibiotic treatment does have some success, many patients relapse, with successive bouts of diarrhoea making them weaker and weaker.



C. diff produces poisons which cause diarrhoea, and in the worst cases, a potentially fatal infection of the abdomen.



However, the poisons can only wreak havoc if they can work their way into the cells that line the gut. And US scientists have worked out how to stop them in their tracks. They used two molecules to deactivate the toxins, preventing them from causing harm.



University of Texas researcher Professor Tor Savidge said: ‘Think of these toxins as missiles that the bacteria are producing to go off and detonate inside the cell. ‘One way to defend against the missiles is to send out signals that trick them into either disarming their sensory mechanisms or get them to prematurely detonate.’



The combination worked so well, that the researchers plan to test it on people for the first time. The need to give it to large numbers of people to check it is safe and effective means it is around seven years from widespread use.



It is hoped that targeting the bug in this way would stop the bacteria from developing resistance against the treatment.



Researcher Charalabos Pothoulakis, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said: ‘Identification of new treatment modalities to treat this infection would be a major advance. ‘If we are successful with this approach, we may be able to treat other bacterial diseases in the same way.’



C. diff exists naturally in the stomachs of many healthy adults, where it is kept under control by 'friendly bacteria'. The problems start if the balance of bacteria is disturbed, perhaps by giving someone antibiotics for another infection.



Once the 'friendly' bacteria are killed off, the C diff are able to multiply and produce poisons which cause diarrhoea and, in the worst cases, a potentially fatal infection of the abdomen.



The spread of the bacterium, via hardy spores, is swift and the bug is difficult to wipe out because it is resistant to some standard disinfectants. But simple soap and water can be used to clean the hands, while powerful disinfectants can keep floors bug-free. Hygiene drives are credited with the number of cases in hospital cases plummeting from 33,342 in 2007 to 2008, to 10,414 last year.



SOURCE

Drinking moderate amounts of coffee can help ward off non-melanoma?



This is another rodent study and to compare mice skin (normally hair-covered) with human skin is absurd



COFFEE has been shown to reduce the risk of skin cancer by helping kill off damaged cells that could otherwise turn into tumours, researchers say. Moderate caffeine drinking, or perhaps even applying coffee to the skin, could be useful in warding off non-melanoma cancer, the most commonly diagnosed of all skin cancers, the study published today shows.



Using mice that had been genetically altered to suppress a protein called ATR, researchers showed the rodents were able to fend off cancer even when exposed to ultraviolet light. The altered mice eventually did develop cancer, but three weeks later than normal mice.



Previous studies have suggested that drinking a cup of caffeinated coffee per day has the effect of suppressing ATR and triggering the die-off of cells harmed by UV rays.



After 19 weeks of ultraviolet light exposure, the engineered mice showed 69 per cent fewer tumours and four times fewer invasive tumours than the control group. However, the protective effects only went so far. After 34 weeks of UV exposure, all the mice developed tumours.



"Eventually, if you treat them long enough, the mice will develop cancer so it is not 100 per cent protection forever," Allan Coffey, one of the study's authors said. "Really, with almost any carcinogen, eventually all the animals will develop tumours."



The team were able to confirm their hypothesis that caffeine - when consumed or applied to the skin - works by inhibiting ATR. Now they say more studies are needed to see how it may work on humans. "We want to see whether caffeine has an effect in people when you give it topically," he said.



Skin cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the United States, with more than one million new cases each year, according to the National Cancer Institute.



Non-melanoma types of skin cancer, including basal cell and squamous cell types, are the most commonly diagnosed and are often treatable if detected early.



SOURCE










Raise a glass to the 'red wine pill' to cure everything from obesity to cancer



The old resveratrol religion again. For a start, this is based on mouse studies; and secondly, the company owning the "miracle" drug has given up on it. Obviously later work has not confirmed the early promise. Ya gotta laugh!



In terms of medical achievements, this has got to be the big one – an all-in-one treatment that works against obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Astoundingly, a drug capable of doing just that could be available within three years.



And it gets better. The new treatment could be a godsend for couch potatoes, allowing them to eat as much as they like without putting on a pound. They could even receive all the benefits of exercise without leaving the sofa.



The excitement surrounds a family of drugs based on resveratrol, the ‘miracle ingredient’ in red wine credited with inhibiting the development of cancer and heart disease.



The drugs would activate a gene called SIRT1 that is key to longevity and energy, and their potency would give them the equivalent health benefits of 8,000 bottles of wine.



Mice given one of the drugs, known as SRT1720, did not gain an ounce of weight despite being fed fatty foods, and blood tests suggested they were protected against diabetes. They also showed improved stamina.



Now a follow-up study, led by the U.S. government’s health research arm, has confirmed the drug’s promise. This time, giving it to ‘middle-aged’ mice allowed them to escape many of the dangers of a bad diet, with those eating fatty foods living almost as long as mice fed normally. At high doses, the drug extended the life of the junk food group by as much as 44 per cent.



In addition, it stopped fat from clogging up their livers and, once again, appeared to protect against diabetes. The journal Scientific Reports also states that the treated animals were more active.



The drugs are being developed by Sirtris, a biotech firm bought by pharmaceutical powerhouse GlaxoSmithKline three years ago.



GSK is no longer pursuing SRT1720 [I wonder why?], but three similar – and potentially even better – drugs are already being tested on people. The first of these could be widely available within three years.



Researcher Rafael de Cabo, of the National Institutes of Health in Baltimore, said the drugs offer the promise of a healthy old age. ‘To me, the most tantalising thing about the findings are the health benefits,’ he said. ‘I don’t care much about living five years longer as long as I live what I am supposed to live completely healthy.’



It is not known who the drugs will be aimed at but, initially, they are likely to be reserved for treating and preventing disease in the severely overweight.



SOURCE

A baby's first 1,000 days 'determines their health prospects for life'



The article below suffers from a failure in calibration. Severe trauma or deprivation at any stage can obviously affect health. So why is the first 1,000 days picked out? If trauma in that period is particularly harmful, where is the evidence? In fact, the evidence is rather the other way. Brain damage and some other traumas are in fact best recovered from in the very young



You have encouraged them to eat their greens, battled to get them into the best school and sweated with them over their homework – all to give them the best start in life.



But your children’s prospects may have been determined long before all the hard work. A growing body of research suggests the first 1,000 days of a child’s life – the nine months in the womb and the first two years out of it – are vital to their long-term health.



That period can permanently affect everything from a child’s chances of developing diabetes or having a heart attack in old age, to their future weight and life expectancy.



The theory was developed after decades of research by Professor David Barker and his colleagues at Southampton University. They believe there are a series of critical stages in a child’s development. If conditions are not perfect at each step, problems can occur later.



Many of these danger points lie when the baby is still in the womb. Poor nutrition for a mother affects both the unborn baby’s weight and how well the placenta works, while smoking, stress, drugs and alcohol can also take their toll.



Professor Barker believes many health problems can be traced back to poor growth in the womb. He has shown that the lighter a baby is at birth, the higher its odds of heart disease in later life. On average, a baby weighing less than 5lb 7oz is twice as likely to die from a heart attack than one born at 9lb 7oz.



It is thought that when food is scarce in the womb, it is channelled to the fledgling brain, leaving the heart weakened. The seeds of diabetes may also be sown before birth, as the pancreatic cells which make insulin develop in the womb. Conditions in the uterus can also affect weight for years to come, studies suggest.



Professor Barker said many of these early effects are ‘set in stone’ and cannot be undone. He added that the key to health is ensuring women eat well throughout their lives.



He said: ‘It is about building a body that the baby can live off. The baby lives off the mother’s body – not what she snacks on during pregnancy. ‘What we are seeing is a window of opportunity where we can make better people.’



SOURCE










Let’s put a stop to the war on salt



First Lady Michelle Obama has been lobbying strongly this year for food manufacturers to reduce the sodium content of their products.



Her efforts scored a major victory last month when the Council of Better Business Bureaus rolled out new criteria for reducing the sodium, sugar, and fat in children’s food and beverages. Seventeen companies are participating in the initiative, including the Campbell Soup Company, General Mills, and Kraft Foods.



While this will mean higher food prices as producers reformulate their recipes , we are led to believe that this will be a small price to pay for longer lives and better health. However, claims that sodium poses a significant health risk may be unfounded.



Health writer Melinda Wenner Moyer, in an article in Scientific American in July called for an end to the “war on salt,” as there is no conclusive evidence to warrant sweeping and intrusive mandates to reduce or eliminate salt from foods. Moyer cites a 2011 study that found “no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure.” And scientists with the European Project on Genes in Hypertension recently published results of another study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting a inverse correlation between sodium consumption and heart-disease deaths!



Anti-salt crusaders have long relied on a single study from the 1970s, in which scientist Lewis Dahl found salt to cause high blood pressure in rats. The trouble with Dahl’s study is that he fed the rats the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. A human would have to eat nearly 1,000 McDonald’s hamburgers a day to achieve the same result!



Dahl also failed to differentiate between population trends. According to Moyer, “People living in countries with a high salt consumption—such as Japan—also tend to have high blood pressure and more strokes.



But as a paper pointed out several years later in the American Journal of Hypertension, scientists had little luck finding such associations when they compared sodium intakes within populations, which suggested that genetics or other cultural factors might be the culprit” [emphasis in original].



Dahl made the common fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation. He and his supporters have failed to control or account for myriad additional variables. Without more certitude, bureaucrats have no basis to either make claims about sodium posing a threat to health or place burdensome regulations on producers.



Yet, many food manufacturers are working to preempt regulation by reducing the sodium content in their products at considerable cost. Those costs are then passed on to consumers—many of whom will simply forgo the less salty, blander versions of those food products, as Campbell’s reversal of its decision to lower many of its soups’ salt content due to weak sales indicates.



This highlights a larger issue: regulators basing their rules on estimates and percentages. Moyer points to a study that “estimated that cutting salt intake by about 35 percent would save at least 44,000 American lives per year.”



Yet people are not percentages. Do we know that there are 44,000 people at death’s door? No, we do not. That is because these people do not exist; they are believed to exist and predicted to exist by experts. But, as Moyer says, “such estimates are not evidence, either; they are conjecture.”



Each person’s individual risk of heart disease is based on many factors, including lifestyle, genetics, and access to health care. Diet, including sodium consumption, is only one of many factors.



It is foolhardy for politicians to lump all individual cases together and make prescriptions for society at large that will limit individual choice and raise our cost of living. The European Project on Genes scientists agreed, noting their conclusions “do also not support the current recommendations of a generalized and indiscriminate reduction of salt intake at the population level.”



The war on salt is one more way in which politicians are trying to get between you, your children, and your doctor—in this case by removing options from store shelves. Moyer is correct to call for an end to the war on salt—but that is just a skirmish in the larger fight over consumer liberty.



SOURCE

Muesli not necessarily a "healthy" choice







Before tucking into your morning muesli be warned, you may be about to eat more fat than there is in a McDonald's Double Quarter Pounder, Choice says.



The consumer organisation tested 159 types of muesli and discovered that the popular breakfast meal isn't necessarily a healthy choice.



"Whilst much of the fat content in muesli is the 'good' unsaturated type, coming from oats, seeds and nuts, the high fat varieties can still pack a high number of kilojoules," Choice spokeswoman Ingrid Just said today.



One brand, The Muesli, contains twice as much fat as a McDonald's Double Quarter Pounder, Choice said. And two gluten-free varieties - Sunsol Gluten Free and Nu-Vit Low Fat Fruity Muesli Gluten Free - contain a whooping 43 per cent of sugar, seven per cent more than Coco Pops. "If you are eating muesli to try and lose weight then the overall fat and sugar content needs to be taken into consideration," Ms Just said.



Choice has called for traffic light colour labelling on all mueslis that make nutrition or health claims, which would rate fat, fibre, energy and sugar content.



Choice found almost three quarters of muesli products contain at least one health claim. "The most common are gluten-free and wheat-free claims or relate to fibre and or wholegrain content," the report says. "But low in salt, no added sugar, high protein, low GI and low fat claims are also popular."



The problem, the report says, is that nutrition claims don't tell the whole story. "Morpeth Sourdough Muesli Delux says it has 'no added sugar' but its dried fruit content and added honey result in a product that's almost 28 per cent sugar," Ms Just said.



When out shopping, Choice suggests you check the nutritional information panel and the ingredients list for added sugars such as honey or glucose.



SOURCE












Cheese: "Bad for the Environment"



EVERYTHING is bad for the environment



It’s not news: We need to eat less meat. Producing meat ready for the plate takes large amounts of fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, and water. Eating meat can also put your health at risk and endanger animal welfare. That’s why what you eat matters, says the [crooked] Environmental Working Group, which recently released a “Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health.”



But even vegetarians may be hard pressed by the group’s findings. As it turns out, public enemy number three, right after lamb and beef, is cheese.



EWG partnered with CleanMetrics, an environmental analysis firm, to examine 20 types of meat, fish, dairy, and vegetable proteins and evaluate their impacts on the earth. Together, they looked into fertilizers, pesticides, feed, transportation costs, and how much of the final product was ultimately thrown away, including many more factors.



They found that different foods impact the environment in different ways, and to lessen our footprints on the earth, we need to change our eating habits.



Beef, which ranked second for harmful impact on the earth, emits almost four times as much carbon dioxide than chicken and 13 times more than vegetable proteins, such as lentils, beans, and tofu.



What’s surprising is that chicken, salmon, and even pork made out better than cheese. Cheese wound up high on the list because it takes a lot milk to make a little cheese. Dairy cows release large amounts of methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and let’s not forget the amount of feed and antibiotics that the cows need.



EWG recommends eating less cheese. But it just so happens that cheese is delicious. So, while you may not be able to go without, eat lower-fat cheeses, such as skim mozzarella, gouda, and cottage cheese, which have less effect on the environment and your health.



As another consolation, the ranking is based on the ounce. While big burgers and steaks are typical meal options, it’s rare that someone sits down to eat a wheel of cheese. Most people use it sparingly anyway, though we can still choose local cheeses rather than those flown over from Europe to minimize costs.



SOURCE

Omega-3 Reduces Anxiety and Inflammation in Healthy Students, Study Suggests



This is typical of the narrow perspective that typifies believers in popular nostrums. They show no awareness that by inducing one broadly beneficial effect they may also unleash damaging effects elsewhere. Anxiety has its place and suppressing it could (for instance) lead to more risky behavior. And that sort of thing is not just theory. In the same journal there was another recent study which concluded that What Is Good for the Heart May Not Be Good for the Prostate. And what about the finding that high intake of Omega 3 is linked to increased risk of colon cancer??



And since Omega 3 is such a popular religion, there must be thousands of studies of it underway at any one time. In those circumstances, you will get some false positive findings by chance alone. And the effects described below were quite small in absolute terms and hence shaky.



Only long-term controlled studies using a wide range of health indicators could offer anything like secure conclusions



A new study gauging the impact of consuming more fish oil showed a marked reduction both in inflammation and, surprisingly, in anxiety among a cohort of healthy young people.



The findings suggest that if young participants can get such improvements from specific dietary supplements, then the elderly and people at high risk for certain diseases might benefit even more.



The findings by a team of researchers at Ohio State University were just published in the journal Brain, Behavior and Immunity. It is the latest from more than three decades of research into links between psychological stress and immunity.



Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have long been considered as positive additives to the diet. Earlier research suggested that the compounds might play a role in reducing the level of cytokines in the body, compounds that promote inflammation, and perhaps even reduce depression.



Psychological stress has repeatedly been shown to increase cytokine production so the researchers wondered if increasing omega-3 might mitigate that process, reducing inflammation.



To test their theory, they turned to a familiar group of research subjects -- medical students. Some of the earliest work these scientists did showed that stress from important medical school tests lowered students' immune status.



"We hypothesized that giving some students omega-3 supplements would decrease their production of proinflammatory cytokines, compared to other students who only received a placebo," explained Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, professor of psychology and psychiatry. "We thought the omega-3 would reduce the stress-induced increase in cytokines that normally arose from nervousness over the tests."



The team assembled a field of 68 first- and second-year medical students who volunteered for the clinical trial. The students were randomly divided into six groups, all of which were interviewed six times during the study. At each visit, blood samples were drawn from the students who also completed a battery of psychological surveys intended to gauge their levels of stress, anxiety or depression. The students also completed questionnaires about their diets during the previous weeks.



Half the students received omega-3 supplements while the other half were given placebo pills. "The supplement was probably about four or five times the amount of fish oil you'd get from a daily serving of salmon, for example," explained Martha Belury, professor of human nutrition and co-author in the study.



But the psychological surveys clearly showed an important change in anxiety among the students: Those receiving the omega-3 showed a 20 percent reduction in anxiety compared to the placebo group.



An analysis of the of the blood samples from the medical students showed similar important results. "We took measurements of the cytokines in the blood serum, as well as measured the productivity of cells that produced two important cytokines, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFa)," said Ron Glaser, professor of molecular virology, immunology & medical genetics and director of the Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research.



"We saw a 14 percent reduction in the amounts of IL-6 among the students receiving the omega-3." Since the cytokines foster inflammation, "anything we can do to reduce cytokines is a big plus in dealing with the overall health of people at risk for many diseases," he said. While inflammation is a natural immune response that helps the body heal, it also can play a harmful role in a host of diseases ranging from arthritis to heart disease to cancer.



While the study showed the positive impact omega-3 supplements can play in reducing both anxiety and inflammation, the researchers aren't willing to recommend that the public start adding them to the daily diet. "It may be too early to recommend a broad use of omega-3 supplements throughout the public, especially considering the cost and the limited supplies of fish needed to supply the oil," Belury said. "People should just consider increasing their omega-3 through their diet."

Some of the researchers, however, acknowledged that they take omega-3 supplements.



SOURCE








Being fat may be healthier for you than constantly trying to diet, claim university researchers



It is the perfect excuse to push aside that salad and pat yourself on the slightly rounded tummy. Scientists have shown it may be better to stay fat than go on diet after diet.



A study of thousands of obese men and women found that more than one in three were perfectly healthy or had only slight health problems. Contrary to the much-publicised message that you have to be thin to be well, they were no more likely to die at any given time than someone of an ideal weight. Indeed, they were less likely to be killed by heart disease.



They were also in better health than those who had fought a constant battle with their weight by repeatedly dieting, only to pile the pounds back on.



The researchers say there is more to good health than how a person tips the scales – and some people classed as overweight are fine as they are.



Rather than try to shed their excess pounds, something that can do more harm than good if repeated time after time, they should simply concentrate on not putting on any more weight.



The advice comes from researchers at Toronto's York University who tracked the health of more than 6,000 obese men and women for an average of 16 years. They underwent medical and physical tests and their results were compared with those of thousands of people of normal weight. This clearly revealed that being slim isn't always superior, according to the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism.



It may be that some people's genes allow them to escape many of the health consequences of being overweight.



Those who are overweight but healthy may also exercise more and eat better than thin people who smoke to suppress their appetites.



And a stressed-out, sedentary person of normal weight may be in worse shape than a plump person who exercises and keeps stress levels under control.



The Canadian researchers said that rather than using body mass index, or BMI, a measure of weight compared to height, to judge whether a person needs to lose weight, doctors should look at overall health.



A previous study found that pensioners who are slightly overweight live longer than those of a normal weight.



The Australian researchers said a bit of extra padding may give someone the reserves needed to recover from falls and illnesses.



It is also possible that concern about the health of the overweight means that problems are spotted and treated earlier.



SOURCE

Antioxidants cause cancer?



If you can get your head around the double negatives below, that is what is implied. In other words, antioxidants are good for health, INCLUDING the health of cancer cells. So you need to WIPE OUT antioxidants to avoid cancer. Pity about that



Sam W. Lee and Anna Mandinova of Massachusetts General Hospital have accidentally discovered a compound that kills cancer cells by suppressing enzymes that detoxify free radicals.

A cancer cell may seem out of control, growing wildly and breaking all the rules of orderly cell life and death. But amid the seeming chaos there is a balance between a cancer cell's revved-up metabolism and skyrocketing levels of cellular stress. Just as a cancer cell depends on a hyperactive metabolism to fuel its rapid growth, it also depends on anti-oxidative enzymes to quench potentially toxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by such high metabolic demand.



Scientists at the Broad Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) have discovered a novel compound that blocks this response to oxidative stress selectively in cancer cells but spares normal cells, with an effectiveness that surpassed a chemotherapy drug currently used to treat breast cancer. Their findings, based on experiments in cell culture and in mice, appear online in Nature on July 13.



The plant-based compound piperlongumine (PL), derived from the fruit of a pepper plant found in southern India and southeast Asia, appears to kill cancer cells by jamming the machinery that dissipates high oxidative stress and the resulting ROS. Normal cells have low levels of ROS, in tune with their more modest metabolism, so they don't need high levels of the anti-oxidant enzymes that PL stymies once they pass a certain threshold.

Cancer cells generate a lot more toxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) because cancer cells grow at a fast rate. Cancer cells have faster rates of metabolism. So a drug that inhibits the cell's defenses against ROS will selectively cause much higher ROS concentration in cancer cells than in normal cells.



Since normal cells do not generate ROS in quantities that are immediately toxic the drug appears to be highly selective for cancer cells.

The scientists tested PL against cancer cells and normal cells engineered to develop cancer. In mice injected with human bladder, breast, lung, or melanoma cancer cells, PL inhibited tumor growth but showed no toxicity in normal mice. In a tougher test of mice that developed breast cancer spontaneously, PL blocked both tumor growth and metastasis. In contrast, the chemotherapy drug paclitaxel (Taxol) was less effective, even at high levels.



"This compound is selectively reducing the enzyme activity involved in oxidative stress balance in cancer cells, so the ROS level can go up above the threshold for cell death," said Lee, a Broad associate member and associate director of CBRC at MGH. "We hope we can use this compound as a starting point for the development of a drug so patients can benefit."

SOURCE












Too much TV has same health effects as smoking and lack of exercise, Australian research finds



This sounds absurd: "every hour of watching shortened the viewer's life expectancy by about 22 minutes". Pretty toxic hours! This is "campaigning" research, I think.



WATCHING TV for six hours a day could shave five years off your life. New Australian-based research has found growing roots on the couch could do as much damage as smoking and lack of exercise.



Experts have previously linked sedentary behaviour with a higher risk of death from heart attack or stroke.



The latest research published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine is the first, however, to study the impact of watching too much TV on life expectancy.



Experts used previously published data on the link between TV viewing time and death from analysis of the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study. This was combined with Australian national population and mortality figures for 2008, to construct a "lifetime risk framework".



Three years ago, Australians aged over 25 watched an estimated 9.8 billion hours of TV. Researchers calculated every hour of watching shortened the viewer's life expectancy by about 22 minutes.



Based on these figures and expected deaths from all causes, the authors calculated an individual who watched an average six hours of TV a day over the course of their life, could expect to die five years earlier than someone who watched no TV.



Separate research has shown lifelong smoking can shorten life expectancy by four years for those aged over 50. Using the same risk framework designed to monitor the impact of too much TV, the study calculated just one cigarette could cut 11 minutes from smokers lives - equal to watching 30 minutes of TV.



"These findings suggest that substantial loss of life may be associated with prolonged TV viewing time among Australian adults," the reports authors found. "Because TV viewing is a ubiquitous behaviour that occupies significant portions of adults leisure time, it's effects are significant for overall population health."



VicHealth acting executive manager Irene Venins said the latest research came as no surprise. She said the negative impacts of prolonged periods sitting at a desk at work were well documented and the would be no different at home.



"The proliferation of computers around the office have contributed to prolonged sitting , which in turn is a key contributor to chronic heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and osteoporosis."



Ms Venins said Australians should engage in a minimum of 30 minutes of physical activity a day, or face the consequences down the track. "It's time to stand up for our health," she said.



SOURCE