You CAN have that plate of chips (fries): Why fried foods are not always bad for you

For years we have been told that eating too much fried food is a sure-fire recipe for a heart attack.

However research from Spain, published in the British Medical Journal, found that the amount of oil consumed makes absolutely no difference to the incidence of heart disease.

The study monitored the diets and cooking methods of 40,000 people aged between 29 and 69 over an 11 year-period.

Participants were asked whether the food they ate was fried, battered, crumbed or sautéed with their diets divided into ranges of fried food consumption.

Fried food was defined as food for which frying was the only cooking method used.

None of the participants had heart disease when the study began, but by the end there were 606 events linked to heart disease and 1,134 deaths.

However there was no link between the heart attack deaths and the amount of oil a person consumed.

Professor Michael Leitzmann from the University of Regensburg in Germany, said the study exploded the myth that fried food 'bad for the heart'.

However he added that the research 'does not mean that frequent meals of fish and chips will have no health consequences.'

In Spain, people fry using unsaturated olive or sunflower oil as opposed to saturated fats like butter, lard and palm oil.

Fried food is also more calorific because it absorbs the fat of the oils, so too much can lead to weight gain which carries serious health consequences.

The authors of the study conclude: 'In a Mediterranean country where olive and sunflower oils are the most commonly used fats for frying, and where large amounts of fried foods are consumed both at and away from home, no association was observed between fried food consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease or death.'

SOURCE





The one-off jab that could stop the most common cause of age-related blindness in elderly

Very early days for this yet

A chemical that will stop people from developing the most serious form of age-related macular degeneration has been found by scientists.

Given as a one-off injection, it would keep the disease at bay, allowing elderly men and women to continue to everyday activities from reading the newspaper to driving or watching TV.

The most common cause of blindness in the elderly, age-related macular degeneration affects a quarter of over-60s in the UK and more than half of over-75s.  The number of sufferers is expected to treble in the next 25 years as the population ages but there are few treatments - and no cure - for the condition.

Caused by the deterioration and death of the cells in the macula, the part of the retina used to see straight ahead, robs sufferers of their central vision. The more common ‘dry’ form affects the eyes gradually, sometimes over many decades.

But one in seven of those with dry AMD will develop the more ‘serious’ wet form and lose their central vision almost immediately.

The breakthrough, from Trinity College London, could prevent dry AMD turning into the more serious form, allowing people to continue going about their day-to-day lives.

In tests on animals and on human eyes donated to medical research, a husband and wife team of scientists showed an immune chemical called IL-18 to be crucial to the conversion to the more serious form of the disease.  They believe that increasing levels of IL-18 in the eye will stop the process in its tracks in people.

Dr Matthew Campbell said: ‘It means if you take someone with dry AMD and inject IL-18 into the retina, you could potentially prevent them from ever getting wet AMD.’ However, he stressed that the research is at an early stage.

Dr Sarah Doyle, his wife and fellow researcher, said: ‘Our results directly suggest that controlling or indeed augmenting the levels of IL-18 in the retinas of patients with dry AMD could prevent the wet form of the disease.’

There are drugs that can be used to improve vision in those with wet AMD. But they are given late in the course of the disease and have to be regularly injected into the eye.

Another treatment, called photodynamic therapy, is only suitable for around a fifth of patients.

In contrast, it is possible that a jab that boosts IL-18 levels will be a widely suitable one-off treatment.

The researchers, who detail their work in the journal Nature Medicine, are trying find a way of inserting gene for IL-18 into people’s eyes. Ferried into the eye inside an empty virus shell, it would ‘switch on’ and produce IL-18 when needed.

Given routinely to people with dry AMD, it should stop them developing the more serious form.

Dr Campbell said: ‘Essentially, it’s vaccination. More work needs to be done on this disease because the population is getting older and it is going to get more prevalent.’

If animal trials are successful, the treatment may be given to patients for the first time in around five years.

Widespread use is around a decade away and dependent on any drug being shown to be safe and effective in stringent, large-scale trials.

Avril Daly, of charity Fighting Blindness Ireland, which part-funded the research, said that a treatment that stopped dry AMD from turning into the more serious form would make a huge difference.

‘Anything that could prevent the onset of wet macular degeneration would be a huge relief and a huge benefit, not only to the individuals themselves but also to the healthcare service.’

SOURCE

Fear of the unknown

The many ingredients of factory-produced food cause some people to think it is bad  -- and they have some influence

Fairfax County Public Schools has decided to phase out the 26-ingredient burger. Penny McConnell, who directs the county's Office of Food and Nutrition Services, says she will replace it with an alternative frozen patty made of 100 percent beef. The change could come as soon as mid-April.

But McConnell says she doesn't have the kitchen equipment, the space or the labor force to return to scratch cooking in schools.

She says the pre-prepared foods made by manufacturers are healthful and help limit the risks of food-borne illness, since they prevent the chance of cross-contamination that comes with handling raw meat. "That product that comes from a manufacturer, it's gone through lab analysis and safety checks," McConnell says. "I know it's safe."

The debate about school food is a reflection of a wider cultural rethink about the way we eat.

"What I believe is that we're going back," says Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado. "If we want to be healthy and want our kids to be healthy, we've got to find our kitchens again."

SOURCE

It's all just kneejerk stuff.  Instead of finding out why ready-prepared food has complex ingredients, they just think they know better. They just cannot handle the thought that manufactured food might be SAFER.

And note that  Feminazis who HATE "processed" food  are the cause of the need for such – with "women's lib" - women are no longer "stay at home moms" that cook home-cooked meals.

Feminazis can't have it both ways - "Fulfillment" in career, competition with men etc. , and "home cooked meals"



   
Why those antioxidants could be causing you more harm than good

They are the Philosopher’s Stone of the 21st Century: antioxidants, touted as a universal cure-all. Naturally occurring chemicals, they are found in fruits and juices, made into supplements, and even added to make-up.

Every week we read about a new superfood that is supposed to have more of these apparently beneficial chemicals than anything that has come before – and the concept is beguiling.

Antioxidants enhance the immune system’s defence against the diseases caused by free radicals. They include Vitamins A, C and E and selenium, and we have been told they may help prevent cancer, heart disease and even such neurological conditions as Alzheimer’s.

But adding extra antioxidants to our diet gives no benefit. You can eat as many blueberries – or whatever the antioxidant-containing food du jour is – as you like and it won’t stop you getting these illnesses. And loading up with supplements may be bad for your health.

Some antioxidants are produced by the body and some by plants, and so they can be derived from the diet. Their job is to combat free radicals – highly reactive molecules formed as a natural by-product of cellular activity. Free radicals are also created by exposure to cigarette smoke, strong sunlight, and breathing in pollution.

These aggressive chemicals present a constant threat to cells and DNA. We know they can lead to cell damage, cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular problems. Free radicals have also been implicated in everything from strokes to Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Antioxidants stop the chain reactions triggered by free radicals that can damage and destroy cells. So it may seem entirely reasonable that it would be a good thing to eat and drink more antioxidants to boost the supply – or even rub them into your skin. But this is by no means the case.

You might have seen some antioxidant- containing products labelled with a number, usually in the thousands. This is the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) number.

It compares the antioxidant with a standard substance called trolox – itself an antioxidant. Cranberries, for example, have an ORAC level of 8,983, which is related to the number of molecules of trolox that would have the same antioxidant strength. Taken in isolation, the number is pretty meaningless, but it makes it possible to compare different foods. So theoretically, the higher the ORAC number, the better the food.

In reality, beyond a certain point, there is no benefit. In 2008, a study of nearly 15,000 men showed no benefits from Vitamin C and E supplements. There is no recommended daily amount of antioxidant consumption.And although there is evidence that antioxidants may have an effect on cancers, much of it is based on experiments on free radicals in cells cultured outside the body, in labs.

So if antioxidants are good for us, why doesn’t eating more of them have an even more beneficial effect? We know that people with poor diets are more prone to a host of diseases, and that those who eat a balanced diet with at least five fruits and vegetables a day, take exercise, and other very mundane things such as that, have the best chance of not becoming ill. But trials where people have consumed higher than usual levels of antioxidants by taking supplements have found  that, if anything, they have a negative impact on health.

A Cochrane Review published last month, which looked at the results of hundreds of individual studies, found that current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general population or in patients with various diseases. And when the review looked at the mortality rate over 78 randomised clinical trialsfor a range of conditions and using various antioxidants, those consuming antioxidants were 1.03 times more likely to die early.

Another clinical trial last month showed that antioxidant supplements don’t slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s. Two 1994 clinical studies showed a possible increase in lung cancer when taking antioxidants.

SOURCE

Link between fast food, depression "confirmed"

Working class people eat more fast food and also have less rewarding lives so tend to get depressed

A new study supports past research tying fast food consumption to a greater risk of depression.

Published in the research journal Public Health Nutrition, the results indicate that frequent consumers of fast food are 51 percent more likely to develop depression than those who eat little or none of it. And "the more fast food you consume, the greater the risk of depression," said Almudena S nchezVillegas of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Spain, the study's lead author.
 
A new study supports past research showing that eating fast food is linked to a greater risk of depression. (Image c Joey)
   
The study included 8,964 participants that had never been diagnosed with depression or taken antidepressants. They were assessed for an average of six months; during that time, 493 were diagnosed with depression or started to take antidepressants.

The research also found that participants who ate the most fast food and commercially baked goods were more likely to be single, less active and have poor dietary habits, which included eating less fruit, nuts, fish, vegetables and olive oil. Smoking and working more than 45 hours per week were other prevalent characteristics.

The data was found to support research published last year in the journal PLoS One, which recorded 657 new cases of depression out of 12,059 people analyzed over more than six months. A 42 percent increase in depression risk associated with fast food was found.

"Although more studies are necessary, the intake of this type of food should be controlled," S nchezVillegas proposed. He cited its effects for both mental and physical health, including its established tendency to promote obesity and cardiovascular disease.

Depression affects an estimated 121 million people worldwide. Previous studies suggest that certain nutrients may help prevent depression. These include group B vitamins, omega3 fatty acids and olive oil, as well as a healthy "Mediterranean"type diet more generally.

SOURCE




People just don't like supposedly "healthier" food

JUST one per cent of purchases are from McDonald's healthy range of foods.

The research, conducted by the Cancer Council, is the first to confirm that healthy options are rarely being purchased by eat-in diners.

"Australians are mainly purchasing unhealthy fast foods, despite healthier options being available in fast food stores," the authors said in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia.

The researchers compared purchases at 20 McDonald outlets over a two-week period.  There were 1449 meals purchases observed, but just one per cent was healthy.  No more than two healthy meals were observed in any store.  A total of 65 per cent were deemed unhealthy.

Nutritionist and chef Zoe Bingley-Pullin said it was not surprising that most people were not opting for the healthier choice.  "McDonald's is an indulgence food and the majority of people that go there are buying something because they see it as a treat," she said.

She said that it was positive that McDonald's offered healthier choices, but that it was not going to sway the majority of its customers to switch to salads.  "It is not the first point of choice when you are thinking of healthy food," she said.

A McDonald's spokesperson said it would not offer healthier options on its menu if they didn't sell.  "The introduction last year of a choice between salad or fries with extra value meals shows that there is a demand for choice," she said.

"Are salads as popular as fries?  "We don't claim that they are, but they are being chosen by our customers and we expect the number will grow."

Obesity Policy Coalition spokeswoman Jane Martin said fast food outlets like McDonald's would be better off making their high turnover products like burgers and fries healthier.

"There should be ways of making the mainstay of their business healthier because that is obviously what is being marketed heavily during shows like My Kitchen Rules and that's what people are buying," she said.

She said providing a healthy menu was getting rid of the protest vote in the group and meeting the company's corporate social responsibility policy.

SOURCE

Pink slime and the slimy tactics of America’s food elitists

Last week, the Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor wrote a nice article examining how the mainstream media has been complicit in smearing lean finely textured beef — what critics are calling “pink slime.” “ABC has covered the story almost round the clock in recent weeks with stories on ‘World News with Diane Sawyer’ and ‘Good Morning America’,” Gainor reported. Versions of the story have been picked up by dozens of major and minor newspapers around the country. And most television and radio news programs have covered it as well.

On Sunday, however, The New York Times‘s Andrew Revkin became what appears to be the first major media figure to debunk the misinformation campaign in a blog post entitled, “Why I’m O.K. with ‘Pink Slime’ in Ground Beef.”

I agree with Texas Gov. Rick Perry on something — the nutritional merits of derided “pink slime” — the processed last scrapings of meat and connective tissue after cattle are butchered. Dude, it is indeed beef — a source of low-fat nutrition.

One of Revkin’s sources, a historian and blogger named Maureen Ogle, explains the issue well:

“First a word about PS: It’s beef, people. Plain ol’ beef. It’s created by using a deboning process that removes every last morsel of flesh from beef carcasses. During the cutting, slivers and bits of bone end up with the beef, but those are reduced to mush in the processing that follows. … In the BEEF industry, its use dates back to the mid-1970s, although poultry and fish processors were already using the technique. Beef packers began using in the in mid-seventies because, at the time, all meat prices, but especially beef, were in the stratosphere. … So pushed by consumers on one side, and soaring costs on the other, meatpackers asked for, and got, permission from the USDA to use a “mechanical deboning” process that allowed them scrape meat off carcasses so that what had been waste could be eaten.”

Although critics are calling pink slime an unsafe food additive that ought to require mandatory labeling wherever it appears, the fact of the matter is, lean finely textured beef is exactly that: beef. And, compared to other ground beef, LFTB is probably better for consumers. It is processed in a way that removes much of the fat — thus the “lean” part of its name. And beginning around the early- to mid-1990s, following a foodborne illness outbreak linked to Jack in the Box hamburgers, processors began treating LFTB with tiny amounts of the common food disinfectant ammonium hydroxide to kill germs, thereby substantially reducing consumers’ exposure to foodborne pathogens.

You might think that the food nannies who complain about high-fat, calorie-dense food served in institutional settings such as school cafeterias would embrace a product that is lower in fat and largely pathogen free. But you’d be wrong. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, a self-righteous, elitist git who’s been whining about high-fat school food for years, praised the pink slime propaganda campaign for getting LFTB removed from scores of school cafeterias. In an e-mail to the Associated Press, Oliver added, “I hope the U.S. government is also listening because it’s partly responsible for lying to the public for allowing this cheap, low-quality meat filler to be used for so long without having to legally state its presence on packaging.”

In a surprising move, though, the Consumer Federation of America took a positive stand, issuing a statement that “CFA is concerned that manufacturers of hamburger patties may replace LFTB with something that has not been processed to assure the same level of safety. We are also concerned about the potential chilling effect this recent controversy may have on companies who seek to apply innovative solutions and new technologies to enhance food safety.”

Unfortunately, that seems to be precisely the point. Food elitists like Jamie Oliver and Marion Nestle, who seemingly has never met a new technology she didn’t ridicule, aren’t interested in promoting safe, nutritious, and cheap foods per se; they want us all to eat the fruits of some idealized, pastoral perfection — you know, things that aren’t icky. “Culturally we don’t eat byproducts of human food production,” says Nestle. “It’s not in our culture. Other cultures do. We don’t.”

Our culture doesn’t do that? What’s next on her hit list? Sushi? Kiwi fruit? Kopi Luwak? Well, I have news for Marion Nestle: Our “culture” didn’t eat those things either … until we did. Cultures adapt, innovate, learn. That is, we try new things. And when we find things that work well, taste good, and are safe, we adopt them as our own.

In short, the attack on so-called pink slime is one more example food activists’ willingness to attack and mislead consumers about whatever it is that they personally dislike, the facts be damned. So, I’ll continue to eat ground beef products that contain lean finely textured beef. I encourage you to do the same. And if Jamie Oliver ever comes for my scrapple, he’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.

SOURCE




The Disastrous Sliming of "Pink Slime"

Jamie Oliver, TV’s “Naked Chef,” (yeah, not sanitary) is a food snob.  But when food snobbery crosses the line into food scaremongering, we have a problem.

And that is what has happened with the pink slime controversy. By now, you probably know Oliver went on his show and laid into pink slime – or, as they call it in the meat industry, lean finely textured beef. It’s an additive found in ground beef. He “demonstrated” how beef producers take parts of the cow that otherwise would be discarded, then centrifuges separate beef from fat in ways that were previously not economically possible. This beef is roughly 95% lean and is often added to cheaper, high-fat ground beef to raise its protein content – which I would take as a good thing – then treat it with anti-bacteria substances, including minute amounts of ammonia hydroxide, then use it to fill out ground beef.

I put “demonstrated” in quotation marks because Oliver, ever the showman, ignored the fact that ammonia hydroxide gas is used to make the meat and has been approved for use by the FDA since 1973 yet he poured ammonia from a gallon jug with a skull and crossbones on it over beef, which could only be further from the truth if it were gasoline and he’d set it on fire. But it makes for good TV, and that’s Jamie’s real concern.

He fancies himself a modern-day Upton Sinclair – horrifying us into action by holding up for us to see the ingredients we actually eat. Only, he’s more like Rachel Carson, raising a big stink, costing us all millions and millions of dollars, turning us against each other and against well-meaning, law-abiding, job-providing, community-supporting companies over absolutely nothing.

This product has been tested extensively – by government, private watchdogs, food groups, food industry organizations – and the only thing any of them has found wrong with it is its nickname. Even the harshest critics of the beef industry, people such as Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Safety Institute for the Consumer Federation of America, and Nancy Donley, president of Safe Tables Our Priority, a group that represents victims of food-borne illnesses, admit it is safe.

Heck, a month ago, 70 percent of all the ground beef sold in America – including all the beef sold at McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Wendy’s – contained this stuff.. And there was no outbreak of disease or death. Why? Because it is safe.

An industry is dying. Already, 3,000 jobs are lost, and more are on the way. Experts say we’ll need 150,000 more head of cattle per year to make up for the lost filler and that ground beef could go up 20 percent or more. All because a food snob from England whose kids are legally named – and I couldn’t possibly make this up – Poppy Honey, Daisy Boo, Petal Blossom and  Buddy Bear, decided to bump the ratings with a misleading stunt.

This does present some interesting questions. If science is to guide all policy decisions, as liberals remind us during any conversation about global warming, why not now? This science is actually settled! Is this just too juicy to pass up? The English accent? The scariness of finding out how people in flyover country make their money? The appeal to irrational paranoia against unseen forces that drives so much of the Occupy movement? The relentless push from a self-interested media organization on which the left religiously relies?

Or is Jamie Oliver just one more person who thinks he knows what’s good for us better than we do ourselves? Go back to being a food snob, Jamie. Thanks for another lesson in liberal hypocrisy.

SOURCE





'Pink slime' ingredient is also used in cheese, reveals meat industry under fire for using  cleaning chemical

The controversy over ammonia-treated beef - or what critics dub ‘pink slime’ - broadened this week as it was revealed that the caustic cleaning chemical is also used in cheese.  Related compounds are also used in baked goods and chocolate.

Ammonia, known for its noxious odor, became a hot topic with the uproar over what the meat industry calls ‘finely textured beef’ and what a former U.S. government scientist first called ‘pink slime’.  

Ammonia is a nitrogen compound with a distinctive pungent smell of urine. It's used widely as a cleaning agent - although it's highly caustic in its pure form.

'Pink slime' beef is made from fatty trimmings sprayed with ammonium hydroxide - ammonia mixed with water - to remove pathogens such as salmonella and E.coli.   

Ammonia compounds are used as leavening agents in baked goods and as an acidity controller in cheese and sometimes chocolate.    
Kraft Foods, whose brands include Chips Ahoy cookies and Velveeta cheese, is one company that uses very small amounts of ammonium compounds in some of its products. It declined to specify which products.   

‘Sometimes ingredient names sound more complicated than they are,’ said Kraft spokeswoman Angela Wiggins.Wiggins said that in turning milk to cheese, a tiny amount of ammonium hydroxide is added to a starter dairy culture to reduce the culture's acidity and encourage cheese cultures to grow.   

The meat industry has been trying to raise awareness of other foods that contain ammonia, in response to what it has characterized as an unfair attack on a safe and healthy product.  

For example, ammonia compounds are used as leavening agents in baked goods and as an acidity controller in cheese and sometimes chocolate.   

‘Ammonia's not an unusual product to find added to food,’ Gary Acuff, director of Texas A&M University's Center for Food Safety, told a recent press conference hosted by Beef Products Inc. ‘We use ammonia in all kinds of foods in the food industry.’  

After critics highlighted the product on social media websites and showed unappetizing photos on television, calling it ‘pink slime,’ the nation's leading fast-food chains and supermarkets spurned the product, even though U.S. public health officials deem it safe to eat.

Hundreds of U.S. school districts also demanded it be removed from school lunch programs.  One producer, Beef Products Inc, has since idled three factories. Another, AFA Foods, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Ammonia - often associated with cleaning products - was cleared by U.S. health officials nearly 40 years ago and is used in making many foods, including cheese. Related compounds have a role in baked goods and chocolate products.  

Using small amounts of ammonia to make food is not unusual to those expert in high-tech food production. Now that little known world is coming under increasing pressure from concerned consumers who want to know more about what they are eating.  

‘I think we're seeing a sea change today in consumers' concerns about the presence of ingredients in foods, and this is just one example,’ said Michael Doyle, director of the University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety.   

The outrage, which many experts say has been fueled by the term ‘pink slime,’ seems more about the unsavoriness of the product rather than its safety.   ‘This is not a health issue,’ said Bill Marler, a prominent food safety lawyer. ‘This is an 'I'm grossed out by this' issue.’   

Still, critics of so-called ‘Big Food’ point out that while ‘pink slime’ and the ammonia in it may not be harmful, consumer shock over their presence points to a wider issue.  

‘The food supply is full of all sorts of chemical additives that people don't know about,’ said Michele Simon, a public health lawyer and president of industry watchdog consulting firm Eat Drink Politics.  

Wiggins said that in turning milk to cheese, a tiny amount of ammonium hydroxide is added to a starter dairy culture to reduce the culture's acidity and encourage cheese cultures to grow. 

‘It is somewhat similar to activating yeast for dough by adding warm water, sugar and salt to create the proper environment for yeast growth,’ Wiggins said.   

In the case of ammonium phosphate, used as a leavening agent in baking, she said the heat during baking causes the gas to evaporate

SOURCE




'Pink slime' furore crushes beef processor AFA foods

A LEADING US beef processor, AFA Foods, has filed for bankruptcy protection, blaming media coverage of one of its products dubbed "pink slime" by critics.

AFA Foods said it was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection "given recent changes in the market for its ground beef products and the impact of media coverage related to Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings (BLBT)."

Based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, the company claims to be the nation's largest ground beef processor, producing more than 317 million kilograms annually, mostly for food service companies.

AFA Foods said in a statement on today that it had sought bankruptcy protection because "the best way to preserve value for its stakeholders is through an orderly sale of some or all of its assets".

BLBT is made from beef trimmings otherwise used in pet food and cooking oil that is treated with a puff of ammonia to deter e. coli bacteria. The lean, finely textured beef is typically added to ground meat, like hamburger, as a low-cost filler.

In mid-March, public furore about the so-called "pink slime" drove the US Department of Agriculture to announce it would leave it to schools to decide whether to use the controversial ground beef filler in the meals they serve to students.

The USDA's National School Lunch Program feeds more than 31 million school children, many of them from low-income families.

USDA recently bought 3.6 million kilograms of the rosy-coloured product for school meals - prompting more than 250,000 consumers to sign an online petition demanding a halt to its use in school food.

Several fast-food chains, including McDonald's, have declared they would cease beefing up their burgers with lean finely textured beef.

AFA Foods has seven production facilities and a workforce of more than 1000 employees.

SOURCE

Is autism in children down to mutation in sperm that's more common in older fathers?

The thinking here seems unclear.  If autism is caused by de novo mutations that means that the mutations are not found in the parents and it is therefore not hereditary.  But we read:  "Autism is hereditary, in that children with autistic people in their family are more likely than other children to be autistic."

To a significant extent therefore the findings below  would seem to be artifactual.  The authors studied only "families where just one child  has the condition" and even in that sample only one in 7 had de novo mutations.   So it seems that the findings concern only a very small subset of autistic cases and tell us little if anything about autism in general.  I do however agree with the view that there are  different types of  autism but whether the findings below apply to any clear phenotype of autism appears not to have been explored.  Unless they do the findings are essentially trivial

Many cases of autism are caused by faulty sperm and eggs, with older men more likely to father a child with the condition, researchers believe.

Three large-scale studies have highlighted the importance of mistakes in the DNA of eggs and sperm to the development of autism.

One in seven cases of autism in families where just one child  has the condition are caused  this way, the respected journal Nature reports.

The studies also showed sperm to contain more of these mistakes than eggs – and the older the man, the more errors linked to autism were found in his sperm.

It is thought that up to 90 per cent of a child’s risk of developing  autism is written in their genes but little is known about the many genes involved.

In order to find out more, three teams of researchers – including some from Yale and Harvard universities – scrutinised the DNA of hundreds of parents of children with autism and of the youngsters themselves. Unaffected siblings were also studied.

The projects revealed the importance of genetic flaws called ‘de novo mutations’.  We usually think of disease- causing genetic mistakes appearing in a parent’s DNA and being passed to their child.  But the de novo mutations first appear in the child’s DNA and are caused by problems with sperm or egg production.

The research team headed by the University of Washington showed sperm to be a much bigger culprit than eggs.  For every four mutations traced back to sperm, there was just one that began life in an egg.

The finding fits with previous studies that show that older fathers are slightly more likely to have an autistic child than their younger counterparts. One study found that a man aged 40 and over is almost six times more likely to have an autistic child as a man in his 20s or teens.

Pooling the results of the three studies revealed three genes to be peppered by these de novo mutations.

The scientists said that it is likely that hundreds of genes are involved in autism and their study shows the picture to be even more complex than thought.

It is hoped that unravelling the genetics will speed up both the search for new treatments for the condition and the development of diagnostic tests.

Autism, and related conditions such as Asperger’s syndrome,  affect more than one in 100 British children – ten times as many as  just 30 years ago. But, with the causes unclear, current treatment consists of managing individual symptoms, such as hyperactivity.

Stephen Sanders, who led the project headed by Yale University, said: ‘With every new gene we  discover, we learn more about potential treatments for patients with autism.’

The lead scientist on the third project, Mark Daly of Massachusetts General Hospital, said: ‘These results clearly demonstrate the potential of DNA sequencing  technology to articulate specific risk factors for autism.

‘We have only scratched the  surface but, with continued collaborative efforts, these gene  discoveries will point us towards the underlying biological roots  of autism.’

SOURCE





Is this the end of the cheap burger? EU diktat on low-quality meat means prices are set to soar

If there are no health concerns, I think the EU should butt out of this issue

The price of burgers, sausages and pies is to rocket because of an EU ban on low-quality meat.

From the end of this month, there will be a ban on bulking up fast food and supermarket value ranges with reconstituted mince made from scraps of beef and lamb.

The move will hit the shopping budget of already hard-pressed families and lead to more meat being wasted in abattoirs.

The Food Standards Agency, which risked a ban on the export of British meat products if it did not impose the Brussels-driven ruling, stressed that the change is not being made because of health or safety issues.

Instead, it is the result of a disagreement over the definition of the so-called ‘desinewed meat’.

But the meat-processing industry accused the FSA of ‘bowing down’ to the European Commission and warned of price rises and job losses.

Stephen Rossides, director of the British Meat Processors Association, said: ‘This is a criminal waste of a valuable food product at a time when we are being urged to reduce food wastage. Common sense has gone out of the window.

‘If economic principles apply, the cost of the burger will rise and it is going to be the less well-off who are affected at what is already a bad time.’

The row surrounds desinewed meat, or DSM.  This is meat that is left on bones and carcasses after slaughter. Rather than going to waste, it is grated off mechanically, creating a mince-like substance.

Jamie Oliver’s high-profile campaign for junk food to be banned from school canteens means DSM features less in school dinners than in the past.  But it is widely found in inexpensive meat products on sale in fast food restaurants and in supermarkets, where it is used to bulk up the meat content at low cost. The FSA sees DSM as being a different product to a second type of reconstituted meat, called mechanically separated meat, or MSM.

The higher pressures used in the MSM process means that while it is considered acceptable for chicken and pork, it is not deemed usable for beef and lamb, for fear of spreading diseases such as BSE.

However, the European Commission says DSM and MSM are one and the same.  Under this interpretation of the law, it will no longer be possible to put beef or lamb through even the gentler DSM processing.

Existing products will not be recalled but any foods that contain reconstituted beef or lamb will have to be reformulated.

The cheap desinewed meat in burgers will have to be replaced with more expensive cuts.

Chicken and pork carcasses can still undergo DSM processing but any foods they are put into will have to be clearly labelled.

Currently, DSM’s classification as meat means it counts towards the total meat content of a product and does not need to be listed separately on the label.

There are fears that the changes will push up the cost of some meat products so much that shoppers stop buying them, leading to job losses in Britain’s £6billion meat industry.
burger-graphic

The British Meat Processors Association estimates that the total cost to the consumer and industry of the moratorium could reach £200million.

Describing the ban as ‘madness’, Mr Rossides said: ‘All this has happened at breakneck speed. The industry must be given time to adjust to any change in requirements and market circumstances in a controlled and properly managed way, in order to minimise market disruption and financial damage.

‘People are going to have to reformulate products, repackage and relabel. I don’t know that you won’t see an English sausage any more but it may be that it’s more expensive.’

The FSA said that if the dispute over classification can be resolved, the ban could be lifted. Its chief executive, Tim Smith, said the move had come ‘unexpectedly’.

The Food and Drink Federation said it supports ‘a pragmatic approach to the required changes, including a reasonable timeframe for the transition, to avoid disproportionate measures that could lead to meat being wasted, causing a significant impact on the environment and on the price and availability of meat raw material’.

A spokesman for the consumer watchdog Which? said that its research showed that shoppers want to know if they are eating desinewed meat and that clear labelling of food allows customers to make an informed choice.

SOURCE

The attack on red meat consumption takes an amusing twist

Below is a recent report subject to all the usual criticisms of observational studies and self-reported food intake.  But even if you take their data seriously, you find some interesting stuff.

Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies

By An Pan et al.

Background:  Red meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, its relationship with mortality remains uncertain.

Methods:  We prospectively observed 37 698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2008) and 83 644 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1980-2008) who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years.

Results:  We documented 23 926 deaths (including 5910 CVD and 9464 cancer deaths) during 2.96 million person-years of follow-up. After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. The corresponding HRs (95% CIs) were 1.18 (1.13-1.23) and 1.21 (1.13-1.31) for CVD mortality and 1.10 (1.06-1.14) and 1.16 (1.09-1.23) for cancer mortality. We estimated that substitutions of 1 serving per day of other foods (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains) for 1 serving per day of red meat were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk. We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.

Conclusions:  Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.

SOURCE

But a careful reanalyisis of their data shows that red meat is actually GOOD for you

The statistics below are quite esoteric and I would analyse  the data a little differently (I prefer Pearsonian rs to beta weights as the best indicator of a  relationship) but are quite  defensible

I have highlighted in red the key points

As we have seen in an earlier post on the China Study data (1), which explored relationships hinted at by Denise Minger’s previous and highly perceptive analysis (2), one can use a multivariate analysis tool like WarpPLS (3) to explore relationships based on data reported by others. This is true even when the dataset available is fairly small.

So I entered the data reported in the most recent (published online in March 2012) study looking at the relationship between red meat consumption and mortality into WarpPLS to do some exploratory analyses. I discussed the study in my previous post; it was conducted by Pan et al. (Frank B. Hu is the senior author) and published in the prestigious Archives of Internal Medicine (4). The data I used is from Table 1 of the article; it reports figures on several variables along 5 quintiles, based on separate analyses of two samples, called “Health Professionals” and “Nurses Health” samples. The Health Professionals sample comprised males; the Nurses Health sample, females.

Below is an interesting exploratory model, with results. It includes a number of hypotheses, represented by arrows, which seem to make sense. This is helpful, because a model incorporating hypotheses that make sense allows for easy identification of nonsense results, and thus rejection of the model or the data. (Refutability is one of the most important characteristics of good theoretical models.) Keep in mind that the sample size here is very small (N=10), as the authors of the study reported data along 5 quintiles for the Health Professionals sample, together with 5 quintiles for the Nurses Health sample. In a sense, this is somewhat helpful, because a small sample tends to be “unstable”, leading nonsense results and other signs of problems to show up easily – one example would be multivariate coefficients of association (the beta coefficients reported near the arrows) greater than 1 due to collinearity (5).

So what does the model above tell us? It tells us that smoking (Smokng) is associated with reduced physical activity (PhysAct); beta = -0.92. It tells us that smoking (Smokng) is associated with reduced food intake (FoodInt); beta = -0.36. It tells us that physical activity (PhysAct) is associated with reduced incidence of diabetes (Diabetes); beta = -0.25. It tells us that increased food intake (FoodInt) is associated with increased incidence of diabetes (Diabetes); beta = 0.93. It tells us that increased food intake (FoodInt) is associated with increased red meat intake (RedMeat); beta = 0.60. It tells us that increased incidence of diabetes (Diabetes) is associated with increased mortality (Mort); beta = 0.61. It tells us that being female (SexM1F2) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort); beta = -0.67.

Some of these betas are a bit too high (e.g., 0.93), due to the level of collinearity caused by such a small sample. Due to being quite high, they are statistically significant even in a small sample. Betas greater than 0.20 tend to become statistically significant when the sample size is 100 or greater; so all of the coefficients above would be statistically significant with a larger sample size. What is the common denominator of all of the associations above? The common denominator is that all of them make sense, qualitatively speaking; there is not a single case where the sign is the opposite of what we would expect. There is one association that is shown on the graph and that is missing from my summary of associations above; and it also makes sense, at least to me. The model also tells us that increased red meat intake (RedMeat) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort); beta = -0.25. More technically, it tells us that, when we control for biological sex (SexM1F2) and incidence of diabetes (Diabetes), increased red meat intake (RedMeat) is associated with reduced mortality (Mort).

How do we roughly estimate this effect in terms of amounts of red meat consumed? The -0.25 means that, for each standard deviation in the amount of red meat consumed, there is a corresponding 0.25 standard deviation reduction of mortality. (This interpretation is possible because I used WarpPLS’ linear analysis algorithm; a nonlinear algorithm would lead to a more complex interpretation.) The standard deviation for red meat consumption is 0.897 servings. Each serving has about 84 g. And the highest number of servings in the dataset is 3.1 servings, or 260 g/d (calculated as: 3.1*84). To stay a bit shy of this extreme, let us consider a slightly lower intake amount, which is 3.1 standard deviations, or 234 g/d (calculated as: 3.1*0.897*84). Since the standard deviation for mortality is 0.3 percentage points, we can conclude that an extra 234 g of red meat per day is associated with a reduction in mortality of approximately 23 percent (calculated as: 3.1*0.25*0.3).

Let me repeat for emphasis: the data reported by the authors suggests that, when we control for biological sex and incidence of diabetes, an extra 234 g of red meat per day is associated with a reduction in mortality of approximately 23 percent. This is exactly the opposite, qualitatively speaking, of what was reported by the authors in the article. I should note that this is also a minute effect, like the effect reported by the authors. (The mortality rates in the article are expressed as percentages, with the lowest being around 1 percent. So this 23 percent is a percentage of a percentage.) If you were to compare a group of 100 people who ate little red meat with another group of the same size that ate 234 g more of red meat every day, over a period of more than 20 years, you would not find a single additional death in either group. If you were to compare matched groups of 1,000 individuals, you would find only 2 additional deaths among the folks who ate little red meat.

At the same time, we can also see that excessive food intake is associated with increased mortality via its effect on diabetes. The product beta coefficient for the mediated effect FoodInt --> Diabetes --> Mort is 0.57. This means that, for each standard deviation of food intake in grams, there is a corresponding 0.57 standard deviation increase in mortality, via an increase in the incidence of diabetes. This is very likely at levels of food consumption where significantly more calories are consumed than spent, ultimately leading to many people becoming obese. The standard deviation for food intake is 355 calories. The highest daily food intake quintile reported in the article is 2,396 calories, which happens to be associated with the highest mortality (and is probably an underestimation); the lowest is 1,202 (also probably underestimated).

So, in summary, the data suggests that, for the particular sample studied (made up of two subsamples): (a) red meat intake is protective in terms of overall mortality, through a direct effect; and (b) the deleterious effect of overeating on mortality is stronger than the protective effect of red meat intake. These conclusions are consistent with those of my previous post on the same study (6). The difference is that the previous post suggested a possible moderating protective effect; this post suggests a possible direct protective effect. Both effects are small, as was the negative effect reported by the authors of the study. Neither is statistically significant, due to sample size limitations (secondary data from an article; N=10). And all of this is based on a study that categorized various types of processed meat as red meat, and that did not distinguish grass-fed from non-grass-fed meat.

By the way, in discussions of red meat intake’s effect on health, often iron overload is mentioned. What many people don’t seem to realize is that iron overload is caused primarily by hereditary haemochromatosis. Another cause is “blood doping” to improve athletic performance (7). Hereditary haemochromatosis is a very rare genetic disorder; rare enough to be statistically “invisible” in any study that does not specifically target people with this disorder.

SOURCE





Sugar Taxes Are Unfair And Unhealthy

If the regulatory discussion about sugar is going to be based on science, rather than science fiction, it needs to move beyond kicking the soda can.

Conventional wisdom says draconian regulation—specifically, a high tax—on sugary drinks and snacks reduces unhealthy consumption, and thereby improves public health. There are many reasons, however, why high sugar taxes are at best unsuccessful, and at worst economically and socially harmful.

Research finds that higher prices don't reduce soda consumption, for example. No scientific studies demonstrate a difference either in aggregate soda consumption or in child and adolescent Body Mass Index between the two thirds of states with soda taxes and those without such taxes.

Patrick Basham is a Cato Institute adjunct scholar. He coauthored (with John Luik) the Democracy Institute book, Gambling: A Healthy Bet.
More by Patrick Basham

The study that did find taxes might lead to a moderate reduction in soda consumption also found this had no effect on adolescent obesity, as the reduction was completely offset by increases in consumption of other calorific drinks.

Economic research finds sugar taxes are a futile instrument in influencing the behavior and habits of the overweight and the obese. Why do sugar taxes fail? Those consumers who strongly prefer unhealthy foods continue to eat and drink according to their individual preferences until such time as it becomes prohibitively expensive to do so.

Demand for food is largely insensitive to price. A 10 percent increase in price reduces consumption by less than 1 percent. Applied to soda, this means that to reduce consumption by 10 percent, the tax rate on sugary drinks would need to be 100 percent!

A sugar tax also has undesirable social and economic consequences. This tax is economically regressive, as a disproportionate share of the tax is paid by low earners, who pay a higher proportion of their incomes in sales tax and also consume a disproportionate share of sugary snacks and drinks.

Such taxes also have perverse, unintended consequences. Taxes on sugary snacks lead many consumers to replace the taxed food with equally unhealthy foods. Poorer consumers react to higher food prices not by changing their diets but by consuming even fewer healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables, and eating more processed foods. For instance, taxes levied specifically on sugar content increase saturated fat consumption.

Sugar taxes have failed where they've been tried, and are unfair and unhealthy. Given that there's no compelling evidence they'll improve public health, we can't justify using the tax code to shape the sweetness of our dietary choices.

SOURCE

Babies treated in the womb for obesity: Overweight mothers-to-be get diabetes pill to cut the risk of having a fat child

Is this another DES disaster coming up?  Where are the long-term double-blind studies to support this policy?  Many molecules that are safe for adults  can be teratogenic.  Metformin works by suppressing glucose production by the liver.  Could it cause long term  liver damage  or malfunction in some of  the unborn?   That it has been safely used by diabetics is no guarantee that is will be equally safe in unborn babies.  We are looking at quite different metabolisms in the two cases

Babies are being medicated in the womb in an attempt to prevent them from being  born obese.   In a world first, dangerously overweight mothers-to-be in four British cities have started taking a diabetes drug during their pregnancy.

The doctors behind the controversial NHS trial say that obesity among pregnant women is reaching epidemic proportions and they need to act now to protect the health of tomorrow's children.

However, there is likely to be unease about resorting to medication in pregnancy for a problem that can be treated through changes in diet and exercise.

If the strategy is a success, the treatment could be in widespread use in as little as five years, with tens of thousands of overweight but otherwise healthy mothers-to-be drugged each year.

The Daily Mail recently revealed the rise of the 'sumo baby', with the number of newborns weighing more than 11lb soaring by 50 per cent over the last four years.

More than 15 per cent of pregnant women are obese. This raises their odds of dying in pregnancy, of their baby being stillborn and of a host of pregnancy complications, some of which can be fatal.

Big babies are around twice as likely to grow into overweight adults, suggesting obesity and the lifetime of ill-health it can bring is 'programmed' in the womb. The trial involves 400 pregnant women in Liverpool, Coventry, Sheffield and Edinburgh.

They have started taking metformin, which has been safely used by diabetics for decades and is cleared for the treatment of diabetes in pregnancy. It costs just pence per tablet.

Some of the participants have already had their babies but many more births will be needed before it is clear if the treatment works. Mothers-to-be elsewhere are due to take part.

The study aims to exploit the ability of metformin to lower levels of the hormone insulin in the bloodstream.

Obese women make more insulin than other mothers-to-be and this leads to a greater nutrition supply reaching the baby.

It is hoped that lowering levels of insulin will reduce the supply and so cut the odds of babies being born obese.

Treatment with metformin may redistribute the baby's fat stores, reducing the deposits around the liver and other organs.

Study leader Professor Jane Norman of Edinburgh University said: 'One of the challenges is that many women feel perfectly healthy but there is very good evidence that women who are obese have an increased risk of pregnancy problems and their babies are at risk, and we'd like to reduce that risk.'

Addressing concerns about unborn babies being medicated for a problem that many would say could be treated by diet and exercise, she said: 'I absolutely support the improvement of diet and encouraging exercise.

'But we are increasingly faced with women who start their pregnancy obese. Saying at that stage to eat less and exercise more is not particularly helpful.'

Obesity experts have welcomed the study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council, the NHS's health research arm and the baby charity Tommy's, saying that while the situation is not ideal, it needs to be tackled.

Patrick O'Brien of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists described the study as 'very important'.  He said: 'When you are overweight in pregnancy you are at increased risk of just about every complication you can think of.'

SOURCE






Britain's obesity madness again

Stories like this pop up often  -- showing how mindless the definition of obesity has become.  It's child abuse



She dreams of becoming a  ballerina and when she’s not dancing, four-year-old Sophie Kettle spends her free time swimming, roller-skating and riding her bike.  So her parents were astounded to receive a letter from the NHS saying their daughter, who weighs just 2st 13lb, is ‘overweight’.

The medical note warned that Sophie is in the fattest 3 per cent of her age group and is at increased risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes.  The 3ft 3in youngster was taken to the family GP, who informed her she was ‘obese’ and in the ‘danger zone’.

Her mother Joanna said that Sophie, who had been happy and healthy, now often refuses her food.  Herself a former anorexic, Mrs Kettle fears her daughter could eventually develop an eating disorder.

‘She comes home from school saying, “Mummy, I’m fat”, and I have to explain to her that she’s just perfect as she is,’ said Mrs Kettle, 29, from High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.  ‘It’s terrible that a child so young should be worrying what she eats.’

Sophie and her classmates at Hamilton primary school in High Wycombe had their height and weight measured by NHS staff to calculate their body mass index (BMI) as part of the National Child Measurement Programme, which aims to pinpoint youngsters with weight problems.

For adults, BMI is measured by dividing weight in kilograms by height in metres squared.

Although the calculation for children begins the same way, the result is then compared with those of others of the same age and sex to calculate the child’s ‘centile’ – or position relative to others on a scale of one to 100.

The letter to Mrs Kettle and her husband James, a traffic warden, said their daughter has a BMI ‘centile’ of 97 – meaning she is in the top 3 per cent. Between 91 and 97 is classed as overweight while 98 and above is clinically obese.

‘If she was a teenager and overweight, I would be the first to be concerned,’ said Mrs Kettle. ‘But she’s not even five and she’s a tiny little thing without an ounce of fat on her.

‘The GP told me to give Sophie smaller portions, but she’s being given healthy food, not biscuits and crisps.’

In her school packed lunch, Sophie takes two or three pieces of fruit, and her mother says there are always vegetables with dinner.

‘She’s such an active child,’ she added. ‘Her dream is to become a ballet dancer and she’s on a waiting list for lessons.’

Mrs Kettle, who also has a two-year-old son, Ryan, is concerned her daughter might struggle with the same food issues she herself faced as a teenager.  She said: ‘I ended up damaging my body, and I would hate for Sophie to do the same.’

Susan Ringwood, chief executive of the eating disorder charity BEAT, said: ‘It is important that any health-related information is given very sensitively.  ‘BMI alone is a very unreliable measure of overall health especially where children are concerned as they are still growing taller.  ‘Raising a child’s insecurities about weight and shape can lead to problems in the future.’

SOURCE

Australia: Alarm bells sound on registration of Chinese medicine

I am a great believer that all therapeutic claims should be thoroughly investigated on an equal basis but the proposals below are not too bad.  There is no doubt that there is some therapeutic value in Chinese medicine.  I once resorted to it myself with beneficial results.  Where I grew up you went to a doctor when you were sick  -- but if you were REALLY sick you went to a Chinese herbalist

THE federal government's decision to register Chinese medical practitioners in the same way as other health professionals is a potentially dangerous endorsement of unproven treatments, doctors say.

From July 1, it will be mandatory for practitioners and students to be registered with the Chinese Medicine Board of Australia, which will also manage complaints and disciplinary processes as well as assessing practitioners trained overseas who wish to practice in Australia.

Registered individuals must commit to maintaining and developing their skills and spending at least 20 hours a year in training, according to standards agreed in January. They must also meet a minimum English language requirement and have professional indemnity cover to the value of at least $5 million in liability.

But a respiratory medicine specialist, Hubertus Jersmann, said it risked misleading patients, who were likely to believe that practitioners' registration was comparable to that of doctors.

"Registration gives people legitimacy," said Associate Professor Jersmann, of Royal Adelaide Hospital. "In the eyes of the public they sound exactly like a GP" who had undertaken 11 years of general and specialist training.

Regulation could help to weed out unacceptable practices, said Professor Jersmann, who has co-authored an article on the issue in today's Medical Journal of Australia.

But this had to be balanced against the risk of giving tacit government support to a field that was not supported by scientific evidence gained through rigorously controlled clinical trials.

"If research is conducted that shows it works, we'd welcome that. We're not emotionally opposed to it," said Professor Jersmann, who wrote the article with a neurophysiologist, Marcello Costa.

Chinese medicine practitioners often argue their therapies have the virtue of a long history of accepted use. But, Professor Jersmann said, "the length of time is immaterial. Where is the evidence people haven't died? We want certainty whether it works or not."

The chairman of the Chinese Medicine Board of Australia, Charlie Xue, has previously defended the new standards, saying they were set "following extensive consultation with practitioners and other stakeholders". The board has called on practitioners to apply promptly for registration to meet the deadline.

Mandatory registration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners, medical radiation practitioners and occupational therapists will also start from July, through boards established under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

SOURCE




   
Fat can PREVENT diabetes: Gene found in cells that could protect against the condition

LOL!

A gene that could help protect against diabetes has been found in fat cells, scientists say.  It shows that the body's ability to regulate blood sugar can actually be improved by the presence of body fat, according to U.S. researchers.

Professor Ulf Smith, president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, called the finding 'really exciting'.

The gene resists type 2 diabetes by converting glucose sugar into fatty acids and boosting sensitivity to insulin, which regulates the blood sugar.

For most obese people, levels of sugar rise too much because it is prevented from entering fat cells.  But a team from Boston in the U.S. found that if they increased levels of a 'glucose transporter' gene in obese mice, it allowed more sugar into their fat cells and protected against the condition.

Sugar in fat cells triggered a response from the gene - called ChREBP - that regulated insulin sensitivity throughout the body, according to the Daily Express.

Nearly three million people in the UK suffer from diabetes, and a further 850,000 have it without knowing.  Most have type 2 diabetes, with around 2.5million suffering from the illness, which can cause strokes, heart attacks and blindness.  It normally develops during middle age from obesity or an unhealthy lifestyle.

'The general concept that all fat is bad is not true,' said lead researcher at Harvard Medical School, Dr Mark Herman.

'Obesity is commonly associated with metabolic dysfunction that puts people at higher risk for diabetes, stroke and heart disease, but there is a large percentage of obese people who are metabolically healthy.'

The scientists, whose findings were published in the journal Nature, found that - conversely - normal weight mice missing the transporter gene developed diabetic symptoms.

Previous research has shown that the gene is more active in those whose bodies had a better sugar balance.

SOURCE

Bacon can be good for you

Some cautious backpedalling below

The Saturday morning staple of a bacon or sausage sandwich has received a bashing of late. In January, researchers from Sweden claimed that eating just 50g (1.7oz) of processed meat a day – the equivalent of one sausage or two rashers of bacon – raises the risk of pancreatic cancer by a fifth.

And another study claimed that a diet high in these processed meats may also lead to bowel cancer and heart disease.

But, as nutritional experts attest, pork is the most unfairly maligned of meats and a few good-quality rashers or bangers could do us good, if eaten in moderation.

‘Pork has a bad reputation, mainly because it’s associated with cheap processed sausages, whose contents are largely unknown, or fatty bits of bacon and flavourings. But that reputation should not apply to products from outdoor-reared, well-nourished animals,’ says Kumud Gandhi, a food scientist and founder of The Cooking Academy.

Catherine Collins, principal dietician at St George’s Hospital London, says: ‘Bacon, sausages and other processed pork products have sodium nitrite added as a preservative and flavour-enhancer, giving them their salty flavour.

‘But this chemical can form a carcinogenic substance called nitrosamine in the digestive system, which may be the reason the Swedish study found a small cancer risk, although it’s far from conclusive.

‘The people in the Swedish study wouldn’t have just been eating a  sausage once a day – they will have been eating a whole fry-up. Someone with this kind of lifestyle may well be obese or smoke, which are big known risk factors for pancreatic cancer,’ says Collins.

‘There is no evidence that eating processed meats once or twice a week as part of a balanced diet will  do any harm whatsoever.’

Department of Health guidelines  suggest that  red-meat consumption of more than 70g (2½ oz) per day, the equivalent of two portions a week, may raise the risk of bowel cancer.

Collins says: ‘As a red meat, pork contains haem iron, which is thought to be potentially carcinogenic. Two portions a week – bacon with eggs, or a meal with sausages – has not been found to pose any risk. Studies have also shown that if you blacken any meat, the charred substance could be cancer-causing, but if you eat ‘barbecued’ sausages with yogurt, the bacteria it contains renders these carcinogens less harmful.’

Nutritionally, pork ranks highly among meats. It is rich in essential vitamins and minerals, including B6, B12, niacin, thiamine, riboflavin, iron, magnesium, potassium and zinc, and it’s high in protein, contains carbohydrates and a lean cut is low in fat and calories.

Nutritionist Zoe Harcombe says: ‘Typically, about 45 per cent of the fat in pork is unsaturated. Most of that is oleic acid, the same healthy fat found in olive oil, which is known to help lower cholesterol levels.  ‘Of course, the rest is unhealthy saturated fat, so moderation is key.’

If you don’t eat fish or nuts, pork is a useful alternative source of omega 3 fatty acids, says Gandhi. ‘A piece of loin pork, the size of a deck of cards (100g, 3½oz), will give half your daily protein intake and 15 per cent of your daily iron intake. Protein is important for children, so if you give them two good-quality  sausages made from outdoor-reared, toxin-free pork and which contain  90 per cent pork meat, that’s a good, nutritious meal.’

Pork is also a source of zinc and  Vitamin D. ‘If you are worried about nitrites, choose a sausage with a higher meat content – more than 80 per cent – or a brand of bacon without added water, as these will need fewer flavour enhancers,’ says dietician Anna Raymond.

Rachel Green, of BBC3’s Kill It, Cook It, Eat It, says: ‘Buy free-range  pork sausages from butchers or farm shops. I like to use more mature, flavoursome rare-breed porks such as Gloucestershire Old Spot or Tamworth. With bacon, look for British dry-cured for the healthiest cuts.’

Knowing where your meat comes from and what has been done to it is key to its quality and nutritional value. Michael Jones, owner  of Drings butchers in Greenwich,  London, says: ‘If you get a good piece of bacon, which hasn’t been cloaked in sugar and fat, it’s just a good piece of meat that is tasty, nutritious and ethical too.’

SOURCE





Vaccine to stop heart attacks could be developed

This sounds a bit far-fetched but time will tell.  The approaches outlined below also give some concerns about possibly serious side effects

Vaccines against heart disease could be available within five years, a London conference has heard.

Injections of antibodies could prevent the build up of fat in the arteries which cause narrowings and break off leading to heart attacks, experts said.

It would be the first time that the underlying causes of heart disease was targeted instead of reducing factors such as high levels of bad cholesterol and blood pressure which increase the likelihood of heart disease developing.

Several different approaches are in the pipeline and could be licensed within five years, the Frontiers in CardioVascular Biology meeting at Imperial College London was told.

Independent experts said the vaccines were 'very promising' and could have a big impact on the treatment of the disease.

Cardiovascular disease causes one in three of all deaths in Britain accounting for 191,000 deaths a year.

There are around 2.7m people with heart disease and treatment costs £3.2bn a year.

Lack of exercise, poor diet, smoking and drinking too much alcohol are the main causes of heart disease but it is also known that there are strong hereditary factors too.

Coronary heart disease occurs when fatty plaques build up in the blood vessels feeding the heart and over time become narrowed. Parts of the plaque, known as atheroma, may break off causing a clot to form which can block the artery causing a heart attack.

Prof Nilsson, who is professor of experimental cardiovascular research at Lund University, in Sweden told the conference: “People at high risk of heart attacks are likely to be the first candidates for immune approaches. Such treatments, since they’ve totally different modes of action, could be used in addition to the current therapies."

Prof Nilsson said that although current treatments including statins and blood pressure drugs are very effective and reduce the risk of cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and strokes by around 40 per cent, 'it should not be forgotten that 60 per cent of cardiovascular events continue to occur'.

Prof Nilsson told the conference that experiments had shown it was possible to alter the way the immune system reacted to plaques in the arteries to reduce inflammation and the severity of the build up.

Working with Prof Prediman Shah, from Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, the team were able to formulate a vaccine that reduced plaque build up by 60 to 70 per cent in mice.

The resulting CVX-210 vaccine, currently in development as an injection by CardioVax, is waiting regulatory clearance to start clinical trials.

A second vaccine using the same materials has been formulated as a nasal spray, Prof Nilsson said.

Another approach, of directly injecting antibodies against bad low density lipoprotein which carries cholesterol in the blood and forms the basis of the plaque, is already in trials.

Prof Nilsson said: “The rationale is that since oxidised LDL plays a major role in the development of atherosclerotic plaques and harmful inflammatory processes, directly targeting oxidised LDL should prevent plaque formation and reduce inflammation."

Early studies have shown that the antibody, called BI-204, developed jointly by BioInvent and Genentech, reduced plaques by half and was well tolerated when tested in 80 healthy people.

A trial of BI-204 in 144 people with heart disease is underway in America and Canada where body scans will measure plaques in the arteries over time.

Prof Nilsson said it was unlikely that the products would be given as traditional vaccines in early childhood and instead were more like drugs in that they would need to be given repeatedly.

He said: “Both these treatments are far more like drugs – to be effective they’d need to be given long term. The antibody therapy in particularly is likely to be expensive so you could probably only afford to give it to high risk populations rather than everyone."

Professor Peter Weissberg, Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation said: “A vaccination approach to the treatment of atherosclerosis is based on an attempt to interfere with the cellular mechanisms that cause life threatening build up of fatty deposits.

“There will be great interest in the outcome of the on-going studies to see firstly if this approach is safe and secondly, whether it can influence the progression of vascular disease in the long term.

“It is very promising, but it will take some time before we know if it is successful and, if so, which patients are likely to benefit most from this treatment.”

SOURCE