The Robert Gordon University, Scotland: Obesity causes Global Warming



But of course! Why didn't I think of that?



Researchers at the university have completed a study that addresses the link between climate change and obesity.

The academics suggest that global weight loss would result in a drop in the production of the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO(2)).



The study was carried out by a trio of researchers within the university's Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology (CORE). It suggests that if every obese and overweight person in the world lost 10 kilograms (or 1.58 stone), the resulting drop in greenhouse emissions would be the equivalent of 0.2% of the CO(2) emitted globally in 2007 (49.560Mt).



The calculations were based on a previous weight loss study that investigated the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, body composition and resting metabolic rate of obese volunteers with type 2 diabetes. After six months of following the diet, the volunteers' weight, fat mass, fat free mass and CO(2) production were observed.



Dr Catherine Rolland was one of the lead researchers on the study. She explains: "This decrease can be explained by the principles of respiration - the process by which organisms breathe in oxygen, which is then converted to CO(2) and then exhaled.



"CO(2) production is proportionate to body mass and heavier individuals naturally produce more than those of a healthier weight. The global obesity epidemic, therefore, has resulted in humans producing a higher volume of a major greenhouse gas."



The initial study was carried out by Phd student Ania Gryka as supervised by Dr Rolland and Professor Iain Broom, director of CORE. It was published in International Journal of Obesity on 26 July this year.



The team were inspired to investigate the link between obesity and global warming after reading a paper written by academics Ian Roberts and Robin Stott in November 2010 which put out a call for collective action from health professionals against the causes of climate change.



Dr Rolland continues: "The current climate change has been most likely caused by the increased greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the direct producers of these gases is human beings. As such, Professor Broom felt that we were in an ideal position to present our data in a way that responded to this call by Roberts and Stott.



"While the reality is that global weight loss of this magnitude is unlikely to happen anytime soon, it is clear that working towards this reduction could help meet the CO(2) emission reduction targets and be of a great benefit to global health. It also makes the point that by improving our own health we can play a part in improving the health of our planet."



The CORE team have no immediate future plans for this research, but will continue to contribute to the global understanding and management of obesity.



SOURCE














Since when is food illegal?



I find it shocking and appalling that the government should presume to protect me from people who are willing to sell me food. Consider this item that came in yesterday’s eMail:



“August 3, 2011 - Los Angeles, California - Public Health Officials today descended once again on a buying club, that specializes in raw foods. Club organizer, James Stewart was arrested at his home, the locks to his personal residence were changed, his papers, money and computer seized. At the same time, farmer Sharon Palmer and Weston A. Price Foundation volunteer chapter leader Victoria Bloch Coulter were arrested. All three were charged with Section 182A-Conspiracy to Commit a Crime. Bond for James Stewart was set at $123,000. Bail for Bloch is recommended at $60,000. Bail for Palmer is recommended at $121,000.”



Of all the authoritarian, unmitigated gall! Who are these public health officials who pretend to have any authority about what people sell for food? Furthermore, this family sells fresh, raw food, unpolluted with GMOs or harsh pesticides. I worked on a cattle ranch for over a year, and I know from personal experience how difficult - and unending - farm work can be. Anyone who is working that hard to provide fresh vegetables and raw milk should have a statue built in their honor… not arrested like federal criminals that are a danger to society. The only danger I see in this instance is the presumption of authority demonstrated by the arrogant government agents who dragged these people away in handcuffs. I encourage you to visit the Weston A. Price website to find out how you can help these besieged farmers.



Please do not wait until the shelves at the grocery stores are empty before you lift a finger to help. Please call the local authorities and let them know how outraged you are that this type of tyranny is happening in our country.



SOURCE

"Organic" fanatics get a black eye



The great Satan against which "organic" farmers fight is PESTICIDES. And they never cease their criticism of conventional farming on the grounds that the products of conventional farming have dangerous quantities of pesticides in them.



A major organic advocacy organization is the Environmental Working Group (EWG), who regularly demonize common foods, claiming that consumption of them is "dirty".



A couple of food scientists (C. K. Winter and J. M. Katz) have however just taken EWG on and tested their claims. I reproduce below an excerpt from their recent report in the Journal of Toxicology. The report and the findings are crystal clear.

Abstract



Probabilistic techniques were used to characterize dietary exposure of consumers to pesticides found in twelve commodities implicated as having the greatest potential for pesticide residue contamination by a United States-based environmental advocacy group. Estimates of exposures were derived for the ten most frequently detected pesticide residues on each of the twelve commodities based upon residue findings from the United States Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program.



All pesticide exposure estimates were well below established chronic reference doses (RfDs). Only one of the 120 exposure estimates exceeded 1% of the RfD (methamidophos on bell peppers at 2% of the RfD), and only seven exposure estimates (5.8 percent) exceeded 0.1% of the RfD. Three quarters of the pesticide/commodity combinations demonstrated exposure estimates below 0.01% of the RfD (corresponding to exposures one million times below chronic No Observable Adverse Effect Levels from animal toxicology studies), and 40.8% had exposure estimates below 0.001% of the RfD.



It is concluded that (1) exposures to the most commonly detected pesticides on the twelve commodities pose negligible risks to consumers, (2) substitution of organic forms of the twelve commodities for conventional forms does not result in any appreciable reduction of consumer risks, and (3) the methodology used by the environmental advocacy group to rank commodities with respect to pesticide risks lacks scientific credibility.



1. Introduction



Since 1995, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a United States-based environmental advocacy organization, has developed an annual list of fruits and vegetables, frequently referred to as the “Dirty Dozen,” suspected of having the greatest potential for contamination with residues of pesticides. The EWG cautions consumers to avoid conventional forms of these fruits and vegetables and recommends that consumers purchase organic forms of these commodities to reduce their exposure to pesticide residues.



The annual release of the report has traditionally generated newspaper, magazine, radio, and television coverage, and the report is considered to be quite influential in the produce purchasing decisions of millions of Americans.



In June 2010, the EWG released its most recent “Dirty Dozen” list [1]. Topping the list as the most contaminated commodity was celery, followed by peaches, strawberries, apples, blueberries, nectarines, bell peppers, spinach, cherries, kale, potatoes, and grapes (imported). According to an EWG news release, “consumers can lower their pesticide consumption by nearly four-fifths by avoiding conventionally grown varieties of the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables” [2].



It is unclear how the EWG could make such a statement since the methodology used to rank the various fruits and vegetables did not specifically quantify consumer exposure to pesticide residues in such foods. Instead, the methodology provided six separate indicators of contamination, including (1) percentage of samples tested with detectable residues, (2) percentage of samples with two or more pesticides detected, (3) average number of pesticides found on a single sample, (4) average amount of all pesticides found, (5) maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample, and (6) total number of pesticides found on the commodity [1]. Each of these indicators was normalized among the 49 most frequently consumed fruits and vegetables, and a total score was developed to form the basis for the rankings.



Since none of these indicators specifically considered exposure (the product of food consumption and residue levels), it is difficult to see how the EWG could substantiate the claim that consumers could lower their pesticide consumption by nearly four-fifths by avoiding conventional forms of the “Dirty Dozen” commodities.



Additionally, the toxicological significance of consumer exposure to pesticides in the diet is also not addressed through an appropriate comparison of exposure estimates with toxicological endpoints such as the reference dose (RfD) or the acceptable daily intake (ADI).



To more accurately assess the potential health impacts from consumer exposure to pesticide residues from the “Dirty Dozen” commodities, this study utilized a probabilistic modeling approach to estimate exposures. The exposure estimates were then compared with toxicological endpoints to determine the health significance of such exposures.



2. Materials and Methods



The EWG rankings were derived from the results of residue findings of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pesticide Program Residue Monitoring from 2000 to 2008 [1, 3, 4]. The PDP is more appropriate for risk assessment as it is not developed for enforcement, provides residue findings for produce in ready-to-eat forms (i.e., washed or peeled), includes many more samples than the FDA program, and relies upon more sensitive analytical methods. As a result, our study relied entirely upon results from the most recent PDP data collected from 2004 to 2008.

And Mischa Popoff is not popping off yet either



Mischa Popoff is what Australians would call a "fair dinkum" (genuine, sincere) organic farmer and he HATES all the fraud and dishonest propaganda in the industry. And he has done his best to expose it. So the Winter & Katz article above made his day. He sent the authors the following email to give them the background on the "organic" racket.

Dear Professor Winter and Mr. Katz:



You’re quite right that the Environmental Working Group’s 'Dirty Dozen' list has several major flaws. Your recent paper in the Journal of Toxicology is a real eye-opener.



Chief among EWG’s flaws is the fact that there is no routine field testing of organic crops under current organic certification standards. None. I guarantee you that everyone at EWG is fully aware of this deep flaw, and it draws into question whether the organic food EWG promotes is even really organic in the first place, which in turn undermines their whole argument before it even gets out of the gate. And yet, the media gleefully plays along promoting EWG’s list of alleged “dirty” foods.



So, instead of handling the whole organic movement with kid gloves – you know, pretending as so many do, in the interests of political correctness, that we support people’s “right to choose” and all that malarkey – I say it’s HIGH time to strike back and expose EWG! Did you know, for instance, that there are also no surprise inspections in the organic industry? Another huge flaw in EWG’s position. But, in the case EWG’s 'Dirty Dozen' list it’s the aforementioned lack of field testing that really undermines their claims. Now hold onto your hat while I tell you that EWG helped write these rudderless standards that omit field testing, and they did so in spite of President Clinton’s attempts to include testing in concert with the American Consumers Union!



Try to imagine the Olympics without athletes being tested for performance-enhancing drugs. Try to imagine Michelin Red Guide inspectors, or indeed even regular health-board inspectors, calling ahead before visiting a restaurant, and never sampling the food. The multi-billion-dollar organic industry − which stakes all of its marketing claims on the myth that it is purer, more natural and more nutritious than the conventional food industry − turns out to be a complete free-for-all.



And now for the fun part. I am an organic farmer, inspector and author! That’s right, I actually believe there could be provable, quantifiable benefits to eating organic food… in some cases at least. But at present there are basically none. So I’m writing to you to ask you to join me in my effort to bring science and objectivity to the business of certifying organic food. This is the only way to stem the advance of the political wing of the organic industry, a wing which includes no farmers and consists mainly of urban activists who’ve never worked a day on a farm in their life. Bringing science to organics will also lead to the elimination of more than half the organic industry’s current commercial volume, a welcome occurrence which would lead to a drastic reduction in funding for EWG and thereby discredit, once and for all, the proliferation of flagrant propaganda such as their 'Dirty Dozen' list. If this is not done, the conventional (including biotech) food sectors, which have safely and nutritiously fed billions upon billions of people over the decades, will continue to be subject to baseless attacks, and even legal victories in court won’t slow the tide of anti-scientific political activism. The activists have to be cut-off at their source: in the media, and be embarrassed into finally conducting routine field testing and surprise inspections across the board no matter how fearful they might be of the consequences.



Please have a look at my website where you’ll see some of the media work I’ve done in this area over the years. My work has been covered by Barron’s and The National Post, and I’ve given countless radio and television interviews. You’ll also see a number of highly-respected academics, business people and journalists copied on this email with whom I have communicated on this important matter over the years. Some might object to having their emails CC’d openly, but most won’t mind you knowing who they are because they appreciate that we all have a responsibility to promote objectivity, especially in the food industry. In one way or another, these people have all expressed support for my efforts to re-introduce the scientific process to the organic industry thereby reducing its political influence and forcing it to finally do what it claims to do: provide better food.



Please pick up a copy of my book Is it Organic? Whatever your assumptions surrounding organic food, I guarantee you’ll be both pleasantly and unpleasantly surprised by what I have written. And please consider my suggestion of joining me in my efforts.



All the best!



Mischa Popoff

Author of Is it Organic? The inside story of the organic industry

Some people won't like this book, but you will

Osoyoos BC Canada

250-495-2902

www.isitorganic.ca

The story of your life really is written on your face, according to new research



As you will see from the journal abstract, the media article below is a rather florid interpretation of the findings. If I put bluntly what they really found you may understand why: What they found was that men from poor families tend to be uglier. Sorry about that but that is the way the cookie crumbles. The authors speculate that the ugliness was caused by disturbances during childhood but that seems unlikely. Genetic differences are more likely the culprit



Any explanation is going to be complex however when we note that there was no such effect for women. Poor women were NOT more likely to be ugly



In some people, the weather-beaten skin and deep lines that crease their face betray obvious clues about the hard life they have led, but now scientists have discovered everyone's facial features may betray their childhood.



Scientists at the University of Edinburgh have found it is possible to learn about a person's childhood by looking at how symmetrical their face is.



Using 15 different facial features, they found that people with asymmetric faces tended to have more deprived childhoods and so harder upbringings than those with symmetrical faces.



Their findings suggest that early childhood experiences such as nutrition, illness, exposure to cigarette smoke and pollution and other aspects of a difficult upbringing leave their mark in people's facial features.



Surprisingly, their facial features were not affected by their socioeconomic status in later life, which suggests that even those who manage to undergo a rag-to-riches transformation can never escape their past as it will be written on their face.



It may explain why celebrities such as Gordon Ramsay and Tracey Emin, who had difficult and impoverished childhoods, have such distinctive asymmetric facial features despite having since amassed personal fortunes.



Professor Ian Deary, from the department of psychology at the University of Edinburgh's centre of cognitive ageing, said: "Symmetry in the face is thought to be a marker of what is called developmental stability – the body's ability to withstand environmental stressors [stress factors] and not be knocked off its developmental path.



"We wondered whether facial symmetry would faintly record either the stressors in early life, which we though might be especially important, or the total accumulated effects of stressors through the lifecourse.



"The results indicated that it is deprivation in early life that leaves some impression on the face. The association is not very strong, meaning that other things also affect facial symmetry too."



Professor Deary and his colleagues examined the facial features of 292 people aged 83 who took part in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921, a study that has followed the participants through out their lifetime.



They were able to compare the facial symmetry of the participants to detailed information about their social status at childhood, including their parent's occupation, how crowded their home was and whether they had an indoor or outdoor lavatory.



They examined 15 different "landmarks" on the face, including the positions of the eyes, nose, mouth and ears.



They found there was a strong association between social class and the symmetry of the face in men. Those with more symmetrical faces had more privileged and easier upbringings than those with asymmetrical features.



The results in women were less strong and the researchers want to carry out further studies with other facial markers that may give a stronger association.



The researchers, however, found no correlation between participants social status in later life and their facial features.



Professor Tim Bates, who co-authored the study, added: "A small link from parental status to facial symmetry doesn't mean people are trapped by their circumstances. Far from it – as shown by the high levels of mobility in society, not just people like Gordon Ramsay, but to lesser degrees by millions of people."



The link between facial symmetry and exposure to stress in early life might explain why many studies have found that people with symmetrical faces are considered to be the most attractive.



Lop-sided facial features may unconsciously provide a signal that a person is less desirable as a mate due to the stress they experienced in early life which could leave them vulnerable to disease and premature death.



In their study, which is published in the journal of Economics and Human Biology, the scientists suggest that facial symmetry could be used alongside medical markers such as high blood pressure to identify people who might be at an increased risk of disease.



Professor Dearly, however, insisted there was still a lot of work to do before it could be used like this. "It is a research-based measure and quite tricky to calculate at present," he said.



SOURCE

Symmetry of the face in old age reflects childhood social status



David Hope et al.



Abstract



The association of socioeconomic status (SES) with a range of lifecourse outcomes is robust, but the causes of these associations are not well understood. Research on the developmental origins of health and disease has led to the hypothesis that early developmental disturbance might permanently affect the lifecourse, accounting for some of the burden of chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease. Here we assessed developmental disturbance using bodily and facial symmetry and examined its association with socioeconomic status (SES) in childhood, and attained status at midlife. Symmetry was measured at ages 83 (facial symmetry) and 87 (bodily symmetry) in a sample of 292 individuals from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 (LBC1921). Structural equation models indicated that poorer SES during early development was significantly associated with lower facial symmetry (standardized path coefficient −.25, p = .03). By contrast, midlife SES was not significantly associated with symmetry. The relationship was stronger in men (−.44, p = .03) than in women (−.12, p = .37), and the effect sizes were significantly different in magnitude (p = .004). These findings suggest that SES in early life (but not later in life) is associated with developmental disturbances. Facial symmetry appears to provide an effective record of early perturbations, whereas bodily symmetry seems relatively imperturbable. As bodily and facial symmetries were sensitive to different influences, they should not be treated as interchangeable. However, markers of childhood disturbance remain many decades later, suggesting that early development may account in part for associations between SES and health through the lifecourse. Future research should clarify which elements of the environment cause these perturbations.



SOURCE

Real Fatsos tend to be poor



An interesting finding below. The relationship between fat and income is not linear. There is a large income range over which you are equally likely to be fat or slim. It's at the extremes that we see an effect of income. Great obesity goes with poverty and the really slim show a slight tendency to be richer.



It's possible however that the lack of a strong overall relationship arises because BMI is a poor measure of fat: You have to have a really strong effect for it to show up via BMI

Overweight and poor? On the relationship between income and the body mass index



Dean Jolliffe



Abstract



Contrary to conventional wisdom, NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of the CDC] data indicate that the poor have never had a statistically significant higher prevalence of overweight status at any time in the last 35 years. Despite this empirical evidence, the view that the poor are less healthy in terms of excess accumulation of fat persists. This paper provides evidence that conventional wisdom is reflecting important differences in the relationship between income and the body mass index. The first finding is based on distribution-sensitive measures of overweight which indicates that the severity of overweight has been higher for the poor than the nonpoor throughout the last 35 years. The second finding is from a newly introduced estimator, unconditional quantile regression (UQR), which provides a measure of the income-gradient in BMI at different points on the unconditional BMI distribution. The UQR estimator indicates that the strongest relationship between income and BMI is observed at the tails of the distribution. There is a statistically significant negative income gradient in BMI at the obesity threshold and some evidence of a positive gradient at the underweight threshold. Both of these UQR estimates imply that for those at the tails of the BMI distribution, increases in income are correlated with healthier BMI values.



SOURCE

Middle-aged women on antidepressants like Prozac 'face stroke risk'



The second sentence below is all you need to know, rather remarkably



Middle-aged women who take antidepressants could be nearly 40 per cent more likely to have a stroke, scientists claim. But it is unclear whether it is the pills or other factors linked to depression that raises the risk.



A study of more than 80,000 women aged 54 to 79 over a six-year period found those who had been depressed were 29 per cent more likely to have a stroke.



However, patients who took Prozac, Seroxat or similar medication were 39 per cent more at risk. Until recently there was little research on the long-term dangers of common antidepressants taken by millions of Britons a year.



But only last week a study by British scientists indicated they increased the risk of death, heart attacks and falls in the elderly.



Last year, 23 million prescriptions were written out for Prozac, Seroxat and similar types of drugs known as SSRIs, a rise of more than 40 per cent in four years.



Last night, health experts said women should not stop taking their medication as they could not be sure it was causing strokes.



Patients with depression are often overweight, tend to smoke or fail to exercise, factors that also increase the risk of stroke, the U.S. researchers, from Harvard Medical School, in Boston, told the American Heart Association.



Kathryn Rexrode, senior author of the research said: 'I don’t think the medications themselves are the primary cause of the risk. This study does not suggest that people should stop their medications to reduce the risk of stroke.



'Depression can prevent individuals from controlling other medical problems such as diabetes and hypertension, from taking medications regularly or pursuing other healthy lifestyle measures such as exercise. 'All these factors could contribute to increased risk.'



Dr Peter Coleman, of the Stroke Association, said patients on antidepressants should continue taking them. 'Depression is a very serious condition which needs to be treated carefully by healthcare professionals. This research appears to indicate that women suffering from depression may be less motivated to maintain good health or control other medical conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure, which have an associated increased risk of stroke.



'However, it is very hard to determine whether there is a direct link between depression and stroke risk and a lot more research is needed in this area before depression alone can be viewed as a stroke risk factor.



'It’s important that anyone taking antidepressants should continue doing so, and anyone concerned about their overall stroke risk should speak to their GP.'



SOURCE










Working in an office is bad for your brain



This seems reasonable but the evidence offered is very slim



Working in an office is bad for your brain and can make you less productive, according to researchers. A study has found that the hustle and bustle of modern offices can lead to a 32% drop in workers well being and reduce their productivity by 15%.



They have found that open plan offices create unwanted activity in the brains of workers that can get in the way of them doing the task at hand.



Open plan offices were first introduced in the 1950s and quickly became a popular as a way of laying out offices.



The findings are revealed in a programme made for Channel 4, The Secret Life of Buildings, to be broadcast on Monday.



In the television programme, however, a test carried out with presenter and architecture critic Tom Dyckhoff using a cap that measured his brain waves while trying to work in an open plan office revealed intense bursts of distraction.



Dr Jack Lewis, a neuroscientist who conducted the test, said: "Open plan offices were designed with the idea that people can move around and interact freely to promote creative thinking and better problem sovling. "But it doesn't work like that. If you are just getting into some work and a phone goes off in the back ground it ruins what you are concentrating on. Even though you are not aware at the time, the brain responds to distractions."



Modern offices which refuse to allow personal decorations on walls or desks may also not be helping employees. Dr Craig Knight, a psychologist at Exeter University said that allowing employees to personalise their working area could improve their performance in the office. He said: "Companies like the idea of giving their employees a lean space to work in as it is uniform and without unnecessary distractions.



"In the experiments we have run, however, employees respond better in spaces that have been enriched with pictures and plants. If they have been allowed to enrich the space themselves with their own things it can increase their wellbeing by 32% and their productivity by 15%. "It is because they are able to engage with their surroundings, feel more comfortable and so concentrate."



Professor Fred Gage, from the laboratory of genetics at the Salk Institute in San Diego, California, has also conducted studies by comparing the brains of mice kept in bare, clean cages with those kept in more stimulating environments.



He said "In the period of a month we saw the brains of the mice kept in stimulatni environments increase in volume by 15%. The area is highly enriched with blood vessels and we see new neurons being born. "If we can extrapolate that to humans then it shows that having a stimulating environment can optimise our performance and abilities."



SOURCE

Eating meals laced with paprika and cinnamon 'protects your body from effects of fatty foods'



This is a ludicrous study: N = 6?? That must be the smallest sample size I have seen. Additionally, it looked only at a few biomarkers, not any health outcome and the long term effects are unknown, including side-effects. Many things look good in the isolation but may not increase longevity overall



Eating a diet rich in spices such as turmeric and cinnamon can protect you from the physical damage caused by fatty meals, say scientists. A team from Penn State University has found a blend of antioxidant spices can reduce the stress that high-fat foods can place on the heart.



When we eat, our bodies use carbohydrate calories for energy and turn leftover calories into triglycerides that are stored in fat cells for later use.



Study leader, Sheila West, said: 'Normally, when you eat a high-fat meal, you end up with high levels of triglycerides, a type of fat, in your blood. 'If this happens too frequently, or if triglyceride levels are raised too much, your risk of heart disease is increased. 'We found that adding spices to a high-fat meal reduced triglyceride response by about 30 per cent, compared to a similar meal with no spices added.'



Professor West and her colleagues prepared meals on two separate days for six men between the ages of 30 and 65 who were overweight, but otherwise healthy. The researchers added two tablespoons of culinary spices to each serving of the test meal, which consisted of chicken curry, Italian herb bread, and a cinnamon biscuit.



The control meal was identical, except that spices were not included. The team drew blood from the participants every 30 minutes for three hours.



'In the spiced meal, we used rosemary, oregano, cinnamon, turmeric, black pepper, cloves, garlic powder and paprika,' said fellow researcher Ann Skulas-Ray. 'We selected these spices because they had potent antioxidant activity previously under controlled conditions in the lab.' The spice dose provided the equivalent amount of antioxidants contained in 1.4oz of dark chocolate.



When the meal contained a blend of antioxidant spices, antioxidant activity in the blood was increased by 13 per cent and insulin response decreased by about 20 per cent.



High insulin levels can be toxic over time and cause a build-up of plaque in the arteries. 'Antioxidants, like spices, may be important in reducing oxidative stress and thus reducing the risk of chronic disease,' Prof West said. Many scientists think that oxidative stress contributes to heart disease, arthritis and diabetes.



Ms Skulas-Ray noted that adding two tablespoons of spices to meals did not cause stomach upset in the participants. 'They enjoyed the food and had no gastrointestinal problems,' she said.



In the future, Prof West plans to investigate whether she can get the same results by adding smaller doses of spices to meals.



The findings were reported in the current issue of the Journal of Nutrition.



SOURCE












Surging Retractions in Scientific Publishing



The Wall Street Journal reports that retractions of scientific papers have surged in recent years, with the top 3 journals issuing retractions being PNAS, Science and Nature. The graph above shows the increase in the rate of retracted papers.



Pharmalot provides a summary:

[T]here were just 22 retraction notices that appeared in journals 10 years ago, but 139 were published in 2006 and by last year, the number reached 339. Through July of this year, there were a total 210 retractions, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, which maintains an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals.

Meanwhile, retractions related to fraud rose more than sevenfold between 2004 and 2009, exceeding a twofold rise traced to mistakes, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. After studying 742 papers that were withdrawn from 2000 to 2010, the analysis found that 73.5 percent were retracted simply for error, but 26.6 percent were retracted for fraud. Ominously, 31.8 percent of retracted papers were not noted as retracted (read the abstract).



The conclusion? Either there is more fraud or more policing? Ivan Oransky, the executive editor of Reuters Health and a co-founder of the Retraction Watch blog that began recently in response to the spate of retractions, writes us that the simple use of eyeballs and software that can detect plagiarism has made it possible to root out bad papers.



He also notes, however, that there are more journals, which explains why there are more papers, in general, being published. “So the question is whether there have been more retractions per paper published,” Oransky writes, and then points to this chart to note that were, indeed, many more.



“That’s really no surprise, given the increasing numbers of eyeballs on studies, and the introduction of plagiarism detection software. It’s unclear whether the actual amount of misconduct and legitimate error has grown; it may just be that we’re picking up on more of it,” he continues. “What makes it difficult to tell is a problem we often see at Retraction Watch: Opaque and unhelpful retraction notices saying only ‘this study was withdrawn by the authors.’ How does that make for transparent science? We think journals can do a lot better, by demanding that authors and institutions come clean about what went wrong.”



And why is there more fraud? As the Wall Street Journal notes, there is a lot to be gained - by both researchers and journal editors - to publish influential papers. “The stakes are so high,” The Lancet editor Richard Horton tells the Journal. “A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It’s your passport to success.”

The Retraction Watch website has recently celebrated its one-year anniversary. One thing you'll notice is that most of the attention to retractions occurs in the medical sciences. Here is a leading question -- is that because that area of research is more subject to error or fraud?



SOURCE

That evil meat-eating again



The usual epidemiological rubbish. What they have most likely found is that the poor eat more "incorrect" food and the poor are less healthy anyway.



There is such a lot of anti-meat evangelism around in the health literature that many findings could be "rigged" (consciously or unconsciously) also. Many academic articles contain "disclosure" statements of various kinds. A disclosure of vegetarianism would seem appropriate in this field where applicable



Just two rashers of bacon a day can increase the risk of diabetes by more than 50 per cent, scientists claim. Eating a single sausage, small burger or a few slices of salami every day drastically raises the chances of developing the illness.



Research has found that just 100g of red meat every day – or half a normal size steak – increases the likelihood of type 2 diabetes by a fifth. But they found that processed meat, including products made from mince and cold meats such as ham and salami, had a far greater effect.



Just 50g a day, the equivalent of two slices of bacon, one sausage or one small burger, increases the risk by more than 50 per cent.



At least 2.5million Britons suffer from type 2 diabetes, the form linked to obesity, and experts suspect a further million have the condition but have not yet been diagnosed. It occurs when their body does not produce enough of the hormone insulin to control its blood sugar levels. Symptoms of type 2 diabetes include feeling very thirsty, needing to go to the toilet and constant tiredness.



Although the illness is treatable with tablets and injections, it can cause serious complications including blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes.



Researchers at Harvard University looked at the health records and diets of more than 440,000 men and women spanning a period of between 14 and 28 years. The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that people who ate 100g of red meat a day were 19 per cent more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. And those who had 50g of processed meat every day – one sausage or frankfurter or two slices of bacon – increased their risk by 51 per cent.



But the scientists found that those who normally eat one portion of red meat a day could lower their risk by a fifth if they ate other proteins including nuts, low fat cheese or brown rice instead.



There is now widespread evidence that red meat drastically increases the likelihood of major health problems including heart disease, strokes and some types of cancer.



The Department of Health has issued guidelines saying adults should eat no more than 500g of red meat a week. This amounts to three sausages, one small steak, one quarter-pounder and three slices of lamb.



Until now, however, there was little evidence that relatively small amounts of processed red meat could increase the chance of diabetes. The researchers say the risks posed by eating too much red meat are now known to be so great that the public should be advised to cut back and eat poultry, fish and pulses instead.



But Dr Iain Frame from Diabetes UK, said: ‘Based on analysis of previous studies, this research simply suggests eating a daily portion of red meat may increase someone’s risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. ‘The suggested increased risk is small so people should not be afraid of eating red meat as part of a healthy balanced diet.’



SOURCE












Killer T-cells wipe out leukaemia



THREE US cancer patients were brought back from the brink by a new therapy that turned their own immune cells into tumour killers, wiping out an advanced form of leukaemia, researchers said today.



The breakthrough stunned scientists and although the gene transfer therapy technique is still in development, it could offer hope one day to people who suffer from ovarian, lung, breast and skin cancers.



"We saw amazing results," said Michael Kalos, lead author of the study that appeared in Science Translational Medicine and was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.



"These were nasty tumours that were late-stage, a lot of mutations that had bad prognosis," he said. "We saw massive reduction in tumour burden. One patient had over seven pounds (three kilograms) of tumour and it all disappeared."



Two of the three men in the study with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have remained cancer-free for almost a year, while the third has seen a slight recurrence of disease.



"Within three weeks, the tumours had been blown away, in a way that was much more violent than we ever expected," said senior author Carl June, who like Kalos is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. "It worked much better than we thought it would."



Scientists removed a sample of the patients' T-cells and genetically modified them to attack all cells that express a certain kind of protein, CD19, which includes tumour cells.



They altered them using a lentivirus vector that encodes an antibody-like protein known as a chimeric antigen receptor. The protein is expressed on the surface of T-cells and designed to bind to CD19.



The scientists also engineered the T-cells to start triggering other T-cells to multiply as soon as they attached to a cancer cell, bringing on a faster death for the tumour but avoiding the side-effects of cancer drugs.



"We saw at least a 1000-fold increase in the number of modified T-cells in each of the patients. Drugs don't do that," said Mr June, describing the infused T-cells as "serial killers". "On average, each infused T-cell led to the killing of thousands of tumour cells."



In one case, a 64-year-old man had blood and marrow "replete with tumour cells". He saw little change for the first two weeks after treatment, but then started experiencing nausea, chills and fever.



Tests showed he was undergoing a huge rise in T-cell count, and a condition known as tumour lysis syndrome that can arise when cancer cells are dying off. By day 28, his blood showed no evidence of leukaemia.



A 65-year-old patient saw similar results, with no trace of leukaemia after a year, but a 77-year-old patient saw a slight recurrence of cancer after he was treated with steroids for the symptoms of tumour lysis syndrome. However, his tumour load remains far below what it was before the treatment.



Steven Rosenberg, chief of the surgery branch at the National Cancer Institute, described it as "important" and "impressive". He was not involved with the study but has published research on similar approaches to eradicating B-cell lymphomas and melanoma.



"You are taking advantage of the body's immune system by creating outside the body T-cells that can act against the cancer," he said. "You have to select the particular gene modification for each type of cancer but when you pick it wisely it can be very effective."



The other main form of treatment, bone marrow transplants, carries a minimum 20 per cent risk of dying from the procedure and cure rates hover at around 50 per cent.



While it remains unknown how long the treatment may keep cancer at bay, researchers were excited to see that "memory" T-cells remained months after the cancer disappeared, indicating the body is retaining some protection.



The next step is to try the technique in two children and at least 13 adults with CD19-positive leukaemia.



They are also looking to determine whether the approach could target non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and acute lymphocytic leukaemia, mesothelioma cancer cells, ovarian and pancreatic cancer cells.



Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is the second most common type of adult leukemia after acute myeloid leukemia, according to the National Cancer Institute.



"I'm healthy and still in remission," said one of the three patients, who declined to be named. "I know this may not be a permanent condition, but I decided to declare victory."



SOURCE

Curry component could one day cure your tennis elbow by reducing inflammation



Study in laboratory glassware only so far



Eating curry could offer new hope for sufferers of tennis elbow and other forms of tendinitis, says new research. A key ingredient found in Indian curries blocks tendon inflammation in the joints, which causes pain and misery for thousands.



The discovery could eventually lead to the development of a remedy for a painful condition which is on the increase, according to an international team of researchers.



They have shown that curcumin, which gives the spice turmeric its trademark bright yellow colouring, can be used to suppress biological mechanisms that spark inflammation in tendon diseases.



In a paper due to be published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, researchers at The University of Nottingham and Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich described laboratory experiments that show the ingredient can switch off the inflammatory cell cycle involved.



Dr Ali Mobasheri of the University’s School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, who co-led the research, said: ‘Our research is not suggesting that curry, turmeric or curcumin are cures for inflammatory conditions such as tendinitis and arthritis. ‘However, we believe that it could offer scientists an important new lead in the treatment of these painful conditions through nutrition.



‘Further research into curcumin, and chemically-modified versions of it, should be the subject of future investigations and complementary therapies aimed at reducing the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the only drugs currently available for the treatment of tendinitis and various forms of arthritis.’



Tendons, the tough cords of fibrous connective tissue that join muscles to bones, are essential for movement because they transfer the force of muscle contraction to bones but are prone to injury, particularly in athletes.



Tendinitis (or tendonitis) is a form of tendon inflammation, which causes pain and tenderness near to joints and is particularly common in shoulders, elbows, knees, hips, heels or wrists. Other examples of common tendon disease include tennis and golfer’s elbow and Achilles tendinitis.



The global incidence of tendonitis is on the increase because people are living longer and older people are more at risk of inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes.



At present, standard treatment aims to relieve pain and reduce inflammation using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), such as aspirin or ibuprofen. In more serious cases of tendon injury, steroid injections can be given directly into the tendon sheath to control pain and enable physical therapy to start.



However, NSAIDS and steroids are associated with undesired side effects including stomach ulcers, nausea, vomiting, heartburn, headache, diarrhoea, constipation, drowsiness and fatigue.



There is an acute need for new treatments with fewer debilitating side effects, said Dr Mobasheri. This latest research looked at curcumin, a key ingredient of the spice turmeric, which has been used for centuries in traditional Indian or ‘Ayurvedic’ medicine as an anti-inflammatory agent and remedy for symptoms related to irritable bowel syndrome and other disorders.



In the laboratory, researchers used a culture model of human tendon inflammation to study the anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin on tendon cells.



The main objective of the study was to observe the effects that curcumin had on the inflammatory and degenerative properties induced by signalling molecules called interleukins. Interleukins are a type of small cell-signalling protein molecules called cytokines that can activate a whole series of inflammatory genes by triggering a dangerous ‘switch’ called NFkB.



The results showed that introducing curcumin in the culture system inhibits NFkB and prevents it from switching on and promoting further inflammation.



Previous research suggests turmeric may be useful in a variety of conditions, including cancer, arthritis and Alzheimer’s.



However, experts say it is difficult to get a big enough dose to remedy medical problems from a curry meal, as 100g of curry powder has to be eaten to deliver a 3.6g clinical dose.



Hundreds of thousands of people suffer inflammation of the tendons each year. Apart from exercise-related injury, the condition can be sparked from repetitive strain on the joints and overuse.



SOURCE














Soy tablets 'do NOT ease menopause symptoms' and could make hot flushes worse



"Alternative" remedy fails when properly tested



Soy tablets do not cut symptoms of the menopause in older women or improve bone strength, researchers have warned.



Many women have turned to natural remedies to cope with symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweating and low mood because, it is claimed, they fear the side effects of Hormone Replacement Therapy. But a two-year study by researchers at the University of Miami of almost 250 women virtually no difference between those taking 200mg soy tablets daily or dummy pills.



Women who took the supplements every day for two years didn't have any improvement in their symptoms compared with those who took a soy-free placebo pill. They also suffered more hot flashes by the end of the study.



Women seeking relief have been left without a risk-free treatment since 2010 after a 15-year study found estrogen and progestin could increase heart and cancer risks. [NOTHING in life is risk-free but the risks with HRT are very small]



Lead author Dr Silvina Levis, said: 'What prompted us to do this study was in the wake of the Women's Health Initiative study when many of our patients stopped using hormone therapy. 'Many of them had just gone to a health food store and started on soy supplements.



'The study was started to try to answer a simple question: will these soy isoflavone tablets help women with the issues they were concerned with?'



Soy is a bean found in foods like soy milk, soy sauce, tofu and miso soup. It is often also used as a meat substitute in vegetarian foods.



Dr Levis and her team randomly split 248 women who had recently hit menopause into two groups. For two years, half of the women took 200 milligrams of soy isoflavones every day - about twice the amount that would be in a soy-rich diet. The other half took placebo pills. None of them knew whether they were getting the real or sham treatment.



Most of the participants were Hispanic, and 182 completed the study.



At their two-year visit, women in both groups had lost the same amount of bone density in their spine and hip since starting the study. They also reported a similar number of menopause symptoms, except more 48 per cent of women in the soy group reported hot flashes compared to 32 per cent in the placebo group.



Women taking the daily soy supplements also reported some of the stomach and digestion problems, such as constipation, that have been linked to soy before. However, there were no serious side effects related to the supplements, the authors report in Archives of Internal Medicine.



'When we started the study we wanted this to work, because it would provide an easy and healthy way to help women in the initial stages of menopause,' Dr Levis said.



After this, she said 'maybe women will reconsider' taking soy tablets during menopause.



William Wong, a nutritionist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said that it doesn't mean soy couldn't have health benefits over a longer period of time - such as if girls started getting more of it during puberty.



Medications including certain anti-depressants may provide relief for menopause symptoms in some women, Dr Levis said.



For bone health, Dr Wong recommended regular physical activity, combined with calcium and vitamin D supplements.



SOURCE

Getting along with colleagues helps you live longer?



I think that what this study may really have shown is that people in poor health have a worse social life



A friendly work environment and a positive relationship with your co-workers has long-term health benefits, according to the latest research.



Dr Sharon Toker of the Department of Organizational Behavior at Tel Aviv University's Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration says that employees who believe that they have the personal support of their peers at work are more likely to live a longer life.



"We spend most of our waking hours at work, and we don't have much time to meet our friends during the weekdays," explains Dr Toker. "Work should be a place where people can get necessary emotional support."



Dr Toker and her TAU colleagues Prof. Arie Shirom and Yasmin Alkaly, along with Orit Jacobson and Ran Balicer from Clalit Healthcare Services, followed the health records of 820 adults who worked an average of 8.8 hours a day through a two-decade period. Those who had reported having low social support at work were 2.4 times more likely to die sometime within those 20 years, says Dr Toker.



The 820 study participants were drawn from adults aged 25 to 65. Researchers controlled for various psychological, behavioral or physiological risk factors, such as smoking, obesity and depression, and administered a questionnaire to participants, who were drawn from a wide variety of professional fields including finance, health care and manufacturing.



Researchers asked about employees' relationships with their supervisors, and also assessed the subjects' evaluation of their peer relationships at work, and whether their peers were friendly and approachable, a reflection of emotional and professional support. Dr Toker suspects that the perception of emotional support was the strongest indicator of future health.



During the course of the study, says Dr Toker, 53 participants died, most of whom had negligible social connections with their co-workers. A lack of emotional support at work led to a 140% increased risk of dying in the next twenty years compared to those who reported supportive co-workers, she concluded.



While building a supportive environment for employees may seem intuitive, Dr Toker says that many workplaces have lost their way. Despite open concept offices, many people use email rather than face-to-face communication, and social networking sites that may provide significant social connection are often blocked.



To make an office friendlier to health Dr Toker suggests coffee corners where people can congregate to sit and talk; informal social outings for staff members; an internal virtual social network similar to Facebook; or a peer-assistance program where employees can confidentially discuss stresses and personal problems that may affect their position at work anything that encourages employees to feel emotionally supported, she says.



SOURCE










The hidden risks of top herbal remedies that pharmacists don't tell us about



Herbal medicines can pose serious health risks that consumers are not warned about, researchers say. They surveyed different versions of the five most popular remedies – St John’s wort, Asian ginseng, echinacea, garlic and ginkgo – and found they were commonly sold over the counter with no safety warnings.



Yet St John’s wort, widely used to combat low moods, can reduce the effectiveness of the contraceptive pill. And Asian ginseng, used to boost the immune system, and echinacea, often used to protect against colds, also have their dangers. Even garlic – used to lower high blood pressure – can be dangerous in large quantities.



The researchers at Leeds University’s school of pharmacy surveyed 68 products on sale to the public and found 51 of them (75 per cent) contained no information on precautions, interactions with other medicines or side effects.



Seventy per cent of them (48 of the 68 products) were marketed as food supplements, despite their powerful effects. Just three products contained sufficient information on risks and side-effects. The products were bought at two health-food stores, three chain pharmacies and three supermarket chemists.



Under an EU directive in April this year, certain herbal medicines have to be licensed and carry health information, but of these five products, only St John’s wort and echinacea require a licence. Of the 12 St John’s wort products surveyed by the Leeds researchers, four contained no safety messages, and of 13 echinacea products, nine failed to provide the required information.



The other three remedies do not have to carry any warnings, as long as they make no medical claims.



The fact that so few products provided sufficient information could be because shops are allowed to continue selling old stock, with no warnings, until their expiry date.



Professor Theo Raynor, who led the study, said: ‘The best advice to consumers is “buyer beware”. Herbal medicines ...... should be taken with as much caution as any over-the-counter medicine. ‘Any substance that affects the body has the potential to do harm if not taken correctly.’



He advised consumers to look for the Traditional Herbal Registration (THR) logo, which means remedies have been approved by the Government. ‘People should tell their doctor about herbal medicines they are taking so they receive the best care,’ he added.



SOURCE

The attention seeking Greenfield now claims that internet use leads to autism



Greenfield speculates again. Criticizing TV and computer usage is her shtick but we have not yet heard what she thinks of the finding that regular Facebook users have MORE friends in real life than others



A neuroscientist has sparked a war of words after suggesting a link between increased internet use and autism. Baroness Greenfield, former [fired] director of the Royal Institution, believes digital technology could be leading to changes in people’s brains.



The professor of pharmacology at Oxford University has previously argued that constant computer and internet use could be shortening attention spans, encouraging instant gratification and causing a loss of empathy.



But a fellow Oxford professor condemned her remarks on autism as ‘illogical garbage’. Dr Dorothy Bishop, a professor of neuropsychology, wrote an open letter to Baroness Greenfield saying: ‘You may not realise just how much ill-formed speculation parents of [children with autistic spectrum disorders] are exposed to.



‘Over the years they’ve been told their children’s problems are caused by a cold style of interaction, inoculations, faulty diets, allergies, drinking in pregnancy – the list is endless.’



She believes Baroness Greenfield, who was speaking in an interview with New Scientist magazine, has ignored a body of evidence which suggests most, if not all, of the rise in autism is down to a widening of the diagnostic criteria and better understanding of the condition.



She said: ‘Most cases are diagnosed around the age of two, when not many children are using the internet. And this rise has been documented over the past 20 years, long before Twitter and Facebook.’



Baroness Greenfield said: ‘I have never claimed new technologies are causing autism. Rather, I’ve said that the increase in lack of empathy, that is documented scientifically, may be leading to behaviours like that and this should be explored.’



She said one recent Chinese study found excessive internet use can cause parts of teenagers’ brains to waste away. She added: ‘We may be in danger if we are creating an environment for the next generation where a premium isn’t put on eye contact, body language and hugging someone.’



SOURCE












How "light" food options 'have as many calories as ordinary foods'



They are promoted as the lighter option. But many supermarket ‘diet’ ranges are in fact heavier in fat and calories than standard versions.



Keen to catch the eye of the weight-conscious shopper, supermarkets and big brands have spent millions of pounds on formulating lower fat, sugar or salt versions of their most popular products.



But some of those ‘light’ versions actually contain more fat or calories, suggesting that the only pounds that slimmers will be parting with are those in their wallets.



A snapshot survey of supermarket shelves has revealed ‘light’ versions of crisps, salad dressings, biscuits, cereals and yoghurt drinks may not be as low-calorie as they first seem.



Walkers Lights are promoted as having 33 per cent less fat than ordinary crisps and around 115 calories per 24g bag – making them as calorific, weight for weight, as the brand’s Extra Crunchy cheddar and sour cream crisps. This compares to a standard bag of Tyrell’s sea salt and vinegar crinkle cut crisps – which are not even promoted as a ‘diet’ food – containing just 107 calories per 24g.



Salad dressing labels also bear close inspection. For instance, Pizza Express’s Caesar Light dressing, which is widely sold in supermarkets, contains 348 calories and 34.1g of fat per 100ml. In contrast, 100g of standard caesar dressing in the Tesco Finest range contains just 300 calories per 100g and 28.1g of fat.



Marks & Spencer sells its reduced fat rich tea biscuits using the slogan ‘more nice, less naughty’. They contain 34 per cent less fat than the chain’s standard rich teas. But, at 40 calories per biscuit, the calorie count is the same, and two more than in McVitie’s standard rich tea biscuit. McVitie’s Lights on the other hand contain more sugar than its standard Digestive.



How they add up



Kellogg’s Special K is heavily promoted as an aid to weight loss. All but one of its ten flavours contain more calories per 100g than the cereal giant’s sugar-coated Frosties. Special K Honey Clusters, for instance, contain 389 calories per 100g, compared with 375 for Frosties. The cereal also has 3g of fat per 100g – five times as much as Frosties.



Under European rules, the word ‘light’ can only be used to promote food when there has been a reduction of at least 30 per cent in calories, fat, sugar or salt. The anomalies arise because manufacturers use their own products as a benchmark, rather than similar products by competitors.



The 30 per cent rule means foods that are still high in fat, sugar or calories can still be labelled as ‘light’ – simply because levels are lower than in the standard version.



Food companies say they clearly set out the nutritional content of their products on the labels. PepsiCo, which makes Walkers crisps, said Walkers Lights contain fewer calories and less saturated fat per bag than its standard crisps.



Kellogg’s said Special K Original has an average of 114 calories per bowl. Spokesman Paul Wheeler added: ‘Importantly, it has been developed with the right balance of vitamins and minerals especially for the diet of women looking to manage their weight.’



Marks & Spencer said its reduced fat rich tea biscuits are labelled as being low in fat, rather than ‘light’.



SOURCE