Welcome to my blog - please tell me what YOU think about some of the things I post. I enjoy your comments. Remember,many of the links to other articles in these posts have a finite existence: there is no way to tell how long they will be in place before being moved or removed!
The problem of bone loss is one of the most complicated health issues I counsel on: there are so MANY factors which can play into the disease. The list of possible confounding issues is overwhelming - exercise, diet, body pH, genetics, hormones, supplements. All major hurdles to overcome.
New research is suggesting that DHEA may be important to bone health.
DHEA is made mostly in the adrenals, and is the most abundant hormone in our blood until we reach about the age of 30, when it begins to decline at a rate of about 2% per year. When we reach the age of 80, we have only 10-20% of the levels we had when we were 20.
In structure, DHEA is similar to our other hormones, namely progesterone, estrogen and testosterone, and can be converted to them as needed.
Interestingly, pancreatitis ( which is an inflammation of the pancreas, either chronic or acute) is closely related to disturbances of blood sugar levels, and it has long been known that alcohol - a source of sugar - is one of the main causes of the disease.
Did you know that cigarettes are composed of at least 10% sugar? And that, in an unprincipled effort to hook younger smokers, the tobacco companies are adding sweet tastes to cigarettes?
The increased risk was roughly the same in both men and women and increased with the amount of tobacco smoked, the researchers said in the March 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
I am not completely sure about the provenenance of this information, but if factual, it does sound as though this would DEFINITELY be a punishing, perhaps terminal, blow to small farmers and I suppose could be extended to harass back yard gardeners too.
ALERT *HR 875 - S 425*Sound the alarm. The big agriculture companies have introduced this new and extremely dangerous legislation in congress.
The word is they are pushing it on a fast track for passage.
With this legislation the government will require all food producers, (language as written even includes backyard gardeners), to use seeds, chemicals and farming practices that will be dictated by government "experts" selected from the big industrial farming companies. It mandates that state agriculture departments enforce it.
If this becomes law without proper exemptions it will be the end of small organic farms and farmers markets.
Take a look, and see for yourself. if you feel action should be taken, the means are at this link.
Acrylamide is a chemical formed whenever something starchy is made crisp and toothsome - such as toast, buns and potatoes. Acrylamide is also a major toxin in cigarette smoke.
It has always been suspect as a carcinogen, a neurotoxin, and a disruptor of male fertility, but now comes even worse news.
Living near fast food restaurants increases the risk of stroke by 13%. I am tickled by the fact that no-one is actually prepared to come out and say that EATING at such places might play a role. Contrariwise, every publication I looked at was back-pedaling heartily and saying that it was probably other life-style choices that were to blame. I think it quacks a lot like a duck!
Interestingly the amino acid Cysteine is protective against this chemical.
Even bearing in mind the conviction of the young that they are immortal, and no Bad Thing could possibly happen to them, the figures in this study, and the extremely nightmarish consequence for any man, will surely override that (erroneous) conviction!
For men using marijuana at the time of diagnosis, using Marijuana is associated with a 70% increase in risk of the disease.
If ever there was an egregious example of a Government agency bending a rule for Big Business, this is it. I rank it the equivalent of the Red Queen believing 3 impossible things before breakfast.More disturbing, it sets a precedent - consider that some powerful forces are trying to have all Probiotics declared BIOLOGIC - which would mean they also would only be available as drugs ...
In September of 2005, Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) senior vice president of scientific and international affairs, John Hathcock, PhD, wrote a letter to the FDA stating that “Pyridoxamine is unequivocally a dietary ingredient because it is one of the three primary natural forms of vitamin B6, and it is one of the two predominant forms in animal products used as human foods.”
But now, thanks to a petition filed with the FDA by Biostratum, the North Carolina-based manufacturer of a pyridoxamine-based drug called Pyridorin, which is designed to prevent the progression of diabetic nephropathy (kidney disease), on January 12 the FDA announced that pyridoxamine dihydrochloride was a “new drug.” This means that the FDA has now effectively prevented any substance containing pyridoxamine from being marketed as a dietary supplement. Never mind that the fish on your lunch salad and the chicken on your dinner table both contain pyridoxamine, as does brewer’s yeast!
Next on the hit list is P-5-P, a natural and highly absorbable form of B6 essential for some who have trouble converting pyridoxine HCl. Should the FDA rule similarly in this case, people with that problem would be entirely reliant on drugs for their B6, a nutrient essential for life itself.
Visit www.ReformFDA.org to sign a petition blocking this move by the FDA.
The past decades have seen a serious decline in fertility in industrialized nations, even in the US, with poorer nations and emigrants taking up the slack. For example, Uganda's population is on track to triple to 150 million by 2050, while Germany's numbers are projected to decline to 75 million from 82 million during the same period, according to a report from the Population Reference Bureau, in Washington.
Fertility rates in more than 90 countries are below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, and the "relatively large families of new immigrants" are "staving off a population crisis" in the U.S., which has a fertility rate that "hovers around replacement level." Some scholars say that many factors -- including greater access to contraception, later marriage and a decrease in "hopefulness about the future" -- account for the decreased fertility rates.
Certainly, part of the reason for the decline is that once women know they can control the number of babies they have, few want large families. However, the number of fertility clinics in the US alone suggests that may women who want to have babies, are unable to do so.
This may be the reason: For the first time, scientists have evidence that perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), long thought to be inactive in the human body, can disrupt fertility in women, and possibly also affect sperm counts in men.
It really is all in how you look at it. Aficionados of my blog and newsletter will remember my oft-quoted remark, from the long ago comedy show of Swann and Flanders, when they remarked that "the only thing they knew about babies, is that if they put one in a bath-tub and it turned red, the water was too hot for their elbow."
While there are now a few enlightened medical professionals who finally question the link between cholesterol and heart disease, for the majority - the status quo still rules, no matter how much harm the medications to lower that marker may cause..
However, here we have a HUGE study (137,000 individuals from more than 500 hospitals) which comes to the following conclusion:
According to their report, nearly half of the patients hospitalized with CAD had admission LDL levels less than 100 mg/dL, and 17.6% had LDL levels below 70 mg/dL.
Among patients without any prior cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 72.1% had admission LDL levels less than 130 mg/dL, the current LDL target for these individuals, and 41.5% had LDL less than 100 mg/dL.
"The findings in this study are quite a surprise," Dr. Fonarow said. "Prior smaller single community studies have suggested that only half the patients having an event had LDL cholesterol levels less than 130 mg/dL. These new contemporary national data suggest it is more like 75% of patients."
The researchers also found that 54.6% of patients had admission HDL cholesterol levels below 40 mg/dL and fewer than 10% had admission HDL levels of 60 mg/dL or greater. Ideal lipid levels (LDL less than 70 mg/dL with HDL of 60 mg/dL or higher) were seen in only 1.4% of patients on admission.
So tell me: what is their conclusion? That cholesterol may not be a valuable marker of heart disease? No! That the recommended levels may not be low enough! The pharmaceutical companies must be dancing in the streets!
Red elbows, anyone?
A study in the Lancet (2001; 358:351-355) states that their study confirms previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and shows that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death. In fact, they suggest that the earlier the age at which low cholesterol findings is shown, the greater the risk of premature mortality. Because of this the authors suggest not lowering cholesterol below 4.65 mmol/L in seniors, but taking a "more conservative approach". A recent (Epidemiology 2001 Mar;12:168-72) Note also that a study of elderly French women living in a nursing home showed that those with the highest cholesterol levels lived the longest (The Lancet, 4/22/89). The death rate was more than five times higher for women with very low cholesterol.
This interesting study shows that teenagers who spend too much time watching television grow up with poor dietary habits.
"Although young people may be aware that many foods advertised on television are not healthy, they may chose to ignore or do not fully realize the consequences," they wrote.
The carryover into later life may be because "adolescents who watch too much television become adults who watch too much television, and thus continue to be exposed to advertisements for unhealthy foods," Dr. Barr-Anderson's group suggested.
However, it could also be that those who watch more TV are distracted by it while they eat, "resulting in a lack of awareness of actual food consumption or overlooking satiety cues," they added. "If these habits are formed at a younger age, they may continue as adolescents become older."
It is interesting to watch as the health consequences of a childhood spent glue to TVs and Gameboys unfold!
The law of unintended consequences is at work again! Research is increasingly suggesting a link between D3 levels in children, and Young Type 1 Diabetes.
Boston researchers have found that children and teenagers with type 1 diabetes have a very high rate vitamin D deficiency, with three-fourths lacking sufficient vitamin D levels. As a result, youths with type 1 diabetes are at great risk for bone and skeletal issues later in life, especially bone fractures. 61% of the young group had levels that are considered to be "insufficient", while 15% of the population were found to be vitamin D deficient.
Where does the LAW come in? Parents are carefully and obsessively blocking their child's main source of vitamin D with sun blocks! Yes, the new phobia about sun exposure may in the long run have unexpected consequences, particularly forchildren who would normally be out romping in the vitamin D rich sunshine all summer..
Research over the last few years have certainly shown that coffee (in moderation - my mantra) is worth more than a hill of beans! What a tasty and enjoyable way to avoid future problems.
"Midlife Coffee and Tea Drinking and the Risk of Late-Life Dementia: A Population-Based CAIDE Study," Eskelinen MH, Kivipelto M, et al, Alzheimer's and Dementia, 2008; 4(4): T689. (Address: University of Kuopio, Department of Neurology, Kuopio, Finland. E-mail: Marjo.Eskelinen@uku.fi ).
Summary:
In a prospective study involving 1,409 individuals aged 65 to 79 years of age, results indicate that regular consumption of coffee during midlife may reduce the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) later in life. During an average follow-up of 21 years, 61 cases of dementia (48 with AD) were identified. After adjusting for confounders, persons who consumed 3-5 cups of coffee per day during midlife showed a 65% reduced risk of dementia in later life, compared to persons who drank little or no coffee per day. Thus, the authors conclude, "Coffee drinking at midlife is associated with a decreased risk of dementia/AD later in life. This finding might open possibilities for prevention of dementia/AD."
Some fat is more dangerous than others, carrying with it not only the usual risk of increased diabetes and cardiovascular problems, but a higher possibility of death itself. This is the conclusion of several recent studies.
The newest study to reach this conclusion was one of the largest of its kind. Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study examined the association of BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio with the risk of death among 359,387 participants from nine countries. ......The results indicated that participants with large waists had an increased risk of death—even if they were considered to be normal weight based upon their BMI. Normal-weight males whose waists measured about 40 inches or more had double the risk of dying compared to those who had waists 34 inches or less. Females whose BMI was normal but who had waists 35 inches or more had a 79 percent increased chance of dying compared to female subjects whose waists were 28 inches or less.
Another finding of the study was that for every five-centimeter (about two inches) increase in waist size in subjects with any BMI score, death risk rose by 17 percent for males and 13 percent for females. The researchers didn’t study why waist size increases the risk of death, but they theorize that the cause is likely visceral fat. Abdominal fat is usually visceral fat, which accumulates around organs and contributes to the development of the metabolic syndrome and heart disease.
Remember the (justified) brouhaha a few years ago about the Prostate supplement that was supposed to cure prostate cancer - PC-SPEC, it was called? On analysis, it was determined that it contained the synthetic drugs warfarin, diethylstilbestrol and indomethacin. Diethylstilbestrol and indomethacin have known anticancer properties.
Then just today on the news, the FDA is trying to regulate and withdraw several weight loss supplements offered online which contain dangerous prescription drugs.
Less publicized but as unethical, and potentially for some as dangerous, are skin care products which promise to restore youthful skin, and contain but do not list, estrogen compounds.
Be careful out there! Remember, there are web sites and health food stores who act as guardians at the gate, myself among them: you can trust them not to offer anything that is not ethical. By their language shall ye know them: if it sounds too good to be true it almost certainly is.
There are Instructors out there who TEACH vendors how to use language in such a way on the net and on TV, that those reading it are led to believe that they MUST have whatever is being offered. Believe me, if it is a supplement - your local store will already have a version of it that is better, cheaper, and safer (both from the point of view of the ingredients, and your exposure to credit card fraud).
If you want to see a fine example of SPIN, search for "hormones breast cancer Chlebowski" . You will see headlines similar to "Breast Cancer risks fall sharply after stopping hormone therapy".
What they should be saying is "Use of Hormone therapy DOUBLES the risk of Breast Cancer". Yes, you read correctly - DOUBLES IT!
Why are Doctors still prescibing it? Why are women choosing to use it? Why not choose the natural alternatives? When will the lawsuits start??
I am always amazed that at the advertisements for prescription drugs on television, which apparently expect us to conclude that the side effects are in some way preferable to the ailment. They feed into this by showing the putative drug-takers as healthy, vibrant and enjoying life.
Like everyone else, I have seen the ads for Procrit, with the beautiful cancer patients saying "I'm ready!"
As it turns out they had BETTER be ready - to die!
Patients getting no cancer treatment showed a 33% increase in on-study mortality if they were receiving erythropoiesis agents (95% CI 7% to 67%).
There were even higher increases in patients receiving other forms of cancer treatment (52% for chemoradiation, 52% for radiation alone, and 53% for "other" non-chemotherapies), but these did not reach statistical significance.
