A new study bolsters evidence that getting enough quality sleep at night can act as a preventative measure by strengthening immune system activity to stop disease from occurring or to knock out potential infections that are present. Our bodies operate best when we act in agreement with the natural circadian rhythms triggered by daylight / darkness cycles.
As more and more is learned about the purposes of sleep, we see that this daily period of rest is critical for rebuilding and restoring virtually all systems of the body. It is also a time when many waste products are purged from the body, a necessary function in order for us to stay healthy. There's no way around it. Choosing to incorporate regular sleep into your lifestyle is not optional if you want to pursue maximum wellness.
Immune System Works Better at Night
Monday, December 15, 2008; 12:00 AM
MONDAY, Dec. 15 (HealthDay News) -- A good night's sleep really does a sick body good, new research says.
Stanford University research with fruit flies reveals that the immune system fights invading bacteria the hardest at night and the least during the day. The findings were to be presented Sunday at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting, in San Francisco.
"These results suggest that immunity is stronger at night, consistent with the hypothesis that circadian proteins upregulate restorative functions such as specific immune responses during sleep, when animals are not engaged in metabolically costly activities," Stanford researcher Mimi Shirasu-Hiza said in a news release issued by the conference organizers.
Circadian rhythm paces the human body as well as the fruit fly, running internal clock's time for eating and rest every day.
The researchers noted that previous experiments with flies found that bacterial infection threw off the insects' circadian rhythm, and not having this internal clock working properly made them highly susceptible to infection.
In this experiment, the researchers infected the flies with two different bacteria at different times of day or night. Those infected at night were more likely to survive than those infected during the day. The researchers also detected low "phagocytic" activity -- the body's innate immune response -- in flies with a corrupt circadian clock.
SOURCE: American Society for Cell Biology, news release, Dec. 14, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121500907_pf.html
More information
The National Sleep foundation has more about How Sleep Works: 101 Ways to Get a Great Night's Sleep
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sweets Can Be Habit-Forming
Princeton University researchers have discovered that sugar, one of the main components of the typical American diet, may have addictive properties similar to many drugs. The consumption of sweet foods increases for many people during the holiday season, but the truth is that most Americans consume way too much sugar all year round. This dietary habit leads to a multitude of health problems including diabetes, a weakened immune system, and malnutrition due to empty sugar calories replacing more nutritious foods.
Kicking the sugar habit is a very positive step that I highly recommend, especially as the New Year approaches. Try replacing sugar with a quality, locally grown honey, or stevia. But even honey and other natural alternatives to sugar should be used in moderation. Some people find that when quitting sugar it is best to avoid all sweeteners for a period of time and allow your body to adjust and get used to being without sweets. By all means, never stoop to using artificial sweeteners, as these substances are very toxic to the body. If you do whatever it takes to become free of sugar, you will be taking a major step towards overall wellness.
Study Suggests Sugar May Be Addictive
Finding might yield new insights into eating disorders, experts say
Posted December 10, 2008
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
WEDNESDAY, Dec. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Science is verifying what many overeaters have suspected for a long time: sugar can be addictive.
In fact, the sweetener seems to prompt the same chemical changes in the brain seen in people who abuse drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
The findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology's annual meeting, in Nashville.
"Our evidence from an animal model suggests that bingeing on sugar can act in the brain in ways very similar to drugs of abuse," lead researcher Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, said during a Dec. 4 teleconference.
"Drinking large amounts of sugar water when hungry can cause behavioral changes and even neurochemical changes in the brain which resemble changes that are produced when animals or people take substances of abuse. These animals show signs of withdrawal and even long-lasting effects that might resemble craving," he said.
Dr. Louis Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, added: "The big question has been whether it's just a behavioral thing or is it a metabolic chemical thing, and evidence like this supports the idea that something chemical is going on."
A "sugar addiction" may even act as a "gateway" to later abuse of drugs such as alcohol, Hoebel said.
The stages of addiction, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, include bingeing, withdrawal and craving.
For the new research, rats were denied food for 12 hours a day, then were given access to food and sugar (25 percent glucose and 10 percent sucrose, similar to a soft drink) for 12 hours a day, for three to four weeks.
The bingeing released a surge of the neurotransmitter dopamine each time in the part of the brain involved in reward, the nucleus accumbens. "It's been known that drugs of abuse release or increase the levels of dopamine in that part of the brain," Hoebel said.
But it wasn't only the sugar that caused this effect, Hoebel explained -- it was the sugar combined with the alternating schedule of deprivation and largesse. After three weeks, the rats showed signs of withdrawal similar to those seen when people stop smoking or drinking alcohol or using morphine.
The scientists next blocked the animals' brain endorphins and found withdrawal symptoms, anxiety, behavioral depression and a drop in dopamine levels. In other words, they confirmed a neurochemical link with the rats' behavior.
But longer periods of abstinence didn't "cure" the rats. Instead, there were long-lasting effects with the animals: They ingested more sugar than before, as if they were craving the substance and, without sugar, they drank more alcohol.
The researchers speculated that some of these brain changes may also occur in people with eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia, although more research needs to be done to confirm the effects in humans.
"Some say it's easy to lose weight -- you just have to shut your mouth, stop eating so much," Aronne said. "I tell them a good way to overcome global warming is if people made less carbon dioxide by breathing less. Obviously, that's absurd. You can't do it because you feel uncomfortable.
"The same thing is true of eating," he added. "Fattening food has an impact on the regulating mechanism that breaks down your sense of fullness, makes you feel an urge to go back and get that blast of sugar and this creates the vicious cycle of weight gain that we're going through."
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/10/study-suggests-sugar-may-be-addictive_print.htm
Kicking the sugar habit is a very positive step that I highly recommend, especially as the New Year approaches. Try replacing sugar with a quality, locally grown honey, or stevia. But even honey and other natural alternatives to sugar should be used in moderation. Some people find that when quitting sugar it is best to avoid all sweeteners for a period of time and allow your body to adjust and get used to being without sweets. By all means, never stoop to using artificial sweeteners, as these substances are very toxic to the body. If you do whatever it takes to become free of sugar, you will be taking a major step towards overall wellness.
Study Suggests Sugar May Be Addictive
Finding might yield new insights into eating disorders, experts say
Posted December 10, 2008
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
WEDNESDAY, Dec. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Science is verifying what many overeaters have suspected for a long time: sugar can be addictive.
In fact, the sweetener seems to prompt the same chemical changes in the brain seen in people who abuse drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
The findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology's annual meeting, in Nashville.
"Our evidence from an animal model suggests that bingeing on sugar can act in the brain in ways very similar to drugs of abuse," lead researcher Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, said during a Dec. 4 teleconference.
"Drinking large amounts of sugar water when hungry can cause behavioral changes and even neurochemical changes in the brain which resemble changes that are produced when animals or people take substances of abuse. These animals show signs of withdrawal and even long-lasting effects that might resemble craving," he said.
Dr. Louis Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, added: "The big question has been whether it's just a behavioral thing or is it a metabolic chemical thing, and evidence like this supports the idea that something chemical is going on."
A "sugar addiction" may even act as a "gateway" to later abuse of drugs such as alcohol, Hoebel said.
The stages of addiction, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, include bingeing, withdrawal and craving.
For the new research, rats were denied food for 12 hours a day, then were given access to food and sugar (25 percent glucose and 10 percent sucrose, similar to a soft drink) for 12 hours a day, for three to four weeks.
The bingeing released a surge of the neurotransmitter dopamine each time in the part of the brain involved in reward, the nucleus accumbens. "It's been known that drugs of abuse release or increase the levels of dopamine in that part of the brain," Hoebel said.
But it wasn't only the sugar that caused this effect, Hoebel explained -- it was the sugar combined with the alternating schedule of deprivation and largesse. After three weeks, the rats showed signs of withdrawal similar to those seen when people stop smoking or drinking alcohol or using morphine.
The scientists next blocked the animals' brain endorphins and found withdrawal symptoms, anxiety, behavioral depression and a drop in dopamine levels. In other words, they confirmed a neurochemical link with the rats' behavior.
But longer periods of abstinence didn't "cure" the rats. Instead, there were long-lasting effects with the animals: They ingested more sugar than before, as if they were craving the substance and, without sugar, they drank more alcohol.
The researchers speculated that some of these brain changes may also occur in people with eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia, although more research needs to be done to confirm the effects in humans.
"Some say it's easy to lose weight -- you just have to shut your mouth, stop eating so much," Aronne said. "I tell them a good way to overcome global warming is if people made less carbon dioxide by breathing less. Obviously, that's absurd. You can't do it because you feel uncomfortable.
"The same thing is true of eating," he added. "Fattening food has an impact on the regulating mechanism that breaks down your sense of fullness, makes you feel an urge to go back and get that blast of sugar and this creates the vicious cycle of weight gain that we're going through."
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/10/study-suggests-sugar-may-be-addictive_print.htm
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Panic in Big Pharma Land
Today's article caught my eye because it is very representative of the type of pretzel logic used by drug firms, the FDA, and many conventional healthcare providers. I can almost picture executives and public relations people from the pharmaceutical companies huddled around a conference table to deal with this potentially disastrous crisis: "The public has too much information about the drugs we sell them!"
Almost 75% of Americans who were surveyed are concerned about the safety of prescription drugs, and the industry is scrambling before the bottom drops out of their cash cow. Perhaps one of the most telling revelations in the article below is the opinion of drug industry insiders that this lack of confidence in prescription drug safety is likely to be short-lived. How they could come to such a conclusion is anyone's guess, but I suppose with all their marketing gurus and plants in the media and Big Government, they are certain that people will once again come to their senses and line up passively for their medications without questioning why these toxic substances are ruining the health and even taking the lives of so many millions every year.
The reality is not that we have too much information, but rather not enough. The way drug studies are skewed and compromised by funding from questionable sources that scream conflict of interest, many hazards are hidden, and the ones that are disclosed are downplayed and minimized. Articles such as the one below are dispatched by the media in a deliberate attempt to scare the public into continuing consumption of pharmaceuticals despite the alarming statistics that prove they are extremely unsafe.
Wall Street Journal Examines Potential Harm in Providing Too Much Drug Safety Information
The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday examined how "consumers are receiving a flood of safety information about the drugs they take -- so much that it risks scaring some people."
According to the Journal, a recent "series of prescription medication scares" has prompted the media, consumer advocacy groups and FDA to release more information regarding the safety of prescription medications. However, the proliferation of such information "might overwhelm patients and raise undue alarm," according to some medical professionals. The Journal warns that patients "may forget about the benefits of a medication if they focus only on risk," and "the health consequences associated with stopping a medication ... may be far worse than the possibility of a side effect."
According to a Pfizer survey conducted in March of 300 medical professionals, 89% of respondents said they were at least somewhat concerned that patients would stop taking medications if potentially negative safety information was released too early. In addition, a 2008 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health and USA Today found that 27% of U.S. residents feel "very confident" in the safety of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. and a little more than half feel that drug companies do enough to test and monitor drug safety. However, drug industry officials say the skepticism regarding drug safety might only be temporary, the Journal reports.
Drug industry experts say that one potential problem is that many patients take "safe" to mean virtually no risk, Timothy Lesar, director of Clinical Pharmacy Services at Albany Medical Center and a member of FDA's drug safety advisory committee, said. He said, "There are no guarantees and there are always risks," adding, "If we're going to take risk, we need to make sure there are benefits here."
Efforts at Clarity
Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Wyeth and Johnson & Johnson are "ramping up efforts to be more open about drug safety," and FDA also is "taking steps to continue alerting consumers about drug-safety issues while trying not to cause unnecessary worry," the Journal reports. According to FDA drug safety official Paul Seligman, FDA intends to change its early notification letters about drug-safety concerns to list the number of adverse events that have occurred compared with the number of people taking the drug and post such concerns on WebMD.
Seligman said that the effects of providing more safety information are not yet clear, adding that FDA plans to study consumers' reactions and use of safety information. He said, "We're always aware and want to strive to make sure that this (safety) information is provided in a way that outweighs any unintended consequences" (Wang, Wall Street Journal, 12/9).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=55992
Almost 75% of Americans who were surveyed are concerned about the safety of prescription drugs, and the industry is scrambling before the bottom drops out of their cash cow. Perhaps one of the most telling revelations in the article below is the opinion of drug industry insiders that this lack of confidence in prescription drug safety is likely to be short-lived. How they could come to such a conclusion is anyone's guess, but I suppose with all their marketing gurus and plants in the media and Big Government, they are certain that people will once again come to their senses and line up passively for their medications without questioning why these toxic substances are ruining the health and even taking the lives of so many millions every year.
The reality is not that we have too much information, but rather not enough. The way drug studies are skewed and compromised by funding from questionable sources that scream conflict of interest, many hazards are hidden, and the ones that are disclosed are downplayed and minimized. Articles such as the one below are dispatched by the media in a deliberate attempt to scare the public into continuing consumption of pharmaceuticals despite the alarming statistics that prove they are extremely unsafe.
Wall Street Journal Examines Potential Harm in Providing Too Much Drug Safety Information
The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday examined how "consumers are receiving a flood of safety information about the drugs they take -- so much that it risks scaring some people."
According to the Journal, a recent "series of prescription medication scares" has prompted the media, consumer advocacy groups and FDA to release more information regarding the safety of prescription medications. However, the proliferation of such information "might overwhelm patients and raise undue alarm," according to some medical professionals. The Journal warns that patients "may forget about the benefits of a medication if they focus only on risk," and "the health consequences associated with stopping a medication ... may be far worse than the possibility of a side effect."
According to a Pfizer survey conducted in March of 300 medical professionals, 89% of respondents said they were at least somewhat concerned that patients would stop taking medications if potentially negative safety information was released too early. In addition, a 2008 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health and USA Today found that 27% of U.S. residents feel "very confident" in the safety of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. and a little more than half feel that drug companies do enough to test and monitor drug safety. However, drug industry officials say the skepticism regarding drug safety might only be temporary, the Journal reports.
Drug industry experts say that one potential problem is that many patients take "safe" to mean virtually no risk, Timothy Lesar, director of Clinical Pharmacy Services at Albany Medical Center and a member of FDA's drug safety advisory committee, said. He said, "There are no guarantees and there are always risks," adding, "If we're going to take risk, we need to make sure there are benefits here."
Efforts at Clarity
Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Wyeth and Johnson & Johnson are "ramping up efforts to be more open about drug safety," and FDA also is "taking steps to continue alerting consumers about drug-safety issues while trying not to cause unnecessary worry," the Journal reports. According to FDA drug safety official Paul Seligman, FDA intends to change its early notification letters about drug-safety concerns to list the number of adverse events that have occurred compared with the number of people taking the drug and post such concerns on WebMD.
Seligman said that the effects of providing more safety information are not yet clear, adding that FDA plans to study consumers' reactions and use of safety information. He said, "We're always aware and want to strive to make sure that this (safety) information is provided in a way that outweighs any unintended consequences" (Wang, Wall Street Journal, 12/9).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=55992
Monday, December 15, 2008
Doctor's Orders: Do They Follow Their Own Advice?
According to a newly released survey, only about 4 out of 10 healthcare professionals chose to get a flu shot last year. The next time a physician recommends a treatment to you, especially if it has potentially hazardous side effects (as most do in modern medicine), you might ask them if they would do the same if they were the patient, and if not, why not. If you are fortunate enough to have an open relationship with your provider -- as we all should -- he or she may just take off the "doctor" hat and tell you person to person their own true opinion, rather than what the HMO, drug company, or medical board often tutor them to say.
Our own wellness, and that of our family's, is something each of us should be personally responsible for. It is up to us to proactively learn how to best maintain our health and avoid disease. Part of this plan should include a relationship with a healthcare professional that knows us and knows what course is most beneficial for our specific needs. It is best to work with someone who shares your own healthcare philosophy -- hopefully one that focuses on prevention through the use of nutrition and other wellness-related lifestyle choices.
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 9, 2008
If flu shots are so good for you, then why do sixty percent of doctors and nurses refuse to get them? ABC News is reporting that only forty percent of health care professionals opted to be vaccinated against the flu last year.
It's yet another case of health professionals telling patients to do one thing while they do something entirely different themselves. For example, according to surveys published earlier this year, most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy.
Many doctors take vitamins and nutritional supplements, but they won't tell their patients to do the same because state medical boards have made it illegal for doctors to recommend nutritional therapies.
Thus, much of what medical professionals tell patients stands in contradiction to what they actually believe is best for their health. Flu shots have become the mad cry of quackery in modern medicine, which believes that the human immune system is useless to prevent infectious disease and must be artificially hijacked by invasive medical procedures (a shot) in order to function correctly.
Interestingly, related research just announced today reveals that half a flu shot produces the same results as a full flu shot. But they didn't test the "no flu shot but extra vitamin D" option, which would have been ever better.
Flu shots are pure quackery combined with clever hucksterism. And if you don't believe me, just check the medical records of the doctors themselves: Most of them aren't getting flu shots in the first place. Doctors aren't stupid people. If they're not getting flu shots, that tells you probably they think it's a waste of time.
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000597_flu_shots_medical_myths_doctors.html
Our own wellness, and that of our family's, is something each of us should be personally responsible for. It is up to us to proactively learn how to best maintain our health and avoid disease. Part of this plan should include a relationship with a healthcare professional that knows us and knows what course is most beneficial for our specific needs. It is best to work with someone who shares your own healthcare philosophy -- hopefully one that focuses on prevention through the use of nutrition and other wellness-related lifestyle choices.
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 9, 2008
If flu shots are so good for you, then why do sixty percent of doctors and nurses refuse to get them? ABC News is reporting that only forty percent of health care professionals opted to be vaccinated against the flu last year.
It's yet another case of health professionals telling patients to do one thing while they do something entirely different themselves. For example, according to surveys published earlier this year, most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy.
Many doctors take vitamins and nutritional supplements, but they won't tell their patients to do the same because state medical boards have made it illegal for doctors to recommend nutritional therapies.
Thus, much of what medical professionals tell patients stands in contradiction to what they actually believe is best for their health. Flu shots have become the mad cry of quackery in modern medicine, which believes that the human immune system is useless to prevent infectious disease and must be artificially hijacked by invasive medical procedures (a shot) in order to function correctly.
Interestingly, related research just announced today reveals that half a flu shot produces the same results as a full flu shot. But they didn't test the "no flu shot but extra vitamin D" option, which would have been ever better.
Flu shots are pure quackery combined with clever hucksterism. And if you don't believe me, just check the medical records of the doctors themselves: Most of them aren't getting flu shots in the first place. Doctors aren't stupid people. If they're not getting flu shots, that tells you probably they think it's a waste of time.
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000597_flu_shots_medical_myths_doctors.html
Friday, December 12, 2008
Boost Heart Health with Raw Nuts
A recent Spanish study has indicated that eating a relatively small amount of certain types of nuts daily can -- when combined with other healthy dietary choices -- significantly reduce risk for factors such as visceral (belly) fat, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
Many nuts are a wonderful food source, packed with fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. I found the article below to be somewhat balanced, reminding readers that nuts alone will not solve their health issues. However, one thing they failed to mention is that for nuts to do their job at helping us stay well, they must be consumed raw. If they are roasted or cooked in any way, most of the health benefits are lost, and in fact cooked nuts can produce free-radical damage instead of acting as an antioxidant like raw nuts do. We must also be aware of the fact that many foods are now irradiated, including almonds, for example. In my opinion, this makes foods unsafe. So, as with all health tips, keep this "nutty" advice in perspective. Making it a part of an overall nutritional plan may help you to meet your wellness goals.
Scientists find nutty risk reducer: Eat more nuts
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Mon Dec 8, 8:59 pm ET
CHICAGO -- Here's a health tip in a nutshell: Eating a handful of nuts a day for a year -- along with a Mediterranean diet rich in fruit, vegetables and fish -- may help undo a collection of risk factors for heart disease.
Spanish researchers found that adding nuts worked better than boosting the olive oil in a typical Mediterranean diet. Both regimens cut the heart risks known as metabolic syndrome in more people than a low-fat diet did.
"What's most surprising is they found substantial metabolic benefits in the absence of calorie reduction or weight loss," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital.
In the study, appearing Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the people who improved most were told to eat about three whole walnuts, seven or eight whole hazelnuts and seven or eight whole almonds. They didn't lose weight, on average, but more of them succeeded in reducing belly fat and improving their cholesterol and blood pressure.
Manson, who wasn't involved in the study, cautioned that adding nuts to a Western diet --one packed with too many calories and junk food -- could lead to weight gain and more health risks. "But using nuts to replace a snack of chips or crackers is a very favorable change to make in your diet," Manson said.
The American Heart Association says 50 million Americans have metabolic syndrome, a combination of health risks, such as high blood pressure and abdominal obesity. Finding a way to reverse it with a diet people find easy and satisfying would mean huge health improvements for many Americans, Manson said.
Nuts help people feel full while also increasing the body's ability to burn fat, said lead author Dr. Jordi Salas-Salvado of the University of Rovira i Virgili in Reus, Spain.
"Nuts could have an effect on metabolic syndrome by multiple mechanisms," Salas-Salvado said in an e-mail. Nuts are rich in anti-inflammatory substances, such as fiber, and antioxidants, such as vitamin E. They are high in unsaturated fat, a healthier fat known to lower blood triglycerides and increase good cholesterol.
More than 1,200 Spaniards, ranging in age from 55 to 80, were randomly assigned to follow one of three diets. They were followed for a year. The participants had no prior history of heart disease, but some had risk factors including Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and abdominal obesity.
At the start, 751 people had metabolic syndrome, about 61 percent, distributed evenly among the three groups.
Metabolic syndrome was defined as having three or more of the following conditions: abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low levels of good cholesterol (HDL), high blood sugar and high blood pressure.
The low-fat group was given basic advice about reducing all fat in their diets. Another group ate a Mediterranean diet with extra nuts. The third group ate a Mediterranean diet and was told to make sure they ate more than four tablespoons of olive oil a day.
Dietitians advised the two groups on the Mediterranean diet to use olive oil for cooking; increase fruit, vegetable and fish consumption; eat white meat instead of beef or processed meat; and prepare homemade tomato sauce with garlic, onions and herbs. Drinkers were told to stick with red wine.
After one year, all three groups had fewer people with metabolic syndrome, but the group eating nuts led the improvement, now with 52 percent having those heart risk factors. In the olive oil group, 57 percent had the syndrome. In the low-fat group, there was very little difference after a year in the percentage of people with the syndrome.
The nut-rich diet didn't do much to improve high blood sugar, but the large number of people with Type 2 diabetes -- about 46 percent of participants -- could be the reason, Salas-Salvado said. It's difficult to get diabetics' blood sugar down with lifestyle changes alone, he said.
To verify that study volunteers ate their nuts, researchers gave some of them a blood test for alpha-linolenic acid found in walnuts.
The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health and the government of Valencia, Spain.
Salas-Salvado and another co-author disclosed in the publication that they are unpaid advisers to nut industry groups. Salas-Salvado said all of their research "has been conducted under standard ethical and scientific rules" and that peer-review journal editors determined the study results were not influenced by food industry ties.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_he_me/med_nuts_diet/print
Many nuts are a wonderful food source, packed with fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. I found the article below to be somewhat balanced, reminding readers that nuts alone will not solve their health issues. However, one thing they failed to mention is that for nuts to do their job at helping us stay well, they must be consumed raw. If they are roasted or cooked in any way, most of the health benefits are lost, and in fact cooked nuts can produce free-radical damage instead of acting as an antioxidant like raw nuts do. We must also be aware of the fact that many foods are now irradiated, including almonds, for example. In my opinion, this makes foods unsafe. So, as with all health tips, keep this "nutty" advice in perspective. Making it a part of an overall nutritional plan may help you to meet your wellness goals.
Scientists find nutty risk reducer: Eat more nuts
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Mon Dec 8, 8:59 pm ET
CHICAGO -- Here's a health tip in a nutshell: Eating a handful of nuts a day for a year -- along with a Mediterranean diet rich in fruit, vegetables and fish -- may help undo a collection of risk factors for heart disease.
Spanish researchers found that adding nuts worked better than boosting the olive oil in a typical Mediterranean diet. Both regimens cut the heart risks known as metabolic syndrome in more people than a low-fat diet did.
"What's most surprising is they found substantial metabolic benefits in the absence of calorie reduction or weight loss," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital.
In the study, appearing Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the people who improved most were told to eat about three whole walnuts, seven or eight whole hazelnuts and seven or eight whole almonds. They didn't lose weight, on average, but more of them succeeded in reducing belly fat and improving their cholesterol and blood pressure.
Manson, who wasn't involved in the study, cautioned that adding nuts to a Western diet --one packed with too many calories and junk food -- could lead to weight gain and more health risks. "But using nuts to replace a snack of chips or crackers is a very favorable change to make in your diet," Manson said.
The American Heart Association says 50 million Americans have metabolic syndrome, a combination of health risks, such as high blood pressure and abdominal obesity. Finding a way to reverse it with a diet people find easy and satisfying would mean huge health improvements for many Americans, Manson said.
Nuts help people feel full while also increasing the body's ability to burn fat, said lead author Dr. Jordi Salas-Salvado of the University of Rovira i Virgili in Reus, Spain.
"Nuts could have an effect on metabolic syndrome by multiple mechanisms," Salas-Salvado said in an e-mail. Nuts are rich in anti-inflammatory substances, such as fiber, and antioxidants, such as vitamin E. They are high in unsaturated fat, a healthier fat known to lower blood triglycerides and increase good cholesterol.
More than 1,200 Spaniards, ranging in age from 55 to 80, were randomly assigned to follow one of three diets. They were followed for a year. The participants had no prior history of heart disease, but some had risk factors including Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and abdominal obesity.
At the start, 751 people had metabolic syndrome, about 61 percent, distributed evenly among the three groups.
Metabolic syndrome was defined as having three or more of the following conditions: abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low levels of good cholesterol (HDL), high blood sugar and high blood pressure.
The low-fat group was given basic advice about reducing all fat in their diets. Another group ate a Mediterranean diet with extra nuts. The third group ate a Mediterranean diet and was told to make sure they ate more than four tablespoons of olive oil a day.
Dietitians advised the two groups on the Mediterranean diet to use olive oil for cooking; increase fruit, vegetable and fish consumption; eat white meat instead of beef or processed meat; and prepare homemade tomato sauce with garlic, onions and herbs. Drinkers were told to stick with red wine.
After one year, all three groups had fewer people with metabolic syndrome, but the group eating nuts led the improvement, now with 52 percent having those heart risk factors. In the olive oil group, 57 percent had the syndrome. In the low-fat group, there was very little difference after a year in the percentage of people with the syndrome.
The nut-rich diet didn't do much to improve high blood sugar, but the large number of people with Type 2 diabetes -- about 46 percent of participants -- could be the reason, Salas-Salvado said. It's difficult to get diabetics' blood sugar down with lifestyle changes alone, he said.
To verify that study volunteers ate their nuts, researchers gave some of them a blood test for alpha-linolenic acid found in walnuts.
The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health and the government of Valencia, Spain.
Salas-Salvado and another co-author disclosed in the publication that they are unpaid advisers to nut industry groups. Salas-Salvado said all of their research "has been conducted under standard ethical and scientific rules" and that peer-review journal editors determined the study results were not influenced by food industry ties.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_he_me/med_nuts_diet/print
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Benefits of Exercise Reaffirmed in Recent Study
Just ask any mom. They know instinctually that exercise is a great way to cool down an angry child, and the same has always been true for adults as well. Stress management may look a bit different for kids and adults -- or at least the issues are different -- but physical activity is a very effective technique that aids both body and mind.
I find it a bit humorous that the media announces the finding that exercise helps with anger and weight loss as if it were the latest therapeutic discovery to come down the pike. Getting plenty of exercise on a daily basis is one of the foundational lifestyle choices that lead towards wellness. We should start our children on a workout routine as early as possible. The best way to do this is to lead by example and exercise regularly ourselves. Perhaps instituting a family exercise time might be a great idea for the upcoming new year.
Exercise helps overweight kids with anger
By Anne Harding
Wed Dec 3, 3:31 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) -- Sedentary overweight children who start exercising after school become more fit -- and may also be less likely to slam doors, hit other children, and express their anger in other aggressive ways, researchers report.
"It may help children control their anger, and that might be because they're in a better mood because they don't get angry as much, and it might also be an aspect of self-control," Dr. Catherine L. Davis of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, the lead researcher on the study, told Reuters Health.
While there's no evidence that overweight kids are significantly more aggressive than their normal-weight peers, they are more likely to be bullied or to bully others.
Given that exercise is known to help improve mood and reduce hostility in adults, Davis and her colleagues set out to determine if it might have the same effect in overweight young people.
They randomized 208 overweight, sedentary 7- to 11-year-old public school students to a no-exercise control group, 20 minutes of exercise daily, or 40 minutes of exercise for 10 to 15 weeks. Both exercise groups were bussed to and from the research gym, and spent 75 minutes there daily.
Children in both exercise groups scored lower on the Anger Out and Anger Expression components of the so-called Pediatric Anger Expression Scale after they had completed the program. Scores did not change in the control group.
The exercisers also increased their fitness levels. The amount of time the exercise groups were able to walk on a treadmill rose from an average of 485 seconds to 551 seconds, while for the control group treadmill time stayed about the same. The more a child's fitness increased, the greater his or her reduction in anger expression.
Getting attention from the program staff, being punished for behaving aggressively while participating in the program, and even spending less time watching violent shows on TV could all have been factors in why the children in the exercise group showed reductions in anger expression, the researchers say.
However, Davis points out, she and her colleagues have shown that overweight children who exercise regularly have improved cognitive function, which could translate to better anger control.
To better understand the independent effect of physical activity, the researchers are now conducting a 5-year, $3.6 million study funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in which the control group will also come to the research gym, but will do arts and crafts and other activities that don't require them to break a sweat.
SOURCE: Pediatric Exercise Science, November 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081203/hl_nm/us_exercise_anger/print
I find it a bit humorous that the media announces the finding that exercise helps with anger and weight loss as if it were the latest therapeutic discovery to come down the pike. Getting plenty of exercise on a daily basis is one of the foundational lifestyle choices that lead towards wellness. We should start our children on a workout routine as early as possible. The best way to do this is to lead by example and exercise regularly ourselves. Perhaps instituting a family exercise time might be a great idea for the upcoming new year.
Exercise helps overweight kids with anger
By Anne Harding
Wed Dec 3, 3:31 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) -- Sedentary overweight children who start exercising after school become more fit -- and may also be less likely to slam doors, hit other children, and express their anger in other aggressive ways, researchers report.
"It may help children control their anger, and that might be because they're in a better mood because they don't get angry as much, and it might also be an aspect of self-control," Dr. Catherine L. Davis of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, the lead researcher on the study, told Reuters Health.
While there's no evidence that overweight kids are significantly more aggressive than their normal-weight peers, they are more likely to be bullied or to bully others.
Given that exercise is known to help improve mood and reduce hostility in adults, Davis and her colleagues set out to determine if it might have the same effect in overweight young people.
They randomized 208 overweight, sedentary 7- to 11-year-old public school students to a no-exercise control group, 20 minutes of exercise daily, or 40 minutes of exercise for 10 to 15 weeks. Both exercise groups were bussed to and from the research gym, and spent 75 minutes there daily.
Children in both exercise groups scored lower on the Anger Out and Anger Expression components of the so-called Pediatric Anger Expression Scale after they had completed the program. Scores did not change in the control group.
The exercisers also increased their fitness levels. The amount of time the exercise groups were able to walk on a treadmill rose from an average of 485 seconds to 551 seconds, while for the control group treadmill time stayed about the same. The more a child's fitness increased, the greater his or her reduction in anger expression.
Getting attention from the program staff, being punished for behaving aggressively while participating in the program, and even spending less time watching violent shows on TV could all have been factors in why the children in the exercise group showed reductions in anger expression, the researchers say.
However, Davis points out, she and her colleagues have shown that overweight children who exercise regularly have improved cognitive function, which could translate to better anger control.
To better understand the independent effect of physical activity, the researchers are now conducting a 5-year, $3.6 million study funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in which the control group will also come to the research gym, but will do arts and crafts and other activities that don't require them to break a sweat.
SOURCE: Pediatric Exercise Science, November 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081203/hl_nm/us_exercise_anger/print
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
FDA Forced to Address Dental Mercury
There's good news today about legal actions that have mandated the FDA to make an official statement regarding the hazards of mercury used in amalgam dental fillings. For years FDA denied the existence of any credible evidence proving such hazards, and therefore refused to issue a warning. Even this ruling falls short of a definitive statement warning all individuals of the mercury hazards, addressing only children and pregnant women. However, it is a positive step in the right direction.
As usual, if it meets their agenda, FDA lags far behind the trends that have already begun to change in our society. Most dentists nowadays offer amalgam-free fillings to their patients simply because people have become aware of the dangers of mercury and are requesting safer alternatives. Let's hope it won't take too much more legal strong arming to require a total ban on fillings that contain mercury and other heavy metals and that have been linked to numerous health problems.
FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.
"Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses," reads a statement that has been added to the agency's Web site. "Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner."
The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups."
Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe," said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.
"It's a watershed moment," said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.
So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.
Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.
Even the FDA's new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.
Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.
In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency's position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.
The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.
Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA's failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.
"This is your classic failure to act," federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.
As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.
"This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings," Brown predicted.But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely.
"We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals," Smolinski said.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z024993.html
As usual, if it meets their agenda, FDA lags far behind the trends that have already begun to change in our society. Most dentists nowadays offer amalgam-free fillings to their patients simply because people have become aware of the dangers of mercury and are requesting safer alternatives. Let's hope it won't take too much more legal strong arming to require a total ban on fillings that contain mercury and other heavy metals and that have been linked to numerous health problems.
FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.
"Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses," reads a statement that has been added to the agency's Web site. "Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner."
The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups."
Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe," said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.
"It's a watershed moment," said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.
So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.
Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.
Even the FDA's new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.
Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.
In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency's position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.
The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.
Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA's failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.
"This is your classic failure to act," federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.
As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.
"This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings," Brown predicted.But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely.
"We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals," Smolinski said.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z024993.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
