Brain scans found seniors with both poor memory and prior head injury have more plaque buildup
WebMD News from HealthDay
By Kathleen Doheny
Dec. 26, 2013
(HealthDay News) -- Older adults with memory problems and a history of concussion have more buildup of Alzheimer's disease-associated plaques in the brain than those who also had concussions but don't have memory problems, according to a new study.v
''What we think it suggests is, head trauma is associated with Alzheimer's-type dementia -- it's a risk factor," said study researcher Michelle Mielke, an associate professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic Rochester. "But it doesn't mean someone with head trauma is [automatically] going to develop Alzheimer's."
Her study is published online Dec. 26 and in the Jan. 7 print issue of the journal Neurology.
Previous studies looking at whether head trauma is a risk factor for Alzheimer's have come up with conflicting results, she noted. And Mielke stressed that she has found only a link or association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.
In the study, Mielke and her team evaluated 448 residents of Olmsted County, Minn., who had no signs of memory problems. They also evaluated another 141 residents with memory and thinking problems known as mild cognitive impairment.
More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, according to the Alzheimer's Association. Plaques are deposits of a protein fragment known as beta-amyloid that can build up in between the brain's nerve cells. While most people develop some with age, those who develop Alzheimer's generally get many more, according to the Alzheimer's Association. They also tend to get them in a predictable pattern, starting in brain areas crucial for memory.
In the Mayo study, all participants were aged 70 or older. The participants reported if they ever had a brain injury that involved loss of consciousness or memory.
Of the 448 without any memory problems, 17 percent had reported a brain injury. Of the 141 with memory problems, 18 percent did. This suggests that the link between head trauma and the plaques is complex, Mielke said, as the proportion of people reporting concussion was the same in both groups.
Brain scans were done on all the participants. Those who had both concussion history and cognitive [mental] impairment had levels of amyloid plaques that were 18 percent higher than those with cognitive impairment but no head trauma history, the investigators found.
Among those with mild cognitive impairment, those with concussion histories had a nearly five times higher risk of elevated plaque levels than those without a history of concussion.
The researchers don't know why some with concussion history develop memory problems and others do not.
The research was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, among several other supporters.Brain scans found seniors with both poor memory and prior head injury have more plaque buildup
Share this:
Font size:
AAA
WebMD News from HealthDay
New guidelines address which patients might
By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY, Dec. 26, 2013 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults with memory problems and a history of concussion have more buildup of Alzheimer's disease-associated plaques in the brain than those who also had concussions but don't have memory problems, according to a new study.
''What we think it suggests is, head trauma is associated with Alzheimer's-type dementia -- it's a risk factor," said study researcher Michelle Mielke, an associate professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic Rochester. "But it doesn't mean someone with head trauma is [automatically] going to develop Alzheimer's."
Her study is published online Dec. 26 and in the Jan. 7 print issue of the journal Neurology.
Previous studies looking at whether head trauma is a risk factor for Alzheimer's have come up with conflicting results, she noted. And Mielke stressed that she has found only a link or association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.
In the study, Mielke and her team evaluated 448 residents of Olmsted County, Minn., who had no signs of memory problems. They also evaluated another 141 residents with memory and thinking problems known as mild cognitive impairment.
More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, according to the Alzheimer's Association. Plaques are deposits of a protein fragment known as beta-amyloid that can build up in between the brain's nerve cells. While most people develop some with age, those who develop Alzheimer's generally get many more, according to the Alzheimer's Association. They also tend to get them in a predictable pattern, starting in brain areas crucial for memory.
In the Mayo study, all participants were aged 70 or older. The participants reported if they ever had a brain injury that involved loss of consciousness or memory.
Of the 448 without any memory problems, 17 percent had reported a brain injury. Of the 141 with memory problems, 18 percent did. This suggests that the link between head trauma and the plaques is complex, Mielke said, as the proportion of people reporting concussion was the same in both groups.
Brain scans were done on all the participants. Those who had both concussion history and cognitive [mental] impairment had levels of amyloid plaques that were 18 percent higher than those with cognitive impairment but no head trauma history, the investigators found.
Among those with mild cognitive impairment, those with concussion histories had a nearly five times higher risk of elevated plaque levels than those without a history of concussion.
The researchers don't know why some with concussion history develop memory problems and others do not.
The research was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, among several other supporters.
The study adds valuable information for experts in the field, said Dr. Robert Glatter, director of sports medicine and traumatic brain injury in the department of emergency medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City. Glatter, who is also a former sideline physician for the National Football League's New York Jets, reviewed the new study findings.
The study adds valuable information for experts in the field, said Dr. Robert Glatter, director of sports medicine and traumatic brain injury in the department of emergency medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City. Glatter, who is also a former sideline physician for the National Football League's New York Jets, reviewed the new study findings.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
It seems that four times a week may be the ideal workout schedule
There were, remarkably, almost no differences in fitness gains among the groups. The women working out twice a week had become as powerful and aerobically fit as those who had worked out six times a week. There were no discernible differences in cytokine levels among the groups, either.
However, the women exercising four times per week were now expending far more energy, over all, than the women in either of the other two groups. They were burning about 225 additional calories each day, beyond what they expended while exercising, compared to their calorie burning at the start of the experiment.
The twice-a-week exercisers also were using more energy each day than they had been at first, burning almost 100 calories more daily, in addition to the calories used during workouts.
But the women who had been assigned to exercise six times per week were now expending considerably less daily energy than they had been at the experiment’s start, the equivalent of almost 200 fewer calories each day, even though they were exercising so assiduously.
“We think that the women in the twice-a-week and four-times-a-week groups felt more energized and physically capable” after several months of training than they had at the start of the study, says Gary Hunter, a U.A.B. professor who led the experiment. Based on conversations with the women, he says he thinks they began opting for stairs over escalators and walking for pleasure.
The women working out six times a week, though, reacted very differently. “They complained to us that working out six times a week took too much time,” Dr. Hunter says. They did not report feeling fatigued or physically droopy. Their bodies were not producing excessive levels of cytokines, sending invisible messages to the body to slow down.
Rather, they felt pressed for time and reacted, it seems, by making choices like driving instead of walking and impatiently avoiding the stairs.
Why Four Workouts a Week May Be Better Than Six
By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS
New York Times
February 13, 2013
A common concern about exercise is that if you don’t do it almost every day, you won’t achieve much health benefit. But a commendable new study suggests otherwise, showing that a fairly leisurely approach to scheduling workouts may actually be more beneficial than working out almost daily.
For the new study, published this month in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham gathered 72 older, sedentary women, ages 60 to 74, and randomly assigned them to one of three exercise groups.
One group began lifting weights once a week and performing an endurance-style workout, like jogging or bike riding, on another day.
Another group lifted weights twice a week and jogged or rode an exercise bike twice a week.
The final group, as you may have guessed, completed three weight-lifting and three endurance sessions, or six weekly workouts.
The exercise, which was supervised by researchers, was easy at first and meant to elicit changes in both muscles and endurance. Over the course of four months, the intensity and duration gradually increased, until the women were jogging moderately for 40 minutes and lifting weights for about the same amount of time.
The researchers were hoping to find out which number of weekly workouts would be, Goldilocks-like, just right for increasing the women’s fitness and overall weekly energy expenditure.
Some previous studies had suggested that working out only once or twice a week produced few gains in fitness, while exercising vigorously almost every day sometimes led people to become less physically active, over all, than those formally exercising less. Researchers theorized that the more grueling workout schedule caused the central nervous system to respond as if people were overdoing things, sending out physiological signals that, in an unconscious internal reaction, prompted them to feel tired or lethargic and stop moving so much.
To determine if either of these possibilities held true among their volunteers, the researchers in the current study tracked the women’s blood levels of cytokines, a substance related to stress that is thought to be one of the signals the nervous system uses to determine if someone is overdoing things physically. They also measured the women’s changing aerobic capacities, muscle strength, body fat, moods and, using sophisticated calorimetry techniques, energy expenditure over the course of each week.
By the end of the four-month experiment, all of the women had gained endurance and strength and shed body fat, although weight loss was not the point of the study. The scientists had not asked the women to change their eating habits.
There were, remarkably, almost no differences in fitness gains among the groups. The women working out twice a week had become as powerful and aerobically fit as those who had worked out six times a week. There were no discernible differences in cytokine levels among the groups, either.
However, the women exercising four times per week were now expending far more energy, over all, than the women in either of the other two groups. They were burning about 225 additional calories each day, beyond what they expended while exercising, compared to their calorie burning at the start of the experiment.
The twice-a-week exercisers also were using more energy each day than they had been at first, burning almost 100 calories more daily, in addition to the calories used during workouts.
But the women who had been assigned to exercise six times per week were now expending considerably less daily energy than they had been at the experiment’s start, the equivalent of almost 200 fewer calories each day, even though they were exercising so assiduously.
“We think that the women in the twice-a-week and four-times-a-week groups felt more energized and physically capable” after several months of training than they had at the start of the study, says Gary Hunter, a U.A.B. professor who led the experiment. Based on conversations with the women, he says he thinks they began opting for stairs over escalators and walking for pleasure.
The women working out six times a week, though, reacted very differently. “They complained to us that working out six times a week took too much time,” Dr. Hunter says. They did not report feeling fatigued or physically droopy. Their bodies were not producing excessive levels of cytokines, sending invisible messages to the body to slow down.
Rather, they felt pressed for time and reacted, it seems, by making choices like driving instead of walking and impatiently avoiding the stairs.
Despite the cautionary note, those who insist on working out six times per week need not feel discouraged. As long as you consciously monitor your activity level, the findings suggest, you won’t necessarily and unconsciously wind up moving less over all.
But the more fundamental finding of this study, Dr. Hunter says, is that “less may be more,” a message that most likely resonates with far more of us. The women exercising four times a week “had the greatest overall increase in energy expenditure,” he says. But those working out only twice a week “weren’t far behind.”
However, the women exercising four times per week were now expending far more energy, over all, than the women in either of the other two groups. They were burning about 225 additional calories each day, beyond what they expended while exercising, compared to their calorie burning at the start of the experiment.
The twice-a-week exercisers also were using more energy each day than they had been at first, burning almost 100 calories more daily, in addition to the calories used during workouts.
But the women who had been assigned to exercise six times per week were now expending considerably less daily energy than they had been at the experiment’s start, the equivalent of almost 200 fewer calories each day, even though they were exercising so assiduously.
“We think that the women in the twice-a-week and four-times-a-week groups felt more energized and physically capable” after several months of training than they had at the start of the study, says Gary Hunter, a U.A.B. professor who led the experiment. Based on conversations with the women, he says he thinks they began opting for stairs over escalators and walking for pleasure.
The women working out six times a week, though, reacted very differently. “They complained to us that working out six times a week took too much time,” Dr. Hunter says. They did not report feeling fatigued or physically droopy. Their bodies were not producing excessive levels of cytokines, sending invisible messages to the body to slow down.
Rather, they felt pressed for time and reacted, it seems, by making choices like driving instead of walking and impatiently avoiding the stairs.
Why Four Workouts a Week May Be Better Than Six
By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS
New York Times
February 13, 2013
A common concern about exercise is that if you don’t do it almost every day, you won’t achieve much health benefit. But a commendable new study suggests otherwise, showing that a fairly leisurely approach to scheduling workouts may actually be more beneficial than working out almost daily.
For the new study, published this month in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham gathered 72 older, sedentary women, ages 60 to 74, and randomly assigned them to one of three exercise groups.
One group began lifting weights once a week and performing an endurance-style workout, like jogging or bike riding, on another day.
Another group lifted weights twice a week and jogged or rode an exercise bike twice a week.
The final group, as you may have guessed, completed three weight-lifting and three endurance sessions, or six weekly workouts.
The exercise, which was supervised by researchers, was easy at first and meant to elicit changes in both muscles and endurance. Over the course of four months, the intensity and duration gradually increased, until the women were jogging moderately for 40 minutes and lifting weights for about the same amount of time.
The researchers were hoping to find out which number of weekly workouts would be, Goldilocks-like, just right for increasing the women’s fitness and overall weekly energy expenditure.
Some previous studies had suggested that working out only once or twice a week produced few gains in fitness, while exercising vigorously almost every day sometimes led people to become less physically active, over all, than those formally exercising less. Researchers theorized that the more grueling workout schedule caused the central nervous system to respond as if people were overdoing things, sending out physiological signals that, in an unconscious internal reaction, prompted them to feel tired or lethargic and stop moving so much.
To determine if either of these possibilities held true among their volunteers, the researchers in the current study tracked the women’s blood levels of cytokines, a substance related to stress that is thought to be one of the signals the nervous system uses to determine if someone is overdoing things physically. They also measured the women’s changing aerobic capacities, muscle strength, body fat, moods and, using sophisticated calorimetry techniques, energy expenditure over the course of each week.
By the end of the four-month experiment, all of the women had gained endurance and strength and shed body fat, although weight loss was not the point of the study. The scientists had not asked the women to change their eating habits.
There were, remarkably, almost no differences in fitness gains among the groups. The women working out twice a week had become as powerful and aerobically fit as those who had worked out six times a week. There were no discernible differences in cytokine levels among the groups, either.
However, the women exercising four times per week were now expending far more energy, over all, than the women in either of the other two groups. They were burning about 225 additional calories each day, beyond what they expended while exercising, compared to their calorie burning at the start of the experiment.
The twice-a-week exercisers also were using more energy each day than they had been at first, burning almost 100 calories more daily, in addition to the calories used during workouts.
But the women who had been assigned to exercise six times per week were now expending considerably less daily energy than they had been at the experiment’s start, the equivalent of almost 200 fewer calories each day, even though they were exercising so assiduously.
“We think that the women in the twice-a-week and four-times-a-week groups felt more energized and physically capable” after several months of training than they had at the start of the study, says Gary Hunter, a U.A.B. professor who led the experiment. Based on conversations with the women, he says he thinks they began opting for stairs over escalators and walking for pleasure.
The women working out six times a week, though, reacted very differently. “They complained to us that working out six times a week took too much time,” Dr. Hunter says. They did not report feeling fatigued or physically droopy. Their bodies were not producing excessive levels of cytokines, sending invisible messages to the body to slow down.
Rather, they felt pressed for time and reacted, it seems, by making choices like driving instead of walking and impatiently avoiding the stairs.
Despite the cautionary note, those who insist on working out six times per week need not feel discouraged. As long as you consciously monitor your activity level, the findings suggest, you won’t necessarily and unconsciously wind up moving less over all.
But the more fundamental finding of this study, Dr. Hunter says, is that “less may be more,” a message that most likely resonates with far more of us. The women exercising four times a week “had the greatest overall increase in energy expenditure,” he says. But those working out only twice a week “weren’t far behind.”
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Many of us have more than one genome, either from mutations--or from people with whom we shared a womb
This is amazing. We don't have any way to know it, short of multiple DNA and/or blood tests, but many of us might actually be fused twins!
DNA Double Take
Noah Berger
New York Times
September 16, 2013
From biology class to “C.S.I.,” we are told again and again that our genome is at the heart of our identity. Read the sequences in the chromosomes of a single cell, and learn everything about a person’s genetic information — or, as 23andme, a prominent genetic testing company, says on its Web site, “The more you know about your DNA, the more you know about yourself.”
But scientists are discovering that — to a surprising degree — we contain genetic multitudes. Not long ago, researchers had thought it was rare for the cells in a single healthy person to differ genetically in a significant way. But scientists are finding that it’s quite common for an individual to have multiple genomes. Some people, for example, have groups of cells with mutations that are not found in the rest of the body. Some have genomes that came from other people.
“There have been whispers in the matrix about this for years, even decades, but only in a very hypothetical sense,” said Alexander Urban, a geneticist at Stanford University. Even three years ago, suggesting that there was widespread genetic variation in a single body would have been met with skepticism, he said. “You would have just run against the wall.” ...
In 1953... a British woman donated a pint of blood. It turned out that some of her blood was Type O and some was Type A. The scientists who studied her concluded that she had acquired some of her blood from her twin brother in the womb, including his genomes in his blood cells.
Chimerism, as such conditions came to be known, seemed for many years to be a rarity. But “it can be commoner than we realized,” said Dr. Linda Randolph, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles who is an author of a review of chimerism published in The American Journal of Medical Genetics in July.
Twins can end up with a mixed supply of blood when they get nutrients in the womb through the same set of blood vessels. In other cases, two fertilized eggs may fuse together. These so-called embryonic chimeras may go through life blissfully unaware of their origins.
One woman discovered she was a chimera as late as age 52. In need of a kidney transplant, she was tested so that she might find a match. The results indicated that she was not the mother of two of her three biological children. It turned out that she had originated from two genomes. One genome gave rise to her blood and some of her eggs; other eggs carried a separate genome.
Women can also gain genomes from their children. After a baby is born, it may leave some fetal cells behind in its mother’s body, where they can travel to different organs and be absorbed into those tissues. “It’s pretty likely that any woman who has been pregnant is a chimera,” Dr. Randolph said.
Everywhere You Look
As scientists begin to search for chimeras systematically — rather than waiting for them to turn up in puzzling medical tests — they’re finding them in a remarkably high fraction of people. In 2012, Canadian scientists performed autopsies on the brains of 59 women. They found neurons with Y chromosomes in 63 percent of them. The neurons likely developed from cells originating in their sons.
In The International Journal of Cancer in August, Eugen Dhimolea of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues reported that male cells can also infiltrate breast tissue. When they looked for Y chromosomes in samples of breast tissue, they found it in 56 percent of the women they investigated.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Apples fight heart disease, cancer and strokes
Apples fight heart disease, cancer and strokes
by ANDREA PERRY
Daily Mail
Sep 14 2013
The old proverb of an apple a day keeps the doctor away is proving to be true.
If there is any one thing that you can do to stay well then it is to eat at least two apples daily according to a whole raft of new scientific research which places apples at the top of the healthy-living tree.
It may sound far-fetched but an apple contains so many beneficial ingredients that it will protect you from contracting a whole range of life threatening conditions such as cancer or suffering a stroke.
The latest pioneering research in America has revealed that drinking apple juice and eating apples can reduce the risk of heart disease.
The clinical trial involved healthy adults drinking 12oz of 100 per cent apple juice daily or eating two apples.
The time it took for cholesterol in the body to oxidise, or break down, increased by up to 20 per cent after just six weeks of following the apple diet.
It turns out that apples contain phytonutrients or phytochemicals (compounds found in plants) which act as antixiodents against LDL (low-density lipoproteins), the damaging portion of cholesterol in the blood stream.
Apples are also rich in pectins, which are soluble fibres which it has been demonstrated are effective in lowering cholesterol levels.
Dianne Hyson, a registered dietician and lead researcher of the study, said: 'Previous studies have shown that eating fruits and vegetables is associated with a reduced risk of coronary artery disease, but this is the first clinical study to show the potential benefits of active compounds in apple juice and apples.'
'A very moderate intake of apple juice or apples has the potential to reduce risk factors for heart disease in a fairly short period of time,' she said. 'These small diet changes might play an important role in a heart healthy diet.'
Volunteer, father of two Jack Farrell said: 'If I can get this result from just drinking 12ozs of apple juice a day, it's definitely worth making part of my daily routine.'
Other amazing facts about apples
Apples ward off strokes
Finnish researchers found that individuals who ate the most apples had the lowest risk of suffering a stroke, due to the benefits of the active compounds called phytonutrients found in apples.
Their conclusion was based on evaluation of dietary records and health outcomes of 9,208 men followed for 28 years.
Apples give you better lungs
British researchers found that apple eaters had better lung function than non-apple eaters.
After analysing the health and dietary records of 2,512 men, scientists discovered a strong link between positive lung function and the number of apples eaten each week.
Although other researchers had suggested that vitamin C from fresh fruit was responsible for improving lung function, this investigation found otherwise.
These researchers believe that it is the consumption of antioxidant-like phytonutrients in apples, such as flavonoids especially one member called quercetin which reduces the risk of cancer and heart attacks. This they say provides an explanation for the healthful effect of apples.
Apples beat cancer
Researchers in Hawaii found that an increased consumption of quercetin (from apples and onions) was associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer.
This was supported by epidemiologists from Finland's National Public Health Institute who concluded that a flavonoid-rich diet (and particularly those flavonoids from apples) was associated with a reduced risk of developing cancer.
Their study of 9,959 cancer-free men and women revealed that people who regularly consumed the most flavonoid-rich foods were about 20 per cent less likely to develop cancer.
The researchers found that lung cancer was 46 percent lower among those on these diets and that high consumption of apples was also directly associated with the lowest risk for coronary mortality.
This conclusion was based on their analysis of diet and health outcomes of an ongoing study of 5,133 Finnish men and women aged 30-69, who were initially free of heart disease when the study began in 1967.
by ANDREA PERRY
Daily Mail
Sep 14 2013
The old proverb of an apple a day keeps the doctor away is proving to be true.
If there is any one thing that you can do to stay well then it is to eat at least two apples daily according to a whole raft of new scientific research which places apples at the top of the healthy-living tree.
It may sound far-fetched but an apple contains so many beneficial ingredients that it will protect you from contracting a whole range of life threatening conditions such as cancer or suffering a stroke.
The latest pioneering research in America has revealed that drinking apple juice and eating apples can reduce the risk of heart disease.
The clinical trial involved healthy adults drinking 12oz of 100 per cent apple juice daily or eating two apples.
The time it took for cholesterol in the body to oxidise, or break down, increased by up to 20 per cent after just six weeks of following the apple diet.
It turns out that apples contain phytonutrients or phytochemicals (compounds found in plants) which act as antixiodents against LDL (low-density lipoproteins), the damaging portion of cholesterol in the blood stream.
Apples are also rich in pectins, which are soluble fibres which it has been demonstrated are effective in lowering cholesterol levels.
Dianne Hyson, a registered dietician and lead researcher of the study, said: 'Previous studies have shown that eating fruits and vegetables is associated with a reduced risk of coronary artery disease, but this is the first clinical study to show the potential benefits of active compounds in apple juice and apples.'
'A very moderate intake of apple juice or apples has the potential to reduce risk factors for heart disease in a fairly short period of time,' she said. 'These small diet changes might play an important role in a heart healthy diet.'
Volunteer, father of two Jack Farrell said: 'If I can get this result from just drinking 12ozs of apple juice a day, it's definitely worth making part of my daily routine.'
Other amazing facts about apples
Apples ward off strokes
Finnish researchers found that individuals who ate the most apples had the lowest risk of suffering a stroke, due to the benefits of the active compounds called phytonutrients found in apples.
Their conclusion was based on evaluation of dietary records and health outcomes of 9,208 men followed for 28 years.
Apples give you better lungs
British researchers found that apple eaters had better lung function than non-apple eaters.
After analysing the health and dietary records of 2,512 men, scientists discovered a strong link between positive lung function and the number of apples eaten each week.
Although other researchers had suggested that vitamin C from fresh fruit was responsible for improving lung function, this investigation found otherwise.
These researchers believe that it is the consumption of antioxidant-like phytonutrients in apples, such as flavonoids especially one member called quercetin which reduces the risk of cancer and heart attacks. This they say provides an explanation for the healthful effect of apples.
Apples beat cancer
Researchers in Hawaii found that an increased consumption of quercetin (from apples and onions) was associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer.
This was supported by epidemiologists from Finland's National Public Health Institute who concluded that a flavonoid-rich diet (and particularly those flavonoids from apples) was associated with a reduced risk of developing cancer.
Their study of 9,959 cancer-free men and women revealed that people who regularly consumed the most flavonoid-rich foods were about 20 per cent less likely to develop cancer.
The researchers found that lung cancer was 46 percent lower among those on these diets and that high consumption of apples was also directly associated with the lowest risk for coronary mortality.
This conclusion was based on their analysis of diet and health outcomes of an ongoing study of 5,133 Finnish men and women aged 30-69, who were initially free of heart disease when the study began in 1967.
Fruit-heavy diet may prevent against dangerous aneurysm
Fruit-heavy diet may prevent against dangerous aneurysm
Ryan Jaslow
CBS News
August 20, 2013
It's no secret that a diet full of fruits and vegetables can boost your health and may stave off chronic disease.
Now, researchers are reporting eating fruits in particular may protect against an uncommon but deadly aneurysm that develops in the abdomen.
An aneurysm is an abnormal ballooning of a portion of an artery caused by weakness in the wall of a blood vessel. Common locations these occur include the brain and the heart's major artery, the aorta.
The aorta is about as thick as a garden hose, according to the Mayo Clinic, and runs from the heart through the center of the chest and abdomen. An abdominal aortic aneurysm occurs when the ballooning of the blood vessel occurs in the lower part of the aorta. Aneurysms grow slowly over many years and people may not show symptoms, but if an abdominal aortic aneurysm, life-threatening bleeding may ensue.
Previous research suggests eating fruits and vegetables may boost vascular health, so the researchers sought out to see if produce prevented these aneurysms.
Two NYC hospitals to prescribe fruits and vegetables Vegetarian diet may reduce risk of early death Citrus fruits may lower women's stroke risk For the study, researchers split more than 80,000 Swedish men and women into four groups based on how many fruits and vegetables they ate, from the least to the most.
They were tracked for 13 years, and autopsy records showed nearly 1,100 people had abdominal aortic aneurysms, including 222 whose aneurysms ruptured. More than 80 percent of the cases were in men. The researchers found those who ate the most fruits -- which amounted to about two servings a day or more, excluding juice -- were 25 percent less likely to have an abdominal aortic aneurysm and 43 percent less likely to have one rupture compared to those who ate less than one serving of fruit.
Those in the quartile with the highest fruit intake were 31 percent likely to have an aneurysm and 39 less likely to have a rupture compared to people who ate no fruit at all.
The most commonly eaten fruits were apples and pears, followed by bananas, oranges and other citrus items.
Vegetables, however, were not associated with lower risk.
"A high consumption of fruits may help to prevent many vascular diseases, and our study suggests that a lower risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm will be among the benefits," study author Dr. Otto Stackelberg, a doctoral researcher at the Institute of Environmental Medicine's Nutritional Epidemiology Unit at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, said in a press release. "Other studies have found that eating more fruits and vegetables may decrease the risk of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and several cancers," he added, emphasizing vegetables remain important to health. Also essential is never smoking or quitting if you already do smoke, said Stackelberg.
The American Heart Association, the publisher of the journal this study is featured in, Circulation, says adults should eat about four to five servings of fruits and vegetables each day to get important nutrients including folate, magnesium, potassium and dietary fiber, as well as vitamins A, C, and K.
An abdominal aortic aneurysm can be spotted on an ultrasound, and doctors may track a small one over time to see if it expands. Aneurysms can form in anyone, but are most common in men over 60 who have at least one risk factor including high cholesterol, high blood pressure, emphysema, obesity, genetic factors or are smokers.
Symptoms of a tear or rupture include severe and sudden abdominal pain, clammy skin, dizziness, rapid heart rate, nausea, vomiting and shock. You should see a doctor if you start experiencing symptoms.
The Mayo Clinic has more information.
Ryan Jaslow
CBS News
August 20, 2013
It's no secret that a diet full of fruits and vegetables can boost your health and may stave off chronic disease.
Now, researchers are reporting eating fruits in particular may protect against an uncommon but deadly aneurysm that develops in the abdomen.
An aneurysm is an abnormal ballooning of a portion of an artery caused by weakness in the wall of a blood vessel. Common locations these occur include the brain and the heart's major artery, the aorta.
The aorta is about as thick as a garden hose, according to the Mayo Clinic, and runs from the heart through the center of the chest and abdomen. An abdominal aortic aneurysm occurs when the ballooning of the blood vessel occurs in the lower part of the aorta. Aneurysms grow slowly over many years and people may not show symptoms, but if an abdominal aortic aneurysm, life-threatening bleeding may ensue.
Previous research suggests eating fruits and vegetables may boost vascular health, so the researchers sought out to see if produce prevented these aneurysms.
Two NYC hospitals to prescribe fruits and vegetables Vegetarian diet may reduce risk of early death Citrus fruits may lower women's stroke risk For the study, researchers split more than 80,000 Swedish men and women into four groups based on how many fruits and vegetables they ate, from the least to the most.
They were tracked for 13 years, and autopsy records showed nearly 1,100 people had abdominal aortic aneurysms, including 222 whose aneurysms ruptured. More than 80 percent of the cases were in men. The researchers found those who ate the most fruits -- which amounted to about two servings a day or more, excluding juice -- were 25 percent less likely to have an abdominal aortic aneurysm and 43 percent less likely to have one rupture compared to those who ate less than one serving of fruit.
Those in the quartile with the highest fruit intake were 31 percent likely to have an aneurysm and 39 less likely to have a rupture compared to people who ate no fruit at all.
The most commonly eaten fruits were apples and pears, followed by bananas, oranges and other citrus items.
Vegetables, however, were not associated with lower risk.
"A high consumption of fruits may help to prevent many vascular diseases, and our study suggests that a lower risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm will be among the benefits," study author Dr. Otto Stackelberg, a doctoral researcher at the Institute of Environmental Medicine's Nutritional Epidemiology Unit at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, said in a press release. "Other studies have found that eating more fruits and vegetables may decrease the risk of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and several cancers," he added, emphasizing vegetables remain important to health. Also essential is never smoking or quitting if you already do smoke, said Stackelberg.
The American Heart Association, the publisher of the journal this study is featured in, Circulation, says adults should eat about four to five servings of fruits and vegetables each day to get important nutrients including folate, magnesium, potassium and dietary fiber, as well as vitamins A, C, and K.
An abdominal aortic aneurysm can be spotted on an ultrasound, and doctors may track a small one over time to see if it expands. Aneurysms can form in anyone, but are most common in men over 60 who have at least one risk factor including high cholesterol, high blood pressure, emphysema, obesity, genetic factors or are smokers.
Symptoms of a tear or rupture include severe and sudden abdominal pain, clammy skin, dizziness, rapid heart rate, nausea, vomiting and shock. You should see a doctor if you start experiencing symptoms.
The Mayo Clinic has more information.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
The New Science of Mind: Chromosomes, genes, depression, autism, schizophrenia
The New Science of Mind
New York Times
By ERIC R. KANDEL
Published: September 6, 2013
THESE days it is easy to get irritated with the exaggerated interpretations of brain imaging — for example, that a single fMRI scan can reveal our innermost feelings — and with inflated claims about our understanding of the biological basis of our higher mental processes.
Such irritation has led a number of thoughtful people to declare that we can never achieve a truly sophisticated understanding of the biological foundation of complex mental activity.
In fact, recent newspaper articles have argued that psychiatry is a “semi-science” whose practitioners cannot base their treatment of mental disorders on the same empirical evidence as physicians who treat disorders of the body can. The problem for many people is that we cannot point to the underlying biological bases of most psychiatric disorders. In fact, we are nowhere near understanding them as well as we understand disorders of the liver or the heart.
But this is starting to change.
Consider the biology of depression. We are beginning to discern the outlines of a complex neural circuit that becomes disordered in depressive illnesses. Helen Mayberg, at Emory University, and other scientists used brain-scanning techniques to identify several components of this circuit, two of which are particularly important.
One is Area 25 (the subcallosal cingulate region), which mediates our unconscious and motor responses to emotional stress; the other is the right anterior insula, a region where self-awareness and interpersonal experience come together.
These two regions connect to the hypothalamus, which plays a role in basic functions like sleep, appetite and libido, and to three other important regions of the brain: the amygdala, which evaluates emotional salience; the hippocampus, which is concerned with memory; and the prefrontal cortex, which is the seat of executive function and self-esteem. All of these regions can be disturbed in depressive illnesses.
In a recent study of people with depression, Professor Mayberg gave each person one of two types of treatment: cognitive behavioral therapy, a form of psychotherapy that trains people to view their feelings in more positive terms, or an antidepressant medication. She found that people who started with below-average baseline activity in the right anterior insula responded well to cognitive behavioral therapy, but not to the antidepressant. People with above-average activity responded to the antidepressant, but not to cognitive behavioral therapy. Thus, Professor Mayberg found that she could predict a depressed person’s response to specific treatments from the baseline activity in the right anterior insula.
These results show us four very important things about the biology of mental disorders. First, the neural circuits disturbed by psychiatric disorders are likely to be very complex.
Second, we can identify specific, measurable markers of a mental disorder, and those biomarkers can predict the outcome of two different treatments: psychotherapy and medication.
Third, psychotherapy is a biological treatment, a brain therapy. It produces lasting, detectable physical changes in our brain, much as learning does.
And fourth, the effects of psychotherapy can be studied empirically. Aaron Beck, who pioneered the use of cognitive behavioral therapy, long insisted that psychotherapy has an empirical basis, that it is a science. Other forms of psychotherapy have been slower to move in this direction, in part because a number of psychotherapists believed that human behavior is too difficult to study in scientific terms.
ANY discussion of the biological basis of psychiatric disorders must include genetics. And, indeed, we are beginning to fit new pieces into the puzzle of how genetic mutations influence brain development.
Most mutations produce small differences in our genes, but scientists have recently discovered that some mutations give rise to structural differences in our chromosomes. Such differences are known as copy number variations.
People with copy number variations may be missing a small piece of DNA from a chromosome, or they may have an extra piece of that DNA.
This single segment of chromosome 7 contains about 25 of the 21,000 or so genes in our genome, yet an extra copy or a missing copy has profound, and radically different, effects on social behavior.
The second finding is de novo point mutations, which arise spontaneously in the sperm of adult men. Sperm divide every 15 days. This continuous division and copying of DNA leads to errors, and the rate of error increases significantly with age: a 20-year-old will have an average of 25 de novo point mutations in his sperm, whereas a 40-year-old will have 65. These mutations are one reason older fathers are more likely to have children with autism and schizophrenia...
Eric R. Kandel, a professor at the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute at Columbia, a senior investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is the author of “The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind and Brain, From Vienna 1900 to the Present.”
Matthew State, at the University of California, San Francisco, has discovered a remarkable copy number variation involving chromosome 7. An extra copy of a particular segment of this chromosome greatly increases the risk of autism, which is characterized by social isolation. Yet the loss of that same segment results in Williams syndrome, a disorder characterized by intense sociability.
New York Times
By ERIC R. KANDEL
Published: September 6, 2013
THESE days it is easy to get irritated with the exaggerated interpretations of brain imaging — for example, that a single fMRI scan can reveal our innermost feelings — and with inflated claims about our understanding of the biological basis of our higher mental processes.
Such irritation has led a number of thoughtful people to declare that we can never achieve a truly sophisticated understanding of the biological foundation of complex mental activity.
In fact, recent newspaper articles have argued that psychiatry is a “semi-science” whose practitioners cannot base their treatment of mental disorders on the same empirical evidence as physicians who treat disorders of the body can. The problem for many people is that we cannot point to the underlying biological bases of most psychiatric disorders. In fact, we are nowhere near understanding them as well as we understand disorders of the liver or the heart.
But this is starting to change.
Consider the biology of depression. We are beginning to discern the outlines of a complex neural circuit that becomes disordered in depressive illnesses. Helen Mayberg, at Emory University, and other scientists used brain-scanning techniques to identify several components of this circuit, two of which are particularly important.
One is Area 25 (the subcallosal cingulate region), which mediates our unconscious and motor responses to emotional stress; the other is the right anterior insula, a region where self-awareness and interpersonal experience come together.
These two regions connect to the hypothalamus, which plays a role in basic functions like sleep, appetite and libido, and to three other important regions of the brain: the amygdala, which evaluates emotional salience; the hippocampus, which is concerned with memory; and the prefrontal cortex, which is the seat of executive function and self-esteem. All of these regions can be disturbed in depressive illnesses.
In a recent study of people with depression, Professor Mayberg gave each person one of two types of treatment: cognitive behavioral therapy, a form of psychotherapy that trains people to view their feelings in more positive terms, or an antidepressant medication. She found that people who started with below-average baseline activity in the right anterior insula responded well to cognitive behavioral therapy, but not to the antidepressant. People with above-average activity responded to the antidepressant, but not to cognitive behavioral therapy. Thus, Professor Mayberg found that she could predict a depressed person’s response to specific treatments from the baseline activity in the right anterior insula.
These results show us four very important things about the biology of mental disorders. First, the neural circuits disturbed by psychiatric disorders are likely to be very complex.
Second, we can identify specific, measurable markers of a mental disorder, and those biomarkers can predict the outcome of two different treatments: psychotherapy and medication.
Third, psychotherapy is a biological treatment, a brain therapy. It produces lasting, detectable physical changes in our brain, much as learning does.
And fourth, the effects of psychotherapy can be studied empirically. Aaron Beck, who pioneered the use of cognitive behavioral therapy, long insisted that psychotherapy has an empirical basis, that it is a science. Other forms of psychotherapy have been slower to move in this direction, in part because a number of psychotherapists believed that human behavior is too difficult to study in scientific terms.
ANY discussion of the biological basis of psychiatric disorders must include genetics. And, indeed, we are beginning to fit new pieces into the puzzle of how genetic mutations influence brain development.
Most mutations produce small differences in our genes, but scientists have recently discovered that some mutations give rise to structural differences in our chromosomes. Such differences are known as copy number variations.
People with copy number variations may be missing a small piece of DNA from a chromosome, or they may have an extra piece of that DNA.
This single segment of chromosome 7 contains about 25 of the 21,000 or so genes in our genome, yet an extra copy or a missing copy has profound, and radically different, effects on social behavior.
The second finding is de novo point mutations, which arise spontaneously in the sperm of adult men. Sperm divide every 15 days. This continuous division and copying of DNA leads to errors, and the rate of error increases significantly with age: a 20-year-old will have an average of 25 de novo point mutations in his sperm, whereas a 40-year-old will have 65. These mutations are one reason older fathers are more likely to have children with autism and schizophrenia...
Eric R. Kandel, a professor at the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute at Columbia, a senior investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is the author of “The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind and Brain, From Vienna 1900 to the Present.”
Matthew State, at the University of California, San Francisco, has discovered a remarkable copy number variation involving chromosome 7. An extra copy of a particular segment of this chromosome greatly increases the risk of autism, which is characterized by social isolation. Yet the loss of that same segment results in Williams syndrome, a disorder characterized by intense sociability.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Shanyna Isom Grows Nails Instead Of Hair Due To Skin Condition
OMG?!? Woman Develops Strange Condition Where Fingernails Grow From Hair Follicles…
Aug. 10 2012
Written by ATLien
Straight from the A
A 28 year old beautician and former University of Memphis law student named Shanyna Isom has developed a condition that cannot be medically explained.
Isom has consulted several specialists, including a doctor in the Netherlands, but she still as no idea what is wrong with her.
“Black scabs were coming out of her skin,” said her mother, Kathy Gary.
“The nails would grow so long and come out and regrow themselves. They are hard to touch and stick you.”
Yes… you read right. Oddly enough fingernails have begun to grow from the hair follicles all over Isom’s body.
Isom’s disease has affected not only her skin, but her bones and her vision. The once vibrant single mother is now unable to walk without a cane, and her mother has to help her out of bed every day.
Doctors at Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, where Isom is being treated, told her family that she is the only person in the world with this unknown condition.
And now she has $500,000 in unpaid medical bills. Isom has state insurance, but it doesn’t cover medical care in Maryland. Her mother lost her job as a medical receptionist because she looks after her daughter at home, so savings have dried up.
Friends and family of the young woman have organized fundraisers, and her high school has dedicated a football game to her charity. Bank of America has even agreed to take donations at any of their branch offices.
Despite her debilitating illness, Isom told ABCNews.com, “I don’t know whether to smile or cry. I am very blessed.”
Shayna also has a blog called Pray for Shanyna where she shares her thoughts and fears surrounding her illness:
It has taken all of my hair out and has left my body with scabs all over it, plus I have lost about 200 pounds.
Two years ago, I was a healthy woman on my own … had big dreams and goals that I was following until one day my body completely shut down on me.
According to WLBT in Memphis, Isom was a junior studying criminal justice when the mystery illness first occurred in September 2009.
Her doctors suspected that steroids she’d been subscribed for a previous asthma attack had caused an allergic reaction of some sort. However, after returning home, Isom began itching.
Doctors prescribed Benadryl, but it got worse.
“It was uncontrollable and we didn’t know what it was,” said her mother.
Soon, her legs turned black. “It looked as if she had been in a house fire and gotten burned.”
Doctors thought she had eczema or a staph infection and prescribed drugs, but it got worse. Meanwhile, all tests came back negative.
“We could not figure out what was going on,” said her mother. “She was just breaking out everywhere. Her body was scabbed all over.”
Today Isom is slowly improving but she is on at least 25 medications (her insurance only pays for five of them). She is currently awaiting the results of genetic tests that may give doctors clues to what is wrong.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Blueberries each day may keep the doctor away
Blueberries each day may keep the doctor away
Blueberries each day may keep the doctor away
(Medical Xpress)
August 27, 2013
Eating 2 cups of wild blueberries a day for two months can reduce chronic inflammation, improve metabolism of fat and lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, according to research by a University of Maine clinical nutritionist.
Additionally, UMaine professor Dorothy Klimis-Zacas says a diet enriched with the fruit can normalize gene expression of inflammatory markers and those related to lipid and lipoprotein metabolism.
The findings from her research with obese Zucker rats have promising implications for people wanting to reduce inflammation and thus their risk of coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, says Klimis-Zacas.
The obese male Zucker rat is a valid experimental model for human metabolic syndrome (MetS), which is characterized by chronic inflammation, obesity, hypertension, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance.
The results are significant in light of the MetS epidemic in the United States, which affects an estimated 37 percent of adults, says Klimis-Zacas. That figure is expected to increase in direct relationship with the rate of obesity, according to National Health Statistics Reports.
Heart disease alone annually kills 600,000 people in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Being able to improve health by eating blueberries rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory agents that prevent degenerative disease, rather than relying on pharmaceuticals, is a great benefit, she says.
Klimis-Zacas is the first to report that wild blueberries lowered triglycerides (fatty materials) in the rats' blood in vivo.
The fruit lowered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol—which clogs people's blood vessels and increases the risk of a heart attack—while maintaining the level of beneficial high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, says Klimis-Zacas, who has studied nutritional benefits of wild blueberries for 15 years.
There was an overall anti-inflammatory effect in the obese rats, she says. Circulating levels of inflammatory markers were reduced in their blood, fatty tissues and livers. She found the blueberry-enriched diet improved abnormal overall blood lipid profiles and the genetic expression of enzymes that regulate lipids and cholesterol.
The multiple benefits for obese Zucker rats eating a wild blueberry-enriched diet are detailed in two research articles recently authored by Klimis-Zacas.
The study "Wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) consumption improves inflammatory status in the obese Zucker rat model of the metabolic syndrome," was published in SciVerse ScienceDirect, a Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. Stefano Vendrame, Allison Daugherty and Alekandra S. Kristo, all UMaine graduate students, as well as Patriza Riso of the Universita degli Studi di Milano in Italy, participated in the research.
The study "Wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium)-enriched diet improves dyslipidaemia and modulates the expression of genes related to lipid metabolism in obese Zucker rats" was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. Vendrame, Daugherty and Kristo are co-authors.
Blueberries each day may keep the doctor away
(Medical Xpress)
August 27, 2013
Eating 2 cups of wild blueberries a day for two months can reduce chronic inflammation, improve metabolism of fat and lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, according to research by a University of Maine clinical nutritionist.
Additionally, UMaine professor Dorothy Klimis-Zacas says a diet enriched with the fruit can normalize gene expression of inflammatory markers and those related to lipid and lipoprotein metabolism.
The findings from her research with obese Zucker rats have promising implications for people wanting to reduce inflammation and thus their risk of coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, says Klimis-Zacas.
The obese male Zucker rat is a valid experimental model for human metabolic syndrome (MetS), which is characterized by chronic inflammation, obesity, hypertension, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance.
The results are significant in light of the MetS epidemic in the United States, which affects an estimated 37 percent of adults, says Klimis-Zacas. That figure is expected to increase in direct relationship with the rate of obesity, according to National Health Statistics Reports.
Heart disease alone annually kills 600,000 people in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Being able to improve health by eating blueberries rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory agents that prevent degenerative disease, rather than relying on pharmaceuticals, is a great benefit, she says.
Klimis-Zacas is the first to report that wild blueberries lowered triglycerides (fatty materials) in the rats' blood in vivo.
The fruit lowered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol—which clogs people's blood vessels and increases the risk of a heart attack—while maintaining the level of beneficial high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, says Klimis-Zacas, who has studied nutritional benefits of wild blueberries for 15 years.
There was an overall anti-inflammatory effect in the obese rats, she says. Circulating levels of inflammatory markers were reduced in their blood, fatty tissues and livers. She found the blueberry-enriched diet improved abnormal overall blood lipid profiles and the genetic expression of enzymes that regulate lipids and cholesterol.
The multiple benefits for obese Zucker rats eating a wild blueberry-enriched diet are detailed in two research articles recently authored by Klimis-Zacas.
The study "Wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) consumption improves inflammatory status in the obese Zucker rat model of the metabolic syndrome," was published in SciVerse ScienceDirect, a Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. Stefano Vendrame, Allison Daugherty and Alekandra S. Kristo, all UMaine graduate students, as well as Patriza Riso of the Universita degli Studi di Milano in Italy, participated in the research.
The study "Wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium)-enriched diet improves dyslipidaemia and modulates the expression of genes related to lipid metabolism in obese Zucker rats" was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. Vendrame, Daugherty and Kristo are co-authors.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Drinking cocoa every day may help older people keep their brains healthy
Cocoa 'might prevent memory decline'
BBC
7 August 2013
It is not the first time cocoa has been linked with health benefits
Drinking cocoa every day may help older people keep their brains healthy, research suggests.
A study of 60 elderly people with no dementia found two cups of cocoa a day improved blood flow to the brain in those who had problems to start with.
Those participants whose blood flow improved also did better on memory tests at the end of the study, the journal Neurology reported.
Experts said more research was needed before conclusions could be drawn.
It is not the first time cocoa has been linked with vascular health and researchers believe that this is in part due to it being rich in flavanols, which are thought to have an important role.
In the latest study, researchers asked 60 people with an average age of 73 to drink two cups of cocoa a day - one group given high-flavanol cocoa and another a low-flavanol cocoa - and consume no other chocolate. Blood flow
Ultrasound tests at the start of the study showed 17 of them had impaired blood flow to the brain.
There was no difference between those who drank flavanol-rich cocoa and those who had flavanol-poor cocoa.
But whichever drink they were given, 88% of those with impaired blood flow at the start of the study saw improvements in blood flow and some cognitive tests, compared with 37% of people whose blood flow was normal at the beginning of the study.
“A cocoa-based treatment would likely be very popular, but it's too soon to draw any conclusions about its effects”
MRI scans in 24 participants found that people with impaired blood flow were also more likely to have tiny areas of brain damage.
"We're learning more about blood flow in the brain and its effect on thinking skills," said study author Dr Farzaneh Sorond a neurologist at Harvard Medical School.
"As different areas of the brain need more energy to complete their tasks, they also need greater blood flow. This relationship, called neurovascular coupling, may play an important role in diseases such as Alzheimer's."
The researchers said the lack of difference between the flavanol-rich and flavanol-poor cocoa could be because another component of the drink was having an effect or because only small amounts were needed.
Dr Simon Ridley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said this was a small study but that it added to a wealth of evidence.
"A cocoa-based treatment would likely be very popular, but it's too soon to draw any conclusions about its effects. "One drawback of this study is the lack of a control group for comparison, and we can't tell whether the results would have been different if the participants drank no cocoa at all."
But he added: "Poor vascular health is a known risk factor for dementia, and understanding more about the links between vascular problems and declining brain health could help the search for new treatments and preventions."
BBC
7 August 2013
It is not the first time cocoa has been linked with health benefits
Drinking cocoa every day may help older people keep their brains healthy, research suggests.
A study of 60 elderly people with no dementia found two cups of cocoa a day improved blood flow to the brain in those who had problems to start with.
Those participants whose blood flow improved also did better on memory tests at the end of the study, the journal Neurology reported.
Experts said more research was needed before conclusions could be drawn.
It is not the first time cocoa has been linked with vascular health and researchers believe that this is in part due to it being rich in flavanols, which are thought to have an important role.
In the latest study, researchers asked 60 people with an average age of 73 to drink two cups of cocoa a day - one group given high-flavanol cocoa and another a low-flavanol cocoa - and consume no other chocolate. Blood flow
Ultrasound tests at the start of the study showed 17 of them had impaired blood flow to the brain.
There was no difference between those who drank flavanol-rich cocoa and those who had flavanol-poor cocoa.
But whichever drink they were given, 88% of those with impaired blood flow at the start of the study saw improvements in blood flow and some cognitive tests, compared with 37% of people whose blood flow was normal at the beginning of the study.
“A cocoa-based treatment would likely be very popular, but it's too soon to draw any conclusions about its effects”
MRI scans in 24 participants found that people with impaired blood flow were also more likely to have tiny areas of brain damage.
"We're learning more about blood flow in the brain and its effect on thinking skills," said study author Dr Farzaneh Sorond a neurologist at Harvard Medical School.
"As different areas of the brain need more energy to complete their tasks, they also need greater blood flow. This relationship, called neurovascular coupling, may play an important role in diseases such as Alzheimer's."
The researchers said the lack of difference between the flavanol-rich and flavanol-poor cocoa could be because another component of the drink was having an effect or because only small amounts were needed.
Dr Simon Ridley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said this was a small study but that it added to a wealth of evidence.
"A cocoa-based treatment would likely be very popular, but it's too soon to draw any conclusions about its effects. "One drawback of this study is the lack of a control group for comparison, and we can't tell whether the results would have been different if the participants drank no cocoa at all."
But he added: "Poor vascular health is a known risk factor for dementia, and understanding more about the links between vascular problems and declining brain health could help the search for new treatments and preventions."
Friday, August 2, 2013
Camping resets biological clock, helps you feel more alert: study
Camping resets biological clock, helps you feel more alert: study
A week in the wilderness might be all you need to become a morning person. People who camped for a week naturally shifted their sleep patterns two hours earlier after returning home, a small University of Colorado study found.
AFP RELAXNEWS
August 2, 2013
Frequent campers might wake up earlier because of their exposure to natural, not artificial, light, a study suggests.
Want to be a morning person? A new small study suggests taking a weeklong camping trip to reset your internal biological clock to both wake up earlier and feel more alert when you do.
The research from the University of Colorado at Boulder found that subjects who spent more time exposed to natural light and less time in artificial lighting shifted their bedtimes and rising times to up to two hours earlier, while the total number of hours they slept stayed the same.
Findings were published online August 1 in the journal Current Biology.
After the camping trip, the night owls showed the biggest shifts in the timing of their internal clocks, said study researcher Kenneth P. Wright, Jr., an associate professor of physiology.
In the study, researchers took a group of eight adults averaging around the age of 30 to Colorado's Rocky Mountains for a week while wearing a wristband device that measures light exposure. Campers could use only natural sources of light, such as sunlight and a campfire, and abstained from using computers, flashlights, and mobile phones.
Prior to the camping trip, subjects also spent a week living their normal lives while wearing the wrist device. Also, both before the trip and after it ended, researchers measured levels of the hormone melatonin, which regulates sleep and wakefulness.
While camping, subjects were exposed to four times more natural light, on average, than those who lived their normal lives.
"After exposure to the natural light dark cycle, melatonin levels were low just before the volunteers woke up, suggesting our brain is starting to promote wakefulness after we have been exposed to these natural cues," Wright told the BBC.
Still, if you'd rather pass on tents and bug spray, the study does offer some useful advice for your everyday life.
"We can achieve earlier bedtimes by having people be outside more, especially in the morning," Wright told NPR. "You could start your day with a morning walk. Raise the shades in the house. Or if you read the newspaper, do it outside."
"On the flip side," he added, "reduce exposure to light at night by dimming the lights or computers. This is especially important within the hour prior before bedtime."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/camping-resets-biological-clock-study-article-1.1416194#ixzz2aqrdjxKu
A week in the wilderness might be all you need to become a morning person. People who camped for a week naturally shifted their sleep patterns two hours earlier after returning home, a small University of Colorado study found.
AFP RELAXNEWS
August 2, 2013
Frequent campers might wake up earlier because of their exposure to natural, not artificial, light, a study suggests.
Want to be a morning person? A new small study suggests taking a weeklong camping trip to reset your internal biological clock to both wake up earlier and feel more alert when you do.
The research from the University of Colorado at Boulder found that subjects who spent more time exposed to natural light and less time in artificial lighting shifted their bedtimes and rising times to up to two hours earlier, while the total number of hours they slept stayed the same.
Findings were published online August 1 in the journal Current Biology.
After the camping trip, the night owls showed the biggest shifts in the timing of their internal clocks, said study researcher Kenneth P. Wright, Jr., an associate professor of physiology.
In the study, researchers took a group of eight adults averaging around the age of 30 to Colorado's Rocky Mountains for a week while wearing a wristband device that measures light exposure. Campers could use only natural sources of light, such as sunlight and a campfire, and abstained from using computers, flashlights, and mobile phones.
Prior to the camping trip, subjects also spent a week living their normal lives while wearing the wrist device. Also, both before the trip and after it ended, researchers measured levels of the hormone melatonin, which regulates sleep and wakefulness.
While camping, subjects were exposed to four times more natural light, on average, than those who lived their normal lives.
"After exposure to the natural light dark cycle, melatonin levels were low just before the volunteers woke up, suggesting our brain is starting to promote wakefulness after we have been exposed to these natural cues," Wright told the BBC.
Still, if you'd rather pass on tents and bug spray, the study does offer some useful advice for your everyday life.
"We can achieve earlier bedtimes by having people be outside more, especially in the morning," Wright told NPR. "You could start your day with a morning walk. Raise the shades in the house. Or if you read the newspaper, do it outside."
"On the flip side," he added, "reduce exposure to light at night by dimming the lights or computers. This is especially important within the hour prior before bedtime."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/camping-resets-biological-clock-study-article-1.1416194#ixzz2aqrdjxKu
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Cancer, chemo linked to vets' lower risk of Alzheimer's
Cancer, chemo linked to vets' lower risk of Alzheimer's
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 15, 2013
BOSTON -- Military veterans diagnosed with most forms of cancer were less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease, and those treated with chemotherapy got even more protection, finds a study released Monday at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference here.
The study of 3.5 million veterans found an inverse relationship between Alzheimer's and all types of cancer except prostate and melanoma — both of which are largely detected through screening rather than symptoms. Aggressive screening of veterans might find cancers that would not otherwise have caused problems, said researcher Jane Driver, in explaining why those cancers might not share the same relationship with Alzheimer's.
More than 82,000 of the veterans developed Alzheimer's during the five years of the study, 24% of whom were previously diagnosed with cancer. When compared to projections for the general population, the risk of Alzheimer's was 51% lower than expected in liver cancer, 25% reduced in lung cancer and 13% lower in leukemia, according to the research. Other cancers' reduced risks seen in the study: pancreatic, 44%; esophageal, 33%; kidney, 22%; myeloma, 16%; lymphoma, 19%; head and neck, 15%.
There was no significant correlation between Alzheimer's and colorectal, bladder, stomach, genital, thyroid, sarcoma and brain cancer. Cancer patients who had chemotherapy lowered their Alzheimer's risk by 20%-45% for all cancers except prostate, the study showed.
Other research also supports this inverse relationship, including an Italian study released late last week, that found that those diagnosed with Alzheimer's ran a 43% lower risk of developing cancer than those without the disease, and people with cancer had a 35% lower chance of developing Alzheimer's. That study, in the journal Neurology, did not look as closely at individual cancers or treatment differences, though it did find a weaker link with prostate cancer and melanoma.
Driver said chemotherapy may offer extra protection because it reduces inflammation and may prevent brain cells from trying to divide. In Alzheimer's, brain cells often try to divide when they shouldn't, leading to their death, she said.
She said no one should take chemotherapy drugs, which are highly toxic, merely to reduce their risk of Alzheimer's, but the link suggests that it may be possible to develop medications to address both diseases. Certain chemotherapy drugs may turn out to be more protective of the brain than others, she added, so it may make sense to prescribe them more often.
Although it doesn't suggest any immediate treatments for Alzheimer's, the apparent connection with cancer is "one more puzzle piece" in helping researchers understand the memory loss and behavior changes of Alzheimer's, a fatal disease that affects an estimated 5.2 million Americans and is expected to strike nearly three times more over the next generation.
People with Alzheimer's suffer loss of memory, decreased thinking and language skills, and behavioral changes that can make caregiving challenging. Current treatments do not address underlying symptoms or stop progression of the fatal disease.
"We're starting to really understand what are the different pieces of the puzzle that make someone at increased or decreased risk," said Heather Snyder, director of medical and scientific operations for the Alzheimer's Association, the advocacy and research group that runs the international conference. "Understanding the pieces will help unlock additional targets and therapies and identify people at increased risk."
Another study released this morning showed that diabetics who take the drug Metformin seem to be better protected against Alzheimer's than those taking other diabetes medications, including Sulfonylurea. Nearly 26 million Americans have type 2 diabetes, which is largely associated with lifestyle factors. Roughly half of those with diabetes develop Alzheimer's as they age, so finding a drug that is also protective against Alzheimer's is immensely important, said researcher Rachel Whitmer, an investigator with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.
In her study of nearly 15,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, those who took Sulfonylurea had a 26% increased risk of developing Alzheimer's compared to those on Metformin. Not all patients can tolerate Metformin, but Whitmer said more research should certainly be done to see if that drug should be the first-line treatment for diabetes.
Among other studies discussed at the conference, which runs through Thursday:
-- Postponing retirement may protect against Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, likely because it keeps people intellectually engaged for longer, a study of French shopkeepers and crafts workers suggests;
--Socioeconomic differences such as education and income – not lifestyle factors or health status – may explain why African-Americans are more likely to develop Alzheimer's than whites, according to a study led by Kristine Yaffe of the University of California, San Francisco.
-- An expert panel gathered by the University of British Columbia concluded that online tests for Alzheimer's are unreliable and unscientific as well as ethically questionable, because of likely conflicts of interest, lack of proper consent and privacy concerns.
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 15, 2013
BOSTON -- Military veterans diagnosed with most forms of cancer were less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease, and those treated with chemotherapy got even more protection, finds a study released Monday at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference here.
The study of 3.5 million veterans found an inverse relationship between Alzheimer's and all types of cancer except prostate and melanoma — both of which are largely detected through screening rather than symptoms. Aggressive screening of veterans might find cancers that would not otherwise have caused problems, said researcher Jane Driver, in explaining why those cancers might not share the same relationship with Alzheimer's.
More than 82,000 of the veterans developed Alzheimer's during the five years of the study, 24% of whom were previously diagnosed with cancer. When compared to projections for the general population, the risk of Alzheimer's was 51% lower than expected in liver cancer, 25% reduced in lung cancer and 13% lower in leukemia, according to the research. Other cancers' reduced risks seen in the study: pancreatic, 44%; esophageal, 33%; kidney, 22%; myeloma, 16%; lymphoma, 19%; head and neck, 15%.
There was no significant correlation between Alzheimer's and colorectal, bladder, stomach, genital, thyroid, sarcoma and brain cancer. Cancer patients who had chemotherapy lowered their Alzheimer's risk by 20%-45% for all cancers except prostate, the study showed.
Other research also supports this inverse relationship, including an Italian study released late last week, that found that those diagnosed with Alzheimer's ran a 43% lower risk of developing cancer than those without the disease, and people with cancer had a 35% lower chance of developing Alzheimer's. That study, in the journal Neurology, did not look as closely at individual cancers or treatment differences, though it did find a weaker link with prostate cancer and melanoma.
Driver said chemotherapy may offer extra protection because it reduces inflammation and may prevent brain cells from trying to divide. In Alzheimer's, brain cells often try to divide when they shouldn't, leading to their death, she said.
She said no one should take chemotherapy drugs, which are highly toxic, merely to reduce their risk of Alzheimer's, but the link suggests that it may be possible to develop medications to address both diseases. Certain chemotherapy drugs may turn out to be more protective of the brain than others, she added, so it may make sense to prescribe them more often.
Although it doesn't suggest any immediate treatments for Alzheimer's, the apparent connection with cancer is "one more puzzle piece" in helping researchers understand the memory loss and behavior changes of Alzheimer's, a fatal disease that affects an estimated 5.2 million Americans and is expected to strike nearly three times more over the next generation.
People with Alzheimer's suffer loss of memory, decreased thinking and language skills, and behavioral changes that can make caregiving challenging. Current treatments do not address underlying symptoms or stop progression of the fatal disease.
"We're starting to really understand what are the different pieces of the puzzle that make someone at increased or decreased risk," said Heather Snyder, director of medical and scientific operations for the Alzheimer's Association, the advocacy and research group that runs the international conference. "Understanding the pieces will help unlock additional targets and therapies and identify people at increased risk."
Another study released this morning showed that diabetics who take the drug Metformin seem to be better protected against Alzheimer's than those taking other diabetes medications, including Sulfonylurea. Nearly 26 million Americans have type 2 diabetes, which is largely associated with lifestyle factors. Roughly half of those with diabetes develop Alzheimer's as they age, so finding a drug that is also protective against Alzheimer's is immensely important, said researcher Rachel Whitmer, an investigator with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.
In her study of nearly 15,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, those who took Sulfonylurea had a 26% increased risk of developing Alzheimer's compared to those on Metformin. Not all patients can tolerate Metformin, but Whitmer said more research should certainly be done to see if that drug should be the first-line treatment for diabetes.
Among other studies discussed at the conference, which runs through Thursday:
-- Postponing retirement may protect against Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, likely because it keeps people intellectually engaged for longer, a study of French shopkeepers and crafts workers suggests;
--Socioeconomic differences such as education and income – not lifestyle factors or health status – may explain why African-Americans are more likely to develop Alzheimer's than whites, according to a study led by Kristine Yaffe of the University of California, San Francisco.
-- An expert panel gathered by the University of British Columbia concluded that online tests for Alzheimer's are unreliable and unscientific as well as ethically questionable, because of likely conflicts of interest, lack of proper consent and privacy concerns.
How Coffee Could Save Your Life--more benefits revealed in new research
How Coffee Could Save Your Life
Yet another reason to indulge your caffeine addiction
By Claire Groden
Time
July 26, 2013
To hear most recent research tell it, coffee is a miracle drink. The magic beans will ward off skin cancer and Alzheimer’s, reduce heart failure and diabetes risks, heighten focus, and maybe even protect liver health. Oh, and decrease suicide risk, according to the newest study that validates our coffee addictions.
According to a study performed by the Harvard School of Public Health and published this month in The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, people who drink two to four cups of java each day are less likely to commit suicide than those who don’t drink coffee, drink decaf, or drink fewer than two cups each day. The study followed over 200,000 people for at least 16 years. And it’s not just a weak link: the researchers found that the suicide risk was cut by around 50 percent for caffeine fiends.
(MORE: Caffeine Withdrawal Is Now A Mental Disorder)
This isn’t the first time that researchers have discovered that coffee and smiles might go hand-in-hand. A 2011 study found that women who drink coffee cut their risk of depression by 15 percent compared to those who don’t. Michel Lucas, the head researcher of the most recent study, told The Huffington Post that coffee addicts can thank caffeine for the good news. The drug may actually act like a mild anti-depressant by tweaking levels of happy hormones like serotonin and dopamine.
Of course, there’s plenty of research out there that doesn’t look so kindly upon coffee drinkers. Recently, the New Yorker published an article arguing that while coffee may heighten focus, that means it also puts a squeeze on creativity. And of course, coffee’s well-known negative effects like insomnia and disturbed sleep cycles still hold.
Regardless, we’ll raise our mugs to this most recent study for giving us one more validation for our vice.
Yet another reason to indulge your caffeine addiction
By Claire Groden
Time
July 26, 2013
To hear most recent research tell it, coffee is a miracle drink. The magic beans will ward off skin cancer and Alzheimer’s, reduce heart failure and diabetes risks, heighten focus, and maybe even protect liver health. Oh, and decrease suicide risk, according to the newest study that validates our coffee addictions.
According to a study performed by the Harvard School of Public Health and published this month in The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, people who drink two to four cups of java each day are less likely to commit suicide than those who don’t drink coffee, drink decaf, or drink fewer than two cups each day. The study followed over 200,000 people for at least 16 years. And it’s not just a weak link: the researchers found that the suicide risk was cut by around 50 percent for caffeine fiends.
(MORE: Caffeine Withdrawal Is Now A Mental Disorder)
This isn’t the first time that researchers have discovered that coffee and smiles might go hand-in-hand. A 2011 study found that women who drink coffee cut their risk of depression by 15 percent compared to those who don’t. Michel Lucas, the head researcher of the most recent study, told The Huffington Post that coffee addicts can thank caffeine for the good news. The drug may actually act like a mild anti-depressant by tweaking levels of happy hormones like serotonin and dopamine.
Of course, there’s plenty of research out there that doesn’t look so kindly upon coffee drinkers. Recently, the New Yorker published an article arguing that while coffee may heighten focus, that means it also puts a squeeze on creativity. And of course, coffee’s well-known negative effects like insomnia and disturbed sleep cycles still hold.
Regardless, we’ll raise our mugs to this most recent study for giving us one more validation for our vice.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Diabetes drug metformin proves useful for other problems
Diabetes drug metformin proves useful for other problems
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 30, 2013
Early research suggests the decades-old diabetes drug metformin can slow cancer, reduce heart disease and perhaps limit the ravages of Alzheimer's. A new study shows it can extend lifespan in mice.
Could metformin, the most widely used diabetes drug in the world, be useful for fighting a number of health problems?
Early research suggests the decades-old drug can slow cancer, reduce heart disease and maybe even limit the ravages of Alzheimer's. Now, a new study in mice finds that it can extend life by a number of weeks — the human equivalent of 3-4 years.
It's far too soon for healthy people to consider taking the drug, researchers say, but the findings are provocative, and suggest science is getting closer to a day when it may be possible to pop a pill to live healthier longer.
Diseases of aging, like cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia are all linked along a biological pathway, researchers say. Eating less food appears to trigger that cascade, significantly extending life in animals, probably by slowing down metabolism.
Metformin is the third drug shown in early research to affect the same pathway, along with rapamycin, a powerful medication used to prevent rejection of transplanted organs; and resveratrol, a compound found in red wine.
"It's clear that we are edging toward developing a pharmaceutical intervention that is going to be able to delay or postpone aging," said Rafael de Cabo, a biogerontologist at the National Institute of Aging, who conducted the new mouse study, published today in Nature Communications. "For how much and how long I have no idea."
Brian Kennedy, CEO of The Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., said he envisions a day when, instead of giving people drugs after they get sick, healthy people will be able to take pills to avoid illness. Such a pill wouldn't prevent all aging, he said, but by delaying the deadliest diseases for even a few years, it could have a dramatic benefit on an individual's quality of life and the nation's economy.
Despite their optimism, both Kennedy and de Cabo said that healthy people should not be taking metformin at this point. While mice are a good model for diseases, they do not respond exactly as people do; and they live a totally controlled life inside a cage, de Cabo said.
Metformin caused severe kidney problems in mice taking a high dose, suggesting that researchers need to proceed with caution when testing the drug in people, de Cabo said. Even the low dose used in his study left mice with more drug in their bloodstream than diabetics get on their metformin regimen, so it's not yet clear what dose to use in healthy people.
The drug is also known to cause diarrhea, because it affects the metabolism of sugars in the digestive system.
So far, those two side effects have kept researchers from trying the drug on themselves. David Sinclair, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School who has done extensive research on resveratrol, said he took metformin along with his resveratrol for a short time. He stopped when he saw the toxic effects in this mouse study, which he co-authored. He said he wouldn't take rapamycin because of its side effects.
A new drug will eventually be developed, he predicted, that will amplify the benefits of these drugs and minimize their side effects.
"In terms of history, we're still at the very early stages of understanding how to slow aging in a safe way," said Sinclair.
Even if it turns out not to extend life, metformin has shown powerful results in other areas of research:
• Kevin Struhl, a molecular and cancer biologist at Harvard Medical School, said he has been impressed by early studies showing metformin's effectiveness at treating cancer and stopping cells from turning cancerous in the first place.
• At the University of Pennsylvania, Alzheimer's expert Steven Arnold is studying the drug's ability to slow or prevent mental decline.
• And other work has shown that metformin can help stop pre-diabetes before it turns into type 2 diabetes, said Karin Hehenberger, a molecular biologist, diabetes expert and chief medical officer at Coronado Biosciences, a Massachusetts biotech company focused on autoimmune diseases.
In terms of aging, we already know enough to help people until a pill can be developed, Kennedy said.
"There's a huge secret to (combating) aging right now," he said. "That's eat right and exercise."
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 30, 2013
Early research suggests the decades-old diabetes drug metformin can slow cancer, reduce heart disease and perhaps limit the ravages of Alzheimer's. A new study shows it can extend lifespan in mice.
Could metformin, the most widely used diabetes drug in the world, be useful for fighting a number of health problems?
Early research suggests the decades-old drug can slow cancer, reduce heart disease and maybe even limit the ravages of Alzheimer's. Now, a new study in mice finds that it can extend life by a number of weeks — the human equivalent of 3-4 years.
It's far too soon for healthy people to consider taking the drug, researchers say, but the findings are provocative, and suggest science is getting closer to a day when it may be possible to pop a pill to live healthier longer.
Diseases of aging, like cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia are all linked along a biological pathway, researchers say. Eating less food appears to trigger that cascade, significantly extending life in animals, probably by slowing down metabolism.
Metformin is the third drug shown in early research to affect the same pathway, along with rapamycin, a powerful medication used to prevent rejection of transplanted organs; and resveratrol, a compound found in red wine.
"It's clear that we are edging toward developing a pharmaceutical intervention that is going to be able to delay or postpone aging," said Rafael de Cabo, a biogerontologist at the National Institute of Aging, who conducted the new mouse study, published today in Nature Communications. "For how much and how long I have no idea."
Brian Kennedy, CEO of The Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., said he envisions a day when, instead of giving people drugs after they get sick, healthy people will be able to take pills to avoid illness. Such a pill wouldn't prevent all aging, he said, but by delaying the deadliest diseases for even a few years, it could have a dramatic benefit on an individual's quality of life and the nation's economy.
Despite their optimism, both Kennedy and de Cabo said that healthy people should not be taking metformin at this point. While mice are a good model for diseases, they do not respond exactly as people do; and they live a totally controlled life inside a cage, de Cabo said.
Metformin caused severe kidney problems in mice taking a high dose, suggesting that researchers need to proceed with caution when testing the drug in people, de Cabo said. Even the low dose used in his study left mice with more drug in their bloodstream than diabetics get on their metformin regimen, so it's not yet clear what dose to use in healthy people.
The drug is also known to cause diarrhea, because it affects the metabolism of sugars in the digestive system.
So far, those two side effects have kept researchers from trying the drug on themselves. David Sinclair, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School who has done extensive research on resveratrol, said he took metformin along with his resveratrol for a short time. He stopped when he saw the toxic effects in this mouse study, which he co-authored. He said he wouldn't take rapamycin because of its side effects.
A new drug will eventually be developed, he predicted, that will amplify the benefits of these drugs and minimize their side effects.
"In terms of history, we're still at the very early stages of understanding how to slow aging in a safe way," said Sinclair.
Even if it turns out not to extend life, metformin has shown powerful results in other areas of research:
• Kevin Struhl, a molecular and cancer biologist at Harvard Medical School, said he has been impressed by early studies showing metformin's effectiveness at treating cancer and stopping cells from turning cancerous in the first place.
• At the University of Pennsylvania, Alzheimer's expert Steven Arnold is studying the drug's ability to slow or prevent mental decline.
• And other work has shown that metformin can help stop pre-diabetes before it turns into type 2 diabetes, said Karin Hehenberger, a molecular biologist, diabetes expert and chief medical officer at Coronado Biosciences, a Massachusetts biotech company focused on autoimmune diseases.
In terms of aging, we already know enough to help people until a pill can be developed, Kennedy said.
"There's a huge secret to (combating) aging right now," he said. "That's eat right and exercise."
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Tall women have higher cancer risk
Tall women have higher cancer risk; are smoking, drinking to blame?
By Monte Morin
LA Times
July 25, 2013
The taller a postmenopausal woman is, the greater risk she faces of developing cancer, according to a new study.
In a paper published Thursday in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers concluded that a woman's cancer risk increased 13% with every 4 inches of height.
The study is the latest of several to report an association between women's height and cancer, according to lead study author Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
While it is unlikely that height in and of itself promotes cancer, the multitude of factors that influence growth -- such as nutrition, genetics and environment -- are likely responsible.
"Height was significantly positively associated with risk of all cancers, [including] cancers of the thyroid, rectum, kidney, endometrium, colorectum, colon, ovary, and breast, and with multiple myeloma and melanoma," the authors concluded.
The study was based on data from 144,701 women, aged 50 to 79, who particiapted in the Womens's Health Initiative study in the 1990s. Researchers adjusted for other potential cancer risks, such as weight, smoking, alcohol consumption and hormone therapy, as well as for frequency of cancer screening.
When researchers examined the study cohort, they found that the women's average age and body mass index decreased as their height increased, whereas their average weight, rate of smoking and alcohol intake increased with height.
"As anticipated, younger women and women with higher income had greater mean height compared to older women and women with lower income, respectively," authors wrote.
Researchers offered a number of possible explanations for the connection between height and cancer risk.
Height is associated with increased milk intake in childhood, and higher levels of insulin-like growth factor, which promotes cell growth and inhibits programmed cell death, the authors noted.
Increased height might also be the result of exposure to steroid hormones. Authors noted too that taller women might have larger organs and skin surface area, which may put more cells at risk of malignant growth.
"Height should thus be thought of as a marker for one or more exposures that influence cancer risk rather than a risk factor itself," the authors wrote.
But because the study did not include men or premenopausal women, the conclusions about height are limited.
Also, the study data did not include information on leg length and sitting height -- known biomarkers of growth hormone exposure.
By Monte Morin
LA Times
July 25, 2013
The taller a postmenopausal woman is, the greater risk she faces of developing cancer, according to a new study.
In a paper published Thursday in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers concluded that a woman's cancer risk increased 13% with every 4 inches of height.
The study is the latest of several to report an association between women's height and cancer, according to lead study author Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
While it is unlikely that height in and of itself promotes cancer, the multitude of factors that influence growth -- such as nutrition, genetics and environment -- are likely responsible.
"Height was significantly positively associated with risk of all cancers, [including] cancers of the thyroid, rectum, kidney, endometrium, colorectum, colon, ovary, and breast, and with multiple myeloma and melanoma," the authors concluded.
The study was based on data from 144,701 women, aged 50 to 79, who particiapted in the Womens's Health Initiative study in the 1990s. Researchers adjusted for other potential cancer risks, such as weight, smoking, alcohol consumption and hormone therapy, as well as for frequency of cancer screening.
When researchers examined the study cohort, they found that the women's average age and body mass index decreased as their height increased, whereas their average weight, rate of smoking and alcohol intake increased with height.
"As anticipated, younger women and women with higher income had greater mean height compared to older women and women with lower income, respectively," authors wrote.
Researchers offered a number of possible explanations for the connection between height and cancer risk.
Height is associated with increased milk intake in childhood, and higher levels of insulin-like growth factor, which promotes cell growth and inhibits programmed cell death, the authors noted.
Increased height might also be the result of exposure to steroid hormones. Authors noted too that taller women might have larger organs and skin surface area, which may put more cells at risk of malignant growth.
"Height should thus be thought of as a marker for one or more exposures that influence cancer risk rather than a risk factor itself," the authors wrote.
But because the study did not include men or premenopausal women, the conclusions about height are limited.
Also, the study data did not include information on leg length and sitting height -- known biomarkers of growth hormone exposure.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Florida's Radioactive Fountain of Youth May Prolong Life
Florida's Radioactive Fountain of Youth May Prolong Life
Five hundred years after Ponce de Leon explored the area, locals swear by an artesian well with unusual properties.
Jackie Snow
National Geographic
July 23, 2013
...Beneficial Magnesium?
But radium isn't the only thing that turns up in the water. In fact, a much more humdrum ingredient might hold the secret of its appeal. The water from the aquifer is high in magnesium, the second most common mineral in the body after calcium.
More than 80 percent of Americans are deficient in magnesium, which helps the body regulate heart muscles and control high blood pressure. The World Health Organization recommends that drinking water contain at least 25 milligrams of magnesium per liter, and a U.S. Academy of Science study from 1977 found that 150,000 deaths a year in the United States could be prevented with additional magnesium in water.
According to Carolyn Dean, author of The Magnesium Miracle, the fountain's 46 ppm of magnesium puts it on par with other mineral waters like San Pellegrino.
The compound magnesium sulfate also makes an appearance in the water. It's better known as Epsom salt, which has been used in baths to ease aches and pains for years.
Magnesium is regularly removed from many bottled waters by a process known as reverse osmosis. And the fluoride added to many public water supplies counteracts magnesium, too.
Magnesium is especially good for older people: Magnesium deficiency increases with age as the body stops being as efficient in absorption, and many drugs senior citizens take interfere with the body's ability to digest magnesium.
"Water Bill" Harper has noticed that the fountain is especially popular among Punta Gorda's older folk.
"One of the problems with city water is we have to maintain a chloride disinfection. It makes everything taste funny," he said. "The people have learned they can go down and take that water, which is not chlorinated, and let it sit in the refrigerator.
"It's tasty; it has no reaction with any of their medication. Also, [magnesium sulfate] keeps you regular."...
Five hundred years after Ponce de Leon explored the area, locals swear by an artesian well with unusual properties.
Jackie Snow
National Geographic
July 23, 2013
...Beneficial Magnesium?
But radium isn't the only thing that turns up in the water. In fact, a much more humdrum ingredient might hold the secret of its appeal. The water from the aquifer is high in magnesium, the second most common mineral in the body after calcium.
More than 80 percent of Americans are deficient in magnesium, which helps the body regulate heart muscles and control high blood pressure. The World Health Organization recommends that drinking water contain at least 25 milligrams of magnesium per liter, and a U.S. Academy of Science study from 1977 found that 150,000 deaths a year in the United States could be prevented with additional magnesium in water.
According to Carolyn Dean, author of The Magnesium Miracle, the fountain's 46 ppm of magnesium puts it on par with other mineral waters like San Pellegrino.
The compound magnesium sulfate also makes an appearance in the water. It's better known as Epsom salt, which has been used in baths to ease aches and pains for years.
Magnesium is regularly removed from many bottled waters by a process known as reverse osmosis. And the fluoride added to many public water supplies counteracts magnesium, too.
Magnesium is especially good for older people: Magnesium deficiency increases with age as the body stops being as efficient in absorption, and many drugs senior citizens take interfere with the body's ability to digest magnesium.
"Water Bill" Harper has noticed that the fountain is especially popular among Punta Gorda's older folk.
"One of the problems with city water is we have to maintain a chloride disinfection. It makes everything taste funny," he said. "The people have learned they can go down and take that water, which is not chlorinated, and let it sit in the refrigerator.
"It's tasty; it has no reaction with any of their medication. Also, [magnesium sulfate] keeps you regular."...
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Modern Wheat Is The ‘Perfect Chronic Poison’ Says Expert
Modern Wheat Is The ‘Perfect Chronic Poison’ Says Expert
NATASHA LONGO
preventdisease.com
May 23, 2013
...Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn’t the wheat your grandma had: “It’s an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the ’60s and ’70s,” he said on “CBS This Morning.” “This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there’s a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It’s not gluten. I’m not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I’m talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.”
Asked if the farming industry could change back to the grain it formerly produced, Davis said it could, but it would not be economically feasible because it yields less per acre. However, Davis said a movement has begun with people turning away from wheat – and dropping substantial weight.
“If three people lost eight pounds, big deal,” he said. “But we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds. Diabetics become no longer diabetic; people with arthritis having dramatic relief. People losing leg swelling, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and on and on every day.”
To avoid these wheat-oriented products, Davis suggests eating “real food,” such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. “(It’s) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness,” he said. “Certainly not grains. When I say grains, of course, over 90 percent of all grains we eat will be wheat, it’s not barley… or flax. It’s going to be wheat...
Wheat-Free Options
* Note that many of the wheat-free options still contain gluten and many people sensitive to wheat may still experience digestive problems and bloating. Experiment in see what works best for you. Caution is advised with cereal grains if you have diagnosed with gluen intolerance.
1. Cereal Grains: Barley, millet, oats, rice, rye, sorghum, tef and wild rice are all in the same cereal grain family as is wheat. All flours ground from cereal grains may be used as a wheat substitute. Commonly available are barley, buckwheat, rice and rye flour. The less utilized flours may be purchased online or from natural food stores. Note: people with a gluten allergy must also avoid barley, oats and rye.
2. Non-Cereal Grains: Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are three grain-like seeds unrelated to cereal grains. (Despite its name, buckwheat is not a wheat-relative.) It is rare for anyone to develop a sensitivity to these non-cereal grains. Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are gluten-free and therefore not suitable for making leavened bread; however, they make excellent quick breads and cookies.
3. Nut Meal: Ground nuts such as almonds, hazelnuts or walnuts make the richest flour substitute for cookies and cakes. Because their fragile fatty acid content gives them a brief shelf life, it’s preferable to grind your own nuts in a food processor just prior to use. Nut meal requires a binding agent such as eggs. Because chestnuts are lower in fat than other nuts, chestnut flour has a longer shelf life. It is available online.
4. Bean Flour: Dried beans, such as navy, pinto and chickpeas may be milled and used, in combination with other flours, as a wheat alternative. Bean flour is, however, not always recommended. It tastes like beans and makes baked goods dense and hard to digest.
5. Other Flour Substitutes: Potato starch, arrowroot powder, and tapioca are thickening agents that substitute for wheat in sauces and gravy. In baked goods these starchy ingredients serve as a binding agent.
NATASHA LONGO
preventdisease.com
May 23, 2013
...Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn’t the wheat your grandma had: “It’s an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the ’60s and ’70s,” he said on “CBS This Morning.” “This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there’s a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It’s not gluten. I’m not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I’m talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.”
Asked if the farming industry could change back to the grain it formerly produced, Davis said it could, but it would not be economically feasible because it yields less per acre. However, Davis said a movement has begun with people turning away from wheat – and dropping substantial weight.
“If three people lost eight pounds, big deal,” he said. “But we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds. Diabetics become no longer diabetic; people with arthritis having dramatic relief. People losing leg swelling, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and on and on every day.”
To avoid these wheat-oriented products, Davis suggests eating “real food,” such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. “(It’s) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness,” he said. “Certainly not grains. When I say grains, of course, over 90 percent of all grains we eat will be wheat, it’s not barley… or flax. It’s going to be wheat...
Wheat-Free Options
* Note that many of the wheat-free options still contain gluten and many people sensitive to wheat may still experience digestive problems and bloating. Experiment in see what works best for you. Caution is advised with cereal grains if you have diagnosed with gluen intolerance.
1. Cereal Grains: Barley, millet, oats, rice, rye, sorghum, tef and wild rice are all in the same cereal grain family as is wheat. All flours ground from cereal grains may be used as a wheat substitute. Commonly available are barley, buckwheat, rice and rye flour. The less utilized flours may be purchased online or from natural food stores. Note: people with a gluten allergy must also avoid barley, oats and rye.
2. Non-Cereal Grains: Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are three grain-like seeds unrelated to cereal grains. (Despite its name, buckwheat is not a wheat-relative.) It is rare for anyone to develop a sensitivity to these non-cereal grains. Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are gluten-free and therefore not suitable for making leavened bread; however, they make excellent quick breads and cookies.
3. Nut Meal: Ground nuts such as almonds, hazelnuts or walnuts make the richest flour substitute for cookies and cakes. Because their fragile fatty acid content gives them a brief shelf life, it’s preferable to grind your own nuts in a food processor just prior to use. Nut meal requires a binding agent such as eggs. Because chestnuts are lower in fat than other nuts, chestnut flour has a longer shelf life. It is available online.
4. Bean Flour: Dried beans, such as navy, pinto and chickpeas may be milled and used, in combination with other flours, as a wheat alternative. Bean flour is, however, not always recommended. It tastes like beans and makes baked goods dense and hard to digest.
5. Other Flour Substitutes: Potato starch, arrowroot powder, and tapioca are thickening agents that substitute for wheat in sauces and gravy. In baked goods these starchy ingredients serve as a binding agent.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Imbalances in the microbial community in your intestines may lead to metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes.
Are Happy Gut Bacteria Key to Weight Loss?
Imbalances in the microbial community in your intestines may lead to metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes. What does science say about how to reset our bodies?
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff
Mother Jones
Apr. 22, 2013
A few years before Super Size Me hit theaters in 2004, Dr. Paresh Dandona, a diabetes specialist in Buffalo, New York, set out to measure the body's response to McDonald's—specifically breakfast. Over several mornings, he fed nine normal-weight volunteers an egg sandwich with cheese and ham, a sausage muffin sandwich, and two hash brown patties.
Dandona is a professor at the State University of New York-Buffalo who also heads the Diabetes-Endocrinology Center of Western New York, and what he observed has informed his research ever since. Levels of a C-reactive protein, an indicator of systemic inflammation, shot up "within literally minutes." "I was shocked," he recalls, that "a simple McDonald's meal that seems harmless enough"—the sort of high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal that 1 in 4 Americans eats regularly—would have such a dramatic effect. And it lasted for hours.
Inflammation comes in many forms. The swelling of a sprained ankle indicates repairing torn muscle and tendon. The redness and pain around an infected cut signifies the body's repulsion of microbes. The fever, aches, and pains that accompany the flu represent a body-wide seek-and-destroy mission directed against an invading virus. They're all essential to survival, the body's response to a perceived threat or injury. But inflammation can also cause collateral damage, especially when the response is overwhelming—like in septic shock—or when it goes on too long.
Chronic, low-grade inflammation has long been recognized as a feature of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of dysfunctions that tends to precede full-blown diabetes and that also increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, and even dementia—the top killers of the developed world. The syndrome includes a combination of elevated blood sugar and high blood pressure, low "good" cholesterol, and an abdominal cavity filled with fat, often indicated by a "beer belly." But recently, doctors have begun to question whether chronic inflammation is more than just a symptom of metabolic syndrome: Could it, in fact, be a major cause?
For Dandona, who's given to waxing grandiloquent about the joys of a beer on the porch in his native Delhi, or the superb ice wines from the Buffalo region, the results presented a quandary. Food was a great pleasure in life. Why would Nature be so cruel, he wondered, and punish us just for eating?
Over the next decade he tested the effects of various foods on the immune system. A fast-food breakfast inflamed, he found, but a high-fiber breakfast with lots of fruit did not. A breakthrough came in 2007 when he discovered that while sugar water, a stand-in for soda, caused inflammation, orange juice—even though it contains plenty of sugar—didn't.
The Florida Department of Citrus, a state agency, was so excited it underwrote a subsequent study, and had fresh-squeezed orange juice flown in for it. This time, along with their two-sandwich, two-hash-brown, 910-calorie breakfast, one-third of his volunteers—10 in total—quaffed a glass of fresh OJ. The non-juice drinkers, half of whom drank sugar water, and the other half plain water, had the expected response—inflammation and elevated blood sugar. But the OJ drinkers had neither elevated blood sugar nor inflammation. The juice seemed to shield their metabolism. "It just switched off the whole damn thing," Dandona says. Other scientists have since confirmed that OJ has a strong anti-inflammatory effect...
Imbalances in the microbial community in your intestines may lead to metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes. What does science say about how to reset our bodies?
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff
Mother Jones
Apr. 22, 2013
A few years before Super Size Me hit theaters in 2004, Dr. Paresh Dandona, a diabetes specialist in Buffalo, New York, set out to measure the body's response to McDonald's—specifically breakfast. Over several mornings, he fed nine normal-weight volunteers an egg sandwich with cheese and ham, a sausage muffin sandwich, and two hash brown patties.
Dandona is a professor at the State University of New York-Buffalo who also heads the Diabetes-Endocrinology Center of Western New York, and what he observed has informed his research ever since. Levels of a C-reactive protein, an indicator of systemic inflammation, shot up "within literally minutes." "I was shocked," he recalls, that "a simple McDonald's meal that seems harmless enough"—the sort of high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal that 1 in 4 Americans eats regularly—would have such a dramatic effect. And it lasted for hours.
Inflammation comes in many forms. The swelling of a sprained ankle indicates repairing torn muscle and tendon. The redness and pain around an infected cut signifies the body's repulsion of microbes. The fever, aches, and pains that accompany the flu represent a body-wide seek-and-destroy mission directed against an invading virus. They're all essential to survival, the body's response to a perceived threat or injury. But inflammation can also cause collateral damage, especially when the response is overwhelming—like in septic shock—or when it goes on too long.
Chronic, low-grade inflammation has long been recognized as a feature of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of dysfunctions that tends to precede full-blown diabetes and that also increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, and even dementia—the top killers of the developed world. The syndrome includes a combination of elevated blood sugar and high blood pressure, low "good" cholesterol, and an abdominal cavity filled with fat, often indicated by a "beer belly." But recently, doctors have begun to question whether chronic inflammation is more than just a symptom of metabolic syndrome: Could it, in fact, be a major cause?
For Dandona, who's given to waxing grandiloquent about the joys of a beer on the porch in his native Delhi, or the superb ice wines from the Buffalo region, the results presented a quandary. Food was a great pleasure in life. Why would Nature be so cruel, he wondered, and punish us just for eating?
Over the next decade he tested the effects of various foods on the immune system. A fast-food breakfast inflamed, he found, but a high-fiber breakfast with lots of fruit did not. A breakthrough came in 2007 when he discovered that while sugar water, a stand-in for soda, caused inflammation, orange juice—even though it contains plenty of sugar—didn't.
The Florida Department of Citrus, a state agency, was so excited it underwrote a subsequent study, and had fresh-squeezed orange juice flown in for it. This time, along with their two-sandwich, two-hash-brown, 910-calorie breakfast, one-third of his volunteers—10 in total—quaffed a glass of fresh OJ. The non-juice drinkers, half of whom drank sugar water, and the other half plain water, had the expected response—inflammation and elevated blood sugar. But the OJ drinkers had neither elevated blood sugar nor inflammation. The juice seemed to shield their metabolism. "It just switched off the whole damn thing," Dandona says. Other scientists have since confirmed that OJ has a strong anti-inflammatory effect...
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Mice used to find best drugs to fight boy's cancer
Mice save boy from cancer
June 2013
(Video) Michael, 9, is battling a rare form of bone cancer -- but thanks to an 'unorthodox measure' involving a tiny animal, his tumor is shrinking.
(Video) Michael, 9, is battling a rare form of bone cancer -- but thanks to an 'unorthodox measure' involving a tiny animal, his tumor is shrinking.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Exercise Alters DNA within minutes
How Exercise Can Change Your DNA
By Alice Park
Time
March 07, 2012
Just 20 Minutes of Exercise Can Change Your Genes MyHealthNewsDaily
Exercise does a lot of good things — it burns calories, helps keep your weight in check and lowers your risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Now add one more thing to the list: physical activity can change your DNA.
Unlike the aberrations and genetic mutations caused by carcinogens and toxins, exercise-induced alterations to DNA are more like tune-ups, helping muscles to work better and more efficiently. What’s more, these changes occur even after a single 20-minute workout.
Juleen Zierath, a professor of physiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, reports with her colleagues in the journal Cell Metabolism about these very early changes that muscle cells undergo the first time you get off the couch and into the gym. The researchers worked with a group of 14 young men and women who were relatively sedentary, and asked them to work out on an exercise bike that measured their maximum activity levels. The participants also volunteered to give up a little bit of muscle, from their quadriceps, in a relatively painless biopsy procedure performed under local anesthesia. The researchers took the biopsy of muscle cells once before the participants exercised, and again within 20 minutes afterward.
VIDEO: Walking While Working: Healthland’s Belinda Luscombe Tries the Treadmill Desk
Using the biopsied samples, researchers compared the activity in a series of muscle-related genes before and after exercise. More genes were turned on in the cells taken after the exercise and the participants’ DNA showed less methylation, a molecular process in which chemicals called methyl groups settle on the DNA and limit the cell’s ability to access, or switch on, certain genes. By controlling how much methylation goes on in certain cells at specific times, the body regulates which genes in the DNA are activated — that’s what differentiates the development of an an eye cell, for example, from that of a liver cell.
Methylation also helps to prime muscle cells for a bout of exercise, getting them to pump out the right enzymes and nutrients the muscle needs to get energy and burn calories while you’re pounding the pavement during that mile-long jog. “We are trying to get at the early messages that the muscle is [receiving in order] to say, ‘Something is happening here, we need to coordinate so we can get more enzymes and more machinery on board so we can cope with the demands of this exercise,’” says Zierath.
The more intense the exercise, she says, the more the methyl groups are on the move. She and her team were able to see this firsthand by comparing gene activity in participants who also agreed to exercise at two different intensities over a period of a week. On one visit, they were asked to cycle until they reached 40% of their maximum capacity; on another occasion, they biked until they reached 80% of their maximum. The muscle biopsies following the 80% sessions showed a lower concentration of methyl groups — and therefore more RNA, which is the first byproduct of gene activity — than samples taken after the 40% sessions.
MORE: Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin
To confirm the role of exercise on gene expression in muscle, the scientists then studied how calcium affected the entire system. When muscle cells start to gear up for intense activity like exercise, they release calcium, which fuels the contraction process. When the scientists blocked calcium production, the effect disappeared, and the muscles didn’t contract as much.
That’s when Zierath threw in some coffee — or more specifically, caffeine. Caffeine triggers the release of calcium, and can enhance the way methyl groups move aside to turn on the genes that help muscles contract. When she added caffeine to a lab dish containing cells from the leg muscles of rats, the muscle cells showed lower concentrations of methyl groups and more mRNA — a similar effect as seen after exercise — as she expected.
But, says Zierath, that doesn’t mean you can skip the workout for a cup of coffee instead. “Most of the physiological effect of the caffeine we drink is on the central nervous system, and not dispersed to all the muscles,” she says. “In order to get the same kind of effect we saw in the cells, you would have to drink 50 cups of coffee a day, which is close to the lethal dose. In my mind, half an hour of moderately high intensity exercise is sufficient to do the same thing.”
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/07/how-exercise-can-change-your-dna/#ixzz2UXQNygP3
Monday, May 6, 2013
Simple Test Predicts Longevity
Simple Test Predicts Longevity
By Lisa Collier Cool
Dec 18, 2012
Yahoo
Don’t be surprised if your doctor asks you to sit on the floor at your next checkup. A new study says testing a person’s ability to sit down and then rise from the floor could provide useful insight into their overall health and longevity.
Brazilian researchers discovered an interesting link between a person’s ability to sit and rise from the floor and the risk of being 6.5 times more likely to die in the next six years. The study, published in the European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention, included a simple test in which more than 2,000 people ages 51 to 80 attempted to sit down on the floor and then stand back up using as little support as possible.
Floors are Replacing Chairs
Chairs used to be a helpful tool to measure a person’s strength and lower body fitness. Having a person stand up from a seated position helped doctors assess a person's overall frailty and also if he or she is likely to fall (and thereby at an increased risk of fracture). It also measured a person’s lower-body strength and agility.
But this new test has some real life applications.
Instead of simply gauging a person’s ability to get up off the couch, the sitting test helps identify risks associated with picking up vital items—such as medicine or eyeglasses—that may drop on the floor. It also can identify those at risk of spending hours (or longer) on the floor after a fall—unable to get up or call for help.
Aiming for a Perfect Score
The test used by the researchers required people to sit on the floor from a standing position and then return to a standing position. Speed wasn’t a factor in the scoring, but support was.
The more support a person required—including bracing with a hand or knee or both—the lower the score for each action. A perfect score of five for each action (sitting and standing) was the goal. Points and half points were deducted for things like touching a hand or knee on the ground or pushing off with a hand on one knee to stand up. Looking wobbly on the way up or down cost participants half a point.
More than half the participants ages 76 to 80 failed the tests, scoring 0 to 3. Not surprising around 70 percent of those under 60 earned a near perfect or perfect score of 8, 9, or 10.
Scores and Life Expectancy
People who scored 0 to 3 were 6.5 times more likely to die during the course of the 6.3 year study, compared to people who scored from 8 to 10. Those with scores of 3.5 to 5.5 were 3.8 times more likely to die as the high scorers—and those who scored in the 6 to 7.4 range were 1.8 times more likely to die than those with the highest scores.
During the course of the study 159 of the 2,000 volunteers died, with the majority of the deaths coming from the group that had the most trouble getting up and down.
“Just two subjects that scored 10 died in the follow-up of about six years,” said Claudio Gil Soares de Araújo, a professor at Gama Filho University in Rio de Janeiro who worked on the study. If someone between the ages of 51 and 80 scores 10, “the chances of being alive in the next six years are quite good,” he said.
“A 1-point increment in the [sitting-rising] score was related to a 21 percent reduction in mortality," reported the investigators who noted this is the first study to demonstrate the prognostic value of the sitting-rising test,” said Araújo.
It’s Not Just About Getting Up
The ease with which a person stands and sits clues doctors in to a person’s ratio of muscle power to body weight. But the researchers say there are other relevant issues. “It is well known that aerobic fitness is strongly related to survival, but our study also shows that maintaining high levels of body flexibility, muscle strength, power-to-body weight ratio, and coordination are not only good for performing daily activities but have a favorable influence on life expectancy,” said Araújo.
What You Can Do
All is not lost if you don’t score a perfect 10. Doctors say physical activity like walking, swimming, yoga, and weight-resistance training can help improve scores on the sit/stand test and add years to your life.
In addition, you can boost your level of physical activity with a few little things too.
You can burn up to 100 more calories a day if you park in the spot furthest from the door at the grocery store, use the stairs instead of the elevator or escalator at the mall, or make multiple trips up and down the stairs when you’re putting away laundry. “Those little things add up to a lot of beneficial exercise you don’t realize you’re doing,” says Rose Marie Robertson, M.D., chief science officer, American Heart Association.
They can also help you increase your sit/stand score.
By Lisa Collier Cool
Dec 18, 2012
Yahoo
Don’t be surprised if your doctor asks you to sit on the floor at your next checkup. A new study says testing a person’s ability to sit down and then rise from the floor could provide useful insight into their overall health and longevity.
Brazilian researchers discovered an interesting link between a person’s ability to sit and rise from the floor and the risk of being 6.5 times more likely to die in the next six years. The study, published in the European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention, included a simple test in which more than 2,000 people ages 51 to 80 attempted to sit down on the floor and then stand back up using as little support as possible.
Floors are Replacing Chairs
Chairs used to be a helpful tool to measure a person’s strength and lower body fitness. Having a person stand up from a seated position helped doctors assess a person's overall frailty and also if he or she is likely to fall (and thereby at an increased risk of fracture). It also measured a person’s lower-body strength and agility.
But this new test has some real life applications.
Instead of simply gauging a person’s ability to get up off the couch, the sitting test helps identify risks associated with picking up vital items—such as medicine or eyeglasses—that may drop on the floor. It also can identify those at risk of spending hours (or longer) on the floor after a fall—unable to get up or call for help.
Aiming for a Perfect Score
The test used by the researchers required people to sit on the floor from a standing position and then return to a standing position. Speed wasn’t a factor in the scoring, but support was.
The more support a person required—including bracing with a hand or knee or both—the lower the score for each action. A perfect score of five for each action (sitting and standing) was the goal. Points and half points were deducted for things like touching a hand or knee on the ground or pushing off with a hand on one knee to stand up. Looking wobbly on the way up or down cost participants half a point.
More than half the participants ages 76 to 80 failed the tests, scoring 0 to 3. Not surprising around 70 percent of those under 60 earned a near perfect or perfect score of 8, 9, or 10.
Scores and Life Expectancy
People who scored 0 to 3 were 6.5 times more likely to die during the course of the 6.3 year study, compared to people who scored from 8 to 10. Those with scores of 3.5 to 5.5 were 3.8 times more likely to die as the high scorers—and those who scored in the 6 to 7.4 range were 1.8 times more likely to die than those with the highest scores.
During the course of the study 159 of the 2,000 volunteers died, with the majority of the deaths coming from the group that had the most trouble getting up and down.
“Just two subjects that scored 10 died in the follow-up of about six years,” said Claudio Gil Soares de Araújo, a professor at Gama Filho University in Rio de Janeiro who worked on the study. If someone between the ages of 51 and 80 scores 10, “the chances of being alive in the next six years are quite good,” he said.
“A 1-point increment in the [sitting-rising] score was related to a 21 percent reduction in mortality," reported the investigators who noted this is the first study to demonstrate the prognostic value of the sitting-rising test,” said Araújo.
It’s Not Just About Getting Up
The ease with which a person stands and sits clues doctors in to a person’s ratio of muscle power to body weight. But the researchers say there are other relevant issues. “It is well known that aerobic fitness is strongly related to survival, but our study also shows that maintaining high levels of body flexibility, muscle strength, power-to-body weight ratio, and coordination are not only good for performing daily activities but have a favorable influence on life expectancy,” said Araújo.
What You Can Do
All is not lost if you don’t score a perfect 10. Doctors say physical activity like walking, swimming, yoga, and weight-resistance training can help improve scores on the sit/stand test and add years to your life.
In addition, you can boost your level of physical activity with a few little things too.
You can burn up to 100 more calories a day if you park in the spot furthest from the door at the grocery store, use the stairs instead of the elevator or escalator at the mall, or make multiple trips up and down the stairs when you’re putting away laundry. “Those little things add up to a lot of beneficial exercise you don’t realize you’re doing,” says Rose Marie Robertson, M.D., chief science officer, American Heart Association.
They can also help you increase your sit/stand score.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Social isolation 'increases death risk in older people'
BBC
25 March 2013
Why does being lonely make you ill?
Many in care homes are 'isolated'
Loneliness 'raises cancer risk'
Social isolation is associated with a higher risk of death in older people regardless of whether they consider themselves lonely, research suggests.
A study of 6,500 UK men and women aged over 52 found that being isolated from family and friends was linked with a 26% higher death risk over seven years.
Whether or not participants felt lonely did not alter the impact of social isolation on health.
Age UK says cuts to services for older people are compounding the problem.
It is not the first time that loneliness and social isolation has been linked with poor health.
But researchers wanted to find out if it was the emotional aspect of feeling lonely that was having an impact or the reality of having little social contact.
Those who were socially isolated - that is had little or no contact with friends or family - were more likely to be older and unmarried and have long-standing illnesses limiting their mobility, such as lung disease and arthritis.
People who described themselves as feeling lonely were more likely to be female and have a wider range of health conditions, including depression.
Both social isolation and feeling lonely were associated with a higher chance of death.
This study shows more clearly than before that being lonely and isolated is not only miserable, it is a real health risk”
But after adjusting for factors such as underlying health conditions, only social isolation remained important.
That risk did not change when researchers added in whether or not someone felt lonely in their isolation.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers said they were surprised by their findings.
Study leader Prof Andrew Steptoe, director of the Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care at University College London, said: "Social connections can provide emotional support and warmth which is important but they also provide things like advice, making sure people take their medication and provide support in helping them to do things.
"It would suggest that those practical aspects are quite important for older people's survival.
"There's been such an increase in people living alone. In the last 15 years, the number of 55 to 64-year-olds living alone has increased by 50%.
"And it might be that people in those circumstances aren't looking after themselves so well."
Michelle Mitchell, director general at Age UK, said: "This study shows more clearly than before that being lonely and isolated is not only miserable, it is a real health risk, increasing the risk of early death."
She added that cuts to local authority budget cuts may exacerbate the problem of isolation for many older people.
"Across the country day care centres, often the only regular social life that many older people enjoy, are closing, social care support which can enable older people to leave the house is being cut down to the bare minimum, and too many older people are hidden behind closed doors struggling to cope."
BBC
25 March 2013
Why does being lonely make you ill?
Many in care homes are 'isolated'
Loneliness 'raises cancer risk'
Social isolation is associated with a higher risk of death in older people regardless of whether they consider themselves lonely, research suggests.
A study of 6,500 UK men and women aged over 52 found that being isolated from family and friends was linked with a 26% higher death risk over seven years.
Whether or not participants felt lonely did not alter the impact of social isolation on health.
Age UK says cuts to services for older people are compounding the problem.
It is not the first time that loneliness and social isolation has been linked with poor health.
But researchers wanted to find out if it was the emotional aspect of feeling lonely that was having an impact or the reality of having little social contact.
Those who were socially isolated - that is had little or no contact with friends or family - were more likely to be older and unmarried and have long-standing illnesses limiting their mobility, such as lung disease and arthritis.
People who described themselves as feeling lonely were more likely to be female and have a wider range of health conditions, including depression.
Both social isolation and feeling lonely were associated with a higher chance of death.
This study shows more clearly than before that being lonely and isolated is not only miserable, it is a real health risk”
But after adjusting for factors such as underlying health conditions, only social isolation remained important.
That risk did not change when researchers added in whether or not someone felt lonely in their isolation.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers said they were surprised by their findings.
Study leader Prof Andrew Steptoe, director of the Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care at University College London, said: "Social connections can provide emotional support and warmth which is important but they also provide things like advice, making sure people take their medication and provide support in helping them to do things.
"It would suggest that those practical aspects are quite important for older people's survival.
"There's been such an increase in people living alone. In the last 15 years, the number of 55 to 64-year-olds living alone has increased by 50%.
"And it might be that people in those circumstances aren't looking after themselves so well."
Michelle Mitchell, director general at Age UK, said: "This study shows more clearly than before that being lonely and isolated is not only miserable, it is a real health risk, increasing the risk of early death."
She added that cuts to local authority budget cuts may exacerbate the problem of isolation for many older people.
"Across the country day care centres, often the only regular social life that many older people enjoy, are closing, social care support which can enable older people to leave the house is being cut down to the bare minimum, and too many older people are hidden behind closed doors struggling to cope."
Monday, March 4, 2013
7 walnuts a day deliver health benefits
7 walnuts a day deliver health benefits
UPI
March 28, 2011
ANAHEIM, Calif., March 28 (UPI) -- Walnuts may be considered the king of nuts for health benefits, with a combination of more healthful and higher quality antioxidants, U.S. researchers say.
"Walnuts rank above peanuts, almonds, pecans, pistachios and other nuts," Joe Vinson of the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania said in a statement. "A handful of walnuts contains almost twice as much antioxidants as an equivalent amount of any other commonly consumed nut. But unfortunately, people don't eat a lot of them. This study suggests that consumers should eat more walnuts as part of a healthy diet."
Vinson noted that nuts in general have an unusual combination of nutritional benefits. They contain plenty of high-quality protein that can substitute for meat; vitamins and minerals; dietary fiber; and they are dairy- and gluten-free.
Vinson said it takes only about seven walnuts a day to get the potential health benefits.
Research has found consumption of small amounts of nuts or peanut butter is linked to decreased risk of heart disease, certain kinds of cancer, gallstones, type 2 diabetes and other health problems.
Antioxidants in walnuts were two to 15 times as potent as vitamin E -- renowned for its powerful antioxidant effects, which protect the body against damaging natural chemicals involved in causing disease, Vinson says.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/03/28/7-walnuts-a-day-deliver-health-benefits/UPI-93441301365744/#ixzz2MbvpmK00
Sunday, March 3, 2013
How to change your metabolism: partial fast two days a week
England Develops a Voracious Appetite for a New Diet
By JENNIFER CONLIN
New York Times
March 1, 2013
PHOTO: Dr. Michael Mosley, a co-author of “The Fast Diet,” cooking a frittata of mushrooms and scallions at home last week. He researched the science of the diet and its health benefits by putting himself through a regimen of intermittent
LONDON — Visitors to England right now, be warned. The big topic on people’s minds — from cabdrivers to corporate executives — is not Kate Middleton’s increasingly visible baby bump (though the craze does involve the size of one’s waistline), but rather a best-selling diet book that has sent the British into a fasting frenzy.
“The Fast Diet,” written by Dr. Mosley and Mimi Spencer, has held the No. 1 slot on Amazon’s British site nearly every day since its publication in January.
“The Fast Diet,” published in mid-January in Britain, could do the same in the United States if Americans eat it up. The United States edition arrived last week.
The book has held the No. 1 slot on Amazon’s British site nearly every day since its publication in January, according to Rebecca Nicolson, a founder of Short Books, the independent publishing company behind the sensation. “It is selling,” she said, “like hot cakes,” which coincidentally are something one can actually eat on this revolutionary diet.
With an alluring cover line that reads, “Lose Weight, Stay Healthy, Live Longer,” the premise of this latest weight-loss regimen — or “slimming” as the British call “dieting” — is intermittent fasting, or what has become known here as the 5:2 diet: five days of eating and drinking whatever you want, dispersed with two days of fasting.
A typical fasting day consists of two meals of roughly 250 to 300 calories each, depending on the person’s sex (500 calories for women, 600 for men). Think two eggs and a slice of ham for breakfast, and a plate of steamed fish and vegetables for dinner.
It is not much sustenance, but the secret to weight loss, according to the book, is that even after just a few hours of fasting, the body begins to turn off the fat-storing mechanisms and turn on the fat-burning systems...
By JENNIFER CONLIN
New York Times
March 1, 2013
PHOTO: Dr. Michael Mosley, a co-author of “The Fast Diet,” cooking a frittata of mushrooms and scallions at home last week. He researched the science of the diet and its health benefits by putting himself through a regimen of intermittent
LONDON — Visitors to England right now, be warned. The big topic on people’s minds — from cabdrivers to corporate executives — is not Kate Middleton’s increasingly visible baby bump (though the craze does involve the size of one’s waistline), but rather a best-selling diet book that has sent the British into a fasting frenzy.
“The Fast Diet,” written by Dr. Mosley and Mimi Spencer, has held the No. 1 slot on Amazon’s British site nearly every day since its publication in January.
“The Fast Diet,” published in mid-January in Britain, could do the same in the United States if Americans eat it up. The United States edition arrived last week.
The book has held the No. 1 slot on Amazon’s British site nearly every day since its publication in January, according to Rebecca Nicolson, a founder of Short Books, the independent publishing company behind the sensation. “It is selling,” she said, “like hot cakes,” which coincidentally are something one can actually eat on this revolutionary diet.
With an alluring cover line that reads, “Lose Weight, Stay Healthy, Live Longer,” the premise of this latest weight-loss regimen — or “slimming” as the British call “dieting” — is intermittent fasting, or what has become known here as the 5:2 diet: five days of eating and drinking whatever you want, dispersed with two days of fasting.
A typical fasting day consists of two meals of roughly 250 to 300 calories each, depending on the person’s sex (500 calories for women, 600 for men). Think two eggs and a slice of ham for breakfast, and a plate of steamed fish and vegetables for dinner.
It is not much sustenance, but the secret to weight loss, according to the book, is that even after just a few hours of fasting, the body begins to turn off the fat-storing mechanisms and turn on the fat-burning systems...
We may live longer with moderate exercise than with vigorous exercise
June 6, 2012
Moderation as the Sweet Spot for Exercise
By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS
New York Times
Moderate exercise may be more beneficial than vigorous workouts.Thor Swift for The New York Times Moderate exercise may be more beneficial than vigorous workouts.
For people who exercise but fret that they really should be working out more, new studies may be soothing. The amount of exercise needed to improve health and longevity, this new science shows, is modest, and more is not necessarily better.
That is the message of the newest and perhaps most compelling of the studies, which was presented on Saturday at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine in San Francisco. For it, researchers at the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health and other institutions combed through the health records of 52,656 American adults who’d undergone physicals between 1971 and 2002 as part of the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study at the Cooper Institute in Dallas. Each participant completed physical testing and activity questionnaires and returned for at least one follow-up visit.
The researchers found that about 27 percent of the participants reported regularly running, although in wildly varying amounts and paces.
The scientists then checked death reports.
Over the course of the study, 2,984 of the participants died. But the incidence was much lower among the group that ran. Those participants had, on average, a 19 percent lower risk of dying from any cause than non-runners.
Notably, in closely parsing the participants’ self-reported activities, the researchers found that running in moderation provided the most benefits. Those who ran 1 to 20 miles per week at an average pace of about 10 or 11 minutes per mile — in other words, jogging — reduced their risk of dying during the study more effectively than those who didn’t run, those (admittedly few) who ran more than 20 miles a week, and those who typically ran at a pace swifter than seven miles an hour.
“These data certainly support the idea that more running is not needed to produce extra health and mortality benefits,” said Dr. Carl J. Lavie, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans and an author of the study. “If anything,” he continued, “it appears that less running is associated with the best protection from mortality risk. More is not better, and actually, more could be worse.”
His analysis echoes the results of another new examination of activity and mortality, in which Danish scientists used 27 years’ worth of data collected for the continuing Copenhagen City Heart Study. They reported that those Danes who spent one to two and a half hours per week jogging at a “slow or average pace” during the study period had longer life spans than their more sedentary peers and than those who ran at a faster pace.
This decidedly modest amount of exercise led to an increase of, on average, 6.2 years in the life span of male joggers and 5.6 years in women.
“We can say with certainty that regular jogging increases longevity,” Dr. Peter Schnorr, a cardiologist and an author of the study, said in presenting the findings at a clinical meeting organized last month by the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. “The good news is that you don’t actually need to do that much to reap the benefits.”
“The relationship appears much like alcohol intakes,” he continued. “Mortality is lower in people reporting moderate jogging than in non-joggers or those undertaking extreme levels of exercise.”
There’s further confirmation of that idea in the findings of a large study of exercise habits published last year in The Lancet, which showed that among a group of 416,175 Taiwanese adults, 92 minutes a week of moderate exercise, like walking, gentle jogging or cycling, increased life span by about three years and decreased the risk of mortality from any cause by about 14 percent.
In that study, those who embarked on more ambitious exercise programs did gain additional risk reduction, as seems only fair, but the benefits plateaued rapidly. For each further 15 minutes per day of moderate exercise that someone completed beyond the first 92, his or her mortality risk fell, but by only about another 4 percent.
Whether and at what point more exercise becomes counterproductive remains uncertain. “In general, it appears that exercise, like any therapy, results in a bell-shaped curve in terms of response and benefit,” says Dr. James H. O’Keefe, a cardiologist and lead author of a thought-provoking review article published on Monday in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that examines whether extreme amounts of vigorous exercise, particularly running, can harm the heart.
“To date, the data suggests that walking and light jogging are almost uniformly beneficial for health and do increase life span,” Dr. O’Keefe says. “But with more vigorous or prolonged exercise, the benefits can become questionable.
“I’m a fan of distance running,” he adds. “I run. But after about 45 to 60 minutes a day, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and at some point, you risk toxicity.”
His advice? The study by Dr. Lavie and his colleagues offers excellent guidelines for safe and effective exercise, Dr. O’Keefe says. “Twenty miles a week or less of jogging at a 10- or 11-minute-mile pace can add years to your life span. That’s very good news.” Indeed it is — especially since that routine happens to replicate almost exactly my own weekly exercise regimen.
“I wouldn’t automatically discourage people from doing more if they really want to” and are not experiencing side effects, like extreme fatigue or repeated injuries, Dr. O’Keefe continued. “But the message from the latest data is that the sweet spot for exercise seems to come with less.”
Gretchen Reynolds is the author of “The First 20 Minutes: Surprising Science Reveals How We Can Exercise Better, Train Smarter, Live Longer” (Hudson Street Press, 2012).
We hope you’ll “Like” the new Well on Facebook, where you’ll find news and conversations about fitness, food and family health.
Moderation as the Sweet Spot for Exercise
By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS
New York Times
Moderate exercise may be more beneficial than vigorous workouts.Thor Swift for The New York Times Moderate exercise may be more beneficial than vigorous workouts.
For people who exercise but fret that they really should be working out more, new studies may be soothing. The amount of exercise needed to improve health and longevity, this new science shows, is modest, and more is not necessarily better.
That is the message of the newest and perhaps most compelling of the studies, which was presented on Saturday at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine in San Francisco. For it, researchers at the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health and other institutions combed through the health records of 52,656 American adults who’d undergone physicals between 1971 and 2002 as part of the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study at the Cooper Institute in Dallas. Each participant completed physical testing and activity questionnaires and returned for at least one follow-up visit.
The researchers found that about 27 percent of the participants reported regularly running, although in wildly varying amounts and paces.
The scientists then checked death reports.
Over the course of the study, 2,984 of the participants died. But the incidence was much lower among the group that ran. Those participants had, on average, a 19 percent lower risk of dying from any cause than non-runners.
Notably, in closely parsing the participants’ self-reported activities, the researchers found that running in moderation provided the most benefits. Those who ran 1 to 20 miles per week at an average pace of about 10 or 11 minutes per mile — in other words, jogging — reduced their risk of dying during the study more effectively than those who didn’t run, those (admittedly few) who ran more than 20 miles a week, and those who typically ran at a pace swifter than seven miles an hour.
“These data certainly support the idea that more running is not needed to produce extra health and mortality benefits,” said Dr. Carl J. Lavie, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans and an author of the study. “If anything,” he continued, “it appears that less running is associated with the best protection from mortality risk. More is not better, and actually, more could be worse.”
His analysis echoes the results of another new examination of activity and mortality, in which Danish scientists used 27 years’ worth of data collected for the continuing Copenhagen City Heart Study. They reported that those Danes who spent one to two and a half hours per week jogging at a “slow or average pace” during the study period had longer life spans than their more sedentary peers and than those who ran at a faster pace.
This decidedly modest amount of exercise led to an increase of, on average, 6.2 years in the life span of male joggers and 5.6 years in women.
“We can say with certainty that regular jogging increases longevity,” Dr. Peter Schnorr, a cardiologist and an author of the study, said in presenting the findings at a clinical meeting organized last month by the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. “The good news is that you don’t actually need to do that much to reap the benefits.”
“The relationship appears much like alcohol intakes,” he continued. “Mortality is lower in people reporting moderate jogging than in non-joggers or those undertaking extreme levels of exercise.”
There’s further confirmation of that idea in the findings of a large study of exercise habits published last year in The Lancet, which showed that among a group of 416,175 Taiwanese adults, 92 minutes a week of moderate exercise, like walking, gentle jogging or cycling, increased life span by about three years and decreased the risk of mortality from any cause by about 14 percent.
In that study, those who embarked on more ambitious exercise programs did gain additional risk reduction, as seems only fair, but the benefits plateaued rapidly. For each further 15 minutes per day of moderate exercise that someone completed beyond the first 92, his or her mortality risk fell, but by only about another 4 percent.
Whether and at what point more exercise becomes counterproductive remains uncertain. “In general, it appears that exercise, like any therapy, results in a bell-shaped curve in terms of response and benefit,” says Dr. James H. O’Keefe, a cardiologist and lead author of a thought-provoking review article published on Monday in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that examines whether extreme amounts of vigorous exercise, particularly running, can harm the heart.
“To date, the data suggests that walking and light jogging are almost uniformly beneficial for health and do increase life span,” Dr. O’Keefe says. “But with more vigorous or prolonged exercise, the benefits can become questionable.
“I’m a fan of distance running,” he adds. “I run. But after about 45 to 60 minutes a day, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and at some point, you risk toxicity.”
His advice? The study by Dr. Lavie and his colleagues offers excellent guidelines for safe and effective exercise, Dr. O’Keefe says. “Twenty miles a week or less of jogging at a 10- or 11-minute-mile pace can add years to your life span. That’s very good news.” Indeed it is — especially since that routine happens to replicate almost exactly my own weekly exercise regimen.
“I wouldn’t automatically discourage people from doing more if they really want to” and are not experiencing side effects, like extreme fatigue or repeated injuries, Dr. O’Keefe continued. “But the message from the latest data is that the sweet spot for exercise seems to come with less.”
Gretchen Reynolds is the author of “The First 20 Minutes: Surprising Science Reveals How We Can Exercise Better, Train Smarter, Live Longer” (Hudson Street Press, 2012).
We hope you’ll “Like” the new Well on Facebook, where you’ll find news and conversations about fitness, food and family health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)