Written by: Shin Ohtake, Fitness & Fat-Loss Expert
Author of MAX Workouts, The Ultimate Lean Body Fitness Program
Every morning, shortly after we get up we take our dog out for an hour walk. It’s our daily morning ritual. Fortunately weather in southern California allows us to participate in this joyful activity and we take full advantage of it.
Luckily we live close to the beach, so we take our walks along the beach and every morning we see all sorts of people partaking in fun activities like rollerblading, bike riding, walking. But by far the most common activity we see is running…although I’m not sure if I’d consider running as a “fun” activity for me personally…I know many people love to run.
I think it’s partly the endorphin rush you get when you run, not to mention it’s also the easiest form of exercise. It’s something anyone can do…but easy isn’t always the best. The biggest problem I see with people running is that majority of them aren’t physically strong enough to run properly.
If you slowed down the motion and saw the biomechanics of running, you would quickly see that running is a plyometric exercise. When you run, you actually put all of your weight on one foot and then push off with enough force to lift your entire body off the ground, while you switch legs and land on your other foot. Running forces you to bear all of your weight on one foot at a time and then it’s repeated thousands of times or more depending on how far you run.
That’s a lot of force being applied to the joints on your legs. It’s no wonder so many people that run suffer from foot, ankle, knees and hip injuries. Their joints aren’t capable of handling that kind of forceful repetitive stress.
When you think about it, running requires a lot of muscle, tendon and ligament support. So really, it should only be performed by people that are in good shape and strong enough to handle the repetitive force running places on your body.
Unfortunately most of the people I see running are nowhere near in the kind of shape they should be in. It’s completely backwards…the people I see most often running are exactly the kind of people that shouldn’t be running. It’s painful to see so many of these people that’s trying to get into shape by “literally” pounding their poor joints into the ground.
The truth is when you begin running you will burn more calories, hence you will lose weight. However, what you’re not realizing is that you’re setting yourself up for eventual halt in progression.
Why?
Because your body has an innate ability to adapt and make things more proficient, so your body doesn’t have to expend as much energy. What this means is that as you get better at running, your body ends up burning less calories when you run! A double edge sword…right? You want to get fit and be able to run better, but you also want to keep burning calories so you can lose weight. So if your body keeps getting more efficient at conserving energy when you run, you have to either increase the distance you run OR increase the pace of your runs.
And for most part, people tend to increase the distance, because it’s easier to do. Increasing your pace for a long distance run is difficult, challenging and it’s too hard to keep the pace up without stopping or resting, so if your running continuously your pace automatically slows down to a pace that you can keep running for long periods of time. And this usually ends up in one of the two scenarios:
The first scenario is - you end up running the same distances at the same steady pace, day in and day out and your weight loss progress complete comes to a halt.
The second scenario is - that you get injured. Your body and joints can only handle the constant pounding and the repetitive stress eventually causes inflammation on one or more of your joints..
Either way, neither scenario is good.
Not to mention that running long distances causes you to lose lean muscle mass, which is your body’s most effective calorie burner. Less lean muscle mass means less calories burned as well as decreased strength, which makes you more susceptible to injuries. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what’s a runner to do? STOP RUNNING.
There are far better and more effective ways to get into shape then just hitting the pavement and going for a long run. Running has it’s place in a fitness regimen, but only after you’ve gotten strong enough to be able to sustain the kind of force running generates. Even then, I think long runs should only be done sparingly…unless you’re training for an endurance event that requires you to do so.
I’d stick to doing short bursts of sprints or fast paced running followed by rest and recovery. This way you’re only putting pressure on your joints for a short period of time followed by rest so your muscles, tendons and ligaments can recover…hopefully enough for you to be able to sustain the force for multiple rounds of short runs. You can repeat this process as many times as you want (or as many as your body lets you)...although I see no need to do anymore than 20 - 30 minutes worth.
I would also recommend running on grass, sand or any surface that has some give instead of concrete…to reduce the amount of stress put on your joints.
Even then, these short bursts of running may still be too strenuous for some of you that are just starting out and need more time to develop proper conditioning and strength before tackling the runs. Which is why it’s vital that you include strength training as part of your regular fitness regimen.
Now, I’m not talking about ineffective isolated exercises…sorry to disappoint, but if you’ve been hittin’ the weights doing bicep curls or tricep kick backs, it’s just not going to cut it. You need to be doing full body exercises that build functional strength. Functional strength enables you to carry the benefits over to activities like running, hiking, climbing as well as essential primal movements such as lifting, carrying, jumping, pulling and pushing…all activities/movements that your body performs on a daily basis.
And let’s not forget that performing full body functional exercises also builds lean muscle mass which increases your ability to burn more calories…especially from fat…hence getting you leaner and fitter, much more effectively than “just” running.
Source: http://www.maxworkouts.com/articles/entry/is-running-making-you-fatter
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
You Don't Want to Know What's in Your Flu Shot!
Dr. Sherry Tenpenny talks about what goes into making current flu shots and what some of the new production methods are. You might not think the flu is so bad after http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifwatching this.
www.ihealthtube.com
www.ihealthtube.com
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Forks Over Knives Trailer
http://www.forksoverknives.com/ | For showtimes, updates, newsletter sign up and more information.
The feature film Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of animal-based and processed foods.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Top 10 Tips for Healthy Restaurant Dining
1) Pick one indulgence and stick with it!
2) Set aside proper eating portion, save the rest
3) Ask for toppings, dressings, and sauces on the side
4) Ask for more vegetables
5) Avoid all-you-can eat restaurants
6) Watch out for liquid calories
7) Replace soda with water and lemon
Replace a cocktail with a glass of wine
8) Look for steamed, baked, grilled, broiled, or poached food
9) Make friends with salsa
10) Speak to the chef regarding your dietary needs
Friday, May 13, 2011
Britain's fattest teenager now ANOREXIC and given six months to live after gastric bypass surgery
A woman who was once Britain's fattest teenager is now battling with anorexia after her life was turned upside down by a gastric bypass operation.Malissa Jones, 21, lost so much weight that she now tips the scales at just 8 stone. Four years ago, before her surgery, doctors were warning her that she had to take drastic action after ballooning to 34 stone.
They warned her she had to shed 20 stone or would die within months. Now the pendulum has swung the other way for Malissa, from Selby, North Yorkshire with doctors now warning she could die in six months unless she increases her food intake.
Worrying: Malissa Jones, who dropped from 32st to 8st, is now anorexic after developing a fear of eating following her gastric band surgery. Right, taken two years post-surgery, Malissa carried 2st of excess skin
Malissa told Closer magazine: 'I would urge anyone wanting surgery to lose weight healthily. I wish I had. 'Surgery can have consequences you might never have imagined.'
Malissa was the youngest person in the world to have a stomach bypass when surgeons performed the £10,000 NHS operation in January 2008.
She consumed 15,000 calories a day from gorging on chocolate, crisps and junk food - seven and a half times the recommended 2,000 calories for a girl of her age. But parents Richard and Dawn were unable to stop her food cravings.
Despite the risk of drastic surgery in such a young girl, she survived the operation and within a year lost more than half her body weight.
She started going clubbing and fell pregnant with farmer boyfriend Chris Robottom, 22. In February, after six months' pregnancy, she became ill with liver failure and her baby had to be delivered by Caesarean.
Sadly her baby, Harry, died an hour after delivery. Doctors then revealed Malissa's failure to eat properly had led to him being malnourished.
Malissa's weight dropped rapidly as she lost interest in food and doctors have now diagnosed her as anorexic.
'Food made my physically sick,' she said. 'I had to force myself to eat.' Her daily diet is now three cooked carrots, two portions of parsnip and a roast potato, which provides 300 calories.
Doctors have advised her to eat between 500 and 1,000 calories a day. Malissa, who is 5ft 8in tall, says: 'I am not deliberately starving myself but, right now, I would rather die than force myself to eat.
'I'm too thin. My body shocks me. But swallowing is painful. Eating a tiny amount gives me stomach cramps or makes me sick.
'My consultant says, if I continue like this, I only have six months to live.
'I will most likely die of a heart attack, so I must persevere with eating. I am trying, but it is so hard.'
Malissa Jones says: 'I'm too thin. My body shocks me. But swallowing is painful. Eating a tiny amount gives me stomach cramps or makes me sick'.
Malissa ate so little she ended up in hospital
'My body shocks me': Malissa is unhappy with how thin she is but swallowing is painful and she eats so little that she frequently ends up in hospital
Clinical psychologist Dr Funke Baffour from Waltham Cross, Herts, said: 'There would have been psychological reasons for Malissa' obesity that a gastric band would not have dealt with.
'It is not surprising she has swapped one emotional relationship with food for another.
'Perhaps, subconsciously, Malissa is so afraid of becoming obese again, she is stopping herself from eating.'
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1383049/Malissa-Jones-Britains-fattest-teenager-battling-anorexia.html
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World (Aspartame)
Aspartame is an artificial sweetener, an additive. And itâs a chemical. Itâs not a natural product, it's a chemical. The molecule is made up of three components. Two are amino acids, the so-called building blocks of protein.
One is called Phenylalanine, which is about 50% of the molecule and the other is Aspartic Acid, which is like 40%. And the other 10% is so-called Methyl Ester, which as soon as it's swallowed becomes free methyl alcohol. Methanol. Wood alcohol, which is a poison. A real poison.
Excellent documentary showing how dangerous artificial sweetener Aspartame is. From its history, to its effects this video is enough to shock anyone into really looking at there food labels next time they shop. Aspartame is a toxic food that came into the world as an investment by Donald Rumsfeld, while ignoring the deadly effects the tests showed. Take a good look at this video, it could save lives.
One is called Phenylalanine, which is about 50% of the molecule and the other is Aspartic Acid, which is like 40%. And the other 10% is so-called Methyl Ester, which as soon as it's swallowed becomes free methyl alcohol. Methanol. Wood alcohol, which is a poison. A real poison.
Excellent documentary showing how dangerous artificial sweetener Aspartame is. From its history, to its effects this video is enough to shock anyone into really looking at there food labels next time they shop. Aspartame is a toxic food that came into the world as an investment by Donald Rumsfeld, while ignoring the deadly effects the tests showed. Take a good look at this video, it could save lives.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Lose weight, stay active: Six small changes can help keep off pounds
Trying to reverse the 1-to-2-pounds-a-year weight gain that is the fate of the average middle-aged American? Overwhelmed at the thought of changing your lifestyle enough to reach a healthful weight?
Fortunately, there is an alternative approach to the drastic diet and exercise revisions that Americans find so difficult to embark on and sustain. The idea is to start with smaller, easier changes that will, at the very least, halt the weight-creep and give encouraging results.
"We find that people who make small changes will often lose a few pounds," said James O. Hill, Ph.D., director of the Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the University of Colorado at Denver. "Those who start with small changes often end up able to make more and bigger changes and lose more weight."
Here are a half-dozen small changes you can make right now:
1. Stop drinking calories
In the late 1970s the average American consumed about 70 calories a day in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages. By 2000 we were guzzling an average of 190 calories. Numerous studies have left little doubt about the connection between increased consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and the soaring rates of weight gain and obesity that occurred during that same time period.
"When we consume energy in beverage form, we don't get the same fullness as when we consume solids," said Richard D. Mattes, Ph.D., professor of foods and nutrition at Purdue University. "Those calories tend to add to the diet rather than displacing another energy source."
Fruit juice is not a replacement for soda. It might have a few vitamins and minerals, but it's just as damaging to your waistline. "If you drink 300 calories of apple cider, you'll feel less full than if you ate 300 calories of apples," Mattes said. And you'd have a lot to eat: You'd get to chew about three 3-inch apples for 300 calories.
What about replacing your favorite full-sugar drink with an artificially sweetened version? The evidence is mixed. Some studies suggest that though diet sodas don't add calories, they still activate your sweet tooth. But other studies show no such effect. "It's very difficult for my patients to stop drinking soda," said Caroline Apovian, M.D., director of the Nutrition and Weight Management Center at Boston Medical Center. "I always tell them to switch to diet soda."
As for milk, Mattes thinks it fools our internal calorie-counting mechanism the same way soft drinks do. Other experts doubt that, but they all agree that milk provides some useful nutrients in exchange for its calories. Similarly, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption might justify the calorie penalty, but that form of liquid calories is unlikely to make you feel full.
2. Eat more protein
Remember when experts thought the high-protein, low-carb Atkins diet didn't work and was dangerous? It's been more than seven years since the first studies started overturning that idea. Low-carb, high-protein diets have proved surprisingly effective, especially in the short term. And it turns out that people who eat a higher proportion of their calories from protein end up consuming fewer calories overall.
"There's currently a fair amount of evidence that protein is a more satiating nutrient than others, at least in a solid food," Mattes said.
But don't expect miracles from that approach. "It's really difficult to manipulate your protein intake markedly while eating normal foods," Mattes said.
In a major clinical trial that looked at high-protein diets, published Feb. 26, 2009, in The New England Journal of Medicine, participants didn't get their protein intake to the target level of 25 percent of total calories. But they did increase it from a baseline of 18 percent to about 21 percent.
The bottom line is that it can't hurt to substitute a bit more lean protein for some of the fat and starches in your diet.
3. Eat more fiber
Fiber is the good guy of food. It may help protect against colon cancer and heart disease, and it is your weight-control friend. It slows digestion, helping you to feel fuller longer, and displaces other caloric foods. Best of all, it comes in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains that are loaded with beneficial vitamins and minerals.
But as with protein, don't set your expectations too high, Mattes cautioned.
"Most of the studies showing beneficial effects are based on very large intakes that just aren't realistic for the general population," he said. "The typical American consumes 10 to 14 grams a day. The recommendation is for 25 or more grams, which is a huge departure from one's customary intake."
You might not make it to that goal, but you can boost your fiber-rich vegetable intake fairly painlessly, said Barbara Rolls, Ph.D., professor of nutritional sciences at Pennsylvania State University.
"Grow the amount of vegetables on your plate and shrink everything else," Rolls said. "Toss them in oil and roast them in the oven. Add your favorite veggies to sandwiches, pizza toppings, stews, wherever you can."
4. Lead yourself not into temptation
Can't eat just one Dorito or chocolate kiss? That is no accident, as former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler, M.D., documented in his book, "The End of Overeating" (Rodale, 2009). The food industry works hard to create high-calorie foods with the most addictive possible combination of intense flavor and "mouthfeel."
"A century ago, to consume 400 calories, you had to go buy the meat, vegetables, and rice, and come home and cook it," Apovian said. "Now you can consume the same amount of calories just by downing a bag of Cheetos."
You obviously can't avoid encountering those foods in your daily life and probably eating them on occasion. But never have them at home, Apovian advised.
5. Add 2,000 steps a day
That's 20 to 25 minutes of walking, covers about a mile, and will burn about 100 calories a day—enough, Hill said, to prevent gradual weight gain in most people.
"It doesn't matter how you get there," Hill said. "It can be all at once or spread out. Once you do get there, do more."
Some of Hill's suggestions for sneaking in extra steps: When you step outside to get your mail, walk around the block before going back inside; do some errands on foot; at work, park at the far end of the office lot and use a distant rest room.
6. Cut your screen time
"When we're sitting, we are burning almost as few calories as we do when we're sleeping," said Marc T. Hamilton, Ph.D., a professor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. "Sitting too much is hazardous to your health in a different way than exercising too little."
Hamilton is a researcher in the new field of inactivity physiology, the study of what happens when we're, well, just sitting there. Research shows that the more you sit, the higher your risk of weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. That seems to be true even for people who get the prescribed 150 minutes a week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.
"Standing upright washing dishes, getting dressed, or filing papers isn't exercise by anybody's standard," Hamilton said. "Yet these activities double your metabolic rate compared to sitting. If you can find 6 or 7 more hours a week to spend standing instead of sitting, you've done something good for yourself."
Sitting in front of a computer or television is one of the least active things most of us do. Research has shown that the more screen time we indulge in, the fatter we tend to be. And when we cut down our screen time, we tend to stand up and move around. A November 2010 Consumer Reports survey of 1,234 Americans found that those who spend 5 or more hours sitting during a typical weekday log less time in everyday activity.
So look for chances to stand up and move around in the course of your day. And see whether you can cut back your daily screen time.
Safe, effective long-term weight-loss pill remains elusive
The Food and Drug Administration turned down two applications for new anti-obesity drugs in recent months, in part because of safety concerns.
But on Dec. 7, 2010, an FDA advisory committee recommended approval of a new weight-loss drug. Called Contrave, it is a combination of two older medications: naltrexone, used to treat alcohol and drug addiction, and bupropion, an antidepressant. In a 56-week clinical trial, obese patients on Contrave lost an average of 5 to 6 percent of their starting weight, compared with a little more than 1 percent for patients on placebo. A significant number reported side effects from Contrave, including nausea, constipation, and dizziness. A final FDA decision on Contrave was expected in January 2011.
With the October 2010 removal of Meridia (sibutramine) from the market because of the risk of major cardiovascular side effects, there's only one prescription weight-loss medication currently approved for long-term use in the U.S. It's Xenical (orlistat), which blocks your body from absorbing 30 percent of the fat you ingest. Also available in a lower over-the-counter dose under the Alli brand name, Xenical has never achieved the widespread popularity once expected.
That might be because of intestinal side effects, caused by the undigested fat, that could result in oily spotting. And in clinical trials of orlistat, severely overweight patients on a reduced-calorie diet lost only about 7 pounds more after a year of treatment than subjects who took placebos.
Source: http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/494/lose-weight-stay-active-six-small-changes-can-help-keep-off-pounds/
Fortunately, there is an alternative approach to the drastic diet and exercise revisions that Americans find so difficult to embark on and sustain. The idea is to start with smaller, easier changes that will, at the very least, halt the weight-creep and give encouraging results.
"We find that people who make small changes will often lose a few pounds," said James O. Hill, Ph.D., director of the Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the University of Colorado at Denver. "Those who start with small changes often end up able to make more and bigger changes and lose more weight."
Here are a half-dozen small changes you can make right now:
1. Stop drinking calories
In the late 1970s the average American consumed about 70 calories a day in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages. By 2000 we were guzzling an average of 190 calories. Numerous studies have left little doubt about the connection between increased consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and the soaring rates of weight gain and obesity that occurred during that same time period.
"When we consume energy in beverage form, we don't get the same fullness as when we consume solids," said Richard D. Mattes, Ph.D., professor of foods and nutrition at Purdue University. "Those calories tend to add to the diet rather than displacing another energy source."
Fruit juice is not a replacement for soda. It might have a few vitamins and minerals, but it's just as damaging to your waistline. "If you drink 300 calories of apple cider, you'll feel less full than if you ate 300 calories of apples," Mattes said. And you'd have a lot to eat: You'd get to chew about three 3-inch apples for 300 calories.
What about replacing your favorite full-sugar drink with an artificially sweetened version? The evidence is mixed. Some studies suggest that though diet sodas don't add calories, they still activate your sweet tooth. But other studies show no such effect. "It's very difficult for my patients to stop drinking soda," said Caroline Apovian, M.D., director of the Nutrition and Weight Management Center at Boston Medical Center. "I always tell them to switch to diet soda."
As for milk, Mattes thinks it fools our internal calorie-counting mechanism the same way soft drinks do. Other experts doubt that, but they all agree that milk provides some useful nutrients in exchange for its calories. Similarly, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption might justify the calorie penalty, but that form of liquid calories is unlikely to make you feel full.
2. Eat more protein
Remember when experts thought the high-protein, low-carb Atkins diet didn't work and was dangerous? It's been more than seven years since the first studies started overturning that idea. Low-carb, high-protein diets have proved surprisingly effective, especially in the short term. And it turns out that people who eat a higher proportion of their calories from protein end up consuming fewer calories overall.
"There's currently a fair amount of evidence that protein is a more satiating nutrient than others, at least in a solid food," Mattes said.
But don't expect miracles from that approach. "It's really difficult to manipulate your protein intake markedly while eating normal foods," Mattes said.
In a major clinical trial that looked at high-protein diets, published Feb. 26, 2009, in The New England Journal of Medicine, participants didn't get their protein intake to the target level of 25 percent of total calories. But they did increase it from a baseline of 18 percent to about 21 percent.
The bottom line is that it can't hurt to substitute a bit more lean protein for some of the fat and starches in your diet.
3. Eat more fiber
Fiber is the good guy of food. It may help protect against colon cancer and heart disease, and it is your weight-control friend. It slows digestion, helping you to feel fuller longer, and displaces other caloric foods. Best of all, it comes in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains that are loaded with beneficial vitamins and minerals.
But as with protein, don't set your expectations too high, Mattes cautioned.
"Most of the studies showing beneficial effects are based on very large intakes that just aren't realistic for the general population," he said. "The typical American consumes 10 to 14 grams a day. The recommendation is for 25 or more grams, which is a huge departure from one's customary intake."
You might not make it to that goal, but you can boost your fiber-rich vegetable intake fairly painlessly, said Barbara Rolls, Ph.D., professor of nutritional sciences at Pennsylvania State University.
"Grow the amount of vegetables on your plate and shrink everything else," Rolls said. "Toss them in oil and roast them in the oven. Add your favorite veggies to sandwiches, pizza toppings, stews, wherever you can."
4. Lead yourself not into temptation
Can't eat just one Dorito or chocolate kiss? That is no accident, as former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler, M.D., documented in his book, "The End of Overeating" (Rodale, 2009). The food industry works hard to create high-calorie foods with the most addictive possible combination of intense flavor and "mouthfeel."
"A century ago, to consume 400 calories, you had to go buy the meat, vegetables, and rice, and come home and cook it," Apovian said. "Now you can consume the same amount of calories just by downing a bag of Cheetos."
You obviously can't avoid encountering those foods in your daily life and probably eating them on occasion. But never have them at home, Apovian advised.
5. Add 2,000 steps a day
That's 20 to 25 minutes of walking, covers about a mile, and will burn about 100 calories a day—enough, Hill said, to prevent gradual weight gain in most people.
"It doesn't matter how you get there," Hill said. "It can be all at once or spread out. Once you do get there, do more."
Some of Hill's suggestions for sneaking in extra steps: When you step outside to get your mail, walk around the block before going back inside; do some errands on foot; at work, park at the far end of the office lot and use a distant rest room.
6. Cut your screen time
"When we're sitting, we are burning almost as few calories as we do when we're sleeping," said Marc T. Hamilton, Ph.D., a professor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. "Sitting too much is hazardous to your health in a different way than exercising too little."
Hamilton is a researcher in the new field of inactivity physiology, the study of what happens when we're, well, just sitting there. Research shows that the more you sit, the higher your risk of weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. That seems to be true even for people who get the prescribed 150 minutes a week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.
"Standing upright washing dishes, getting dressed, or filing papers isn't exercise by anybody's standard," Hamilton said. "Yet these activities double your metabolic rate compared to sitting. If you can find 6 or 7 more hours a week to spend standing instead of sitting, you've done something good for yourself."
Sitting in front of a computer or television is one of the least active things most of us do. Research has shown that the more screen time we indulge in, the fatter we tend to be. And when we cut down our screen time, we tend to stand up and move around. A November 2010 Consumer Reports survey of 1,234 Americans found that those who spend 5 or more hours sitting during a typical weekday log less time in everyday activity.
So look for chances to stand up and move around in the course of your day. And see whether you can cut back your daily screen time.
Safe, effective long-term weight-loss pill remains elusive
The Food and Drug Administration turned down two applications for new anti-obesity drugs in recent months, in part because of safety concerns.
But on Dec. 7, 2010, an FDA advisory committee recommended approval of a new weight-loss drug. Called Contrave, it is a combination of two older medications: naltrexone, used to treat alcohol and drug addiction, and bupropion, an antidepressant. In a 56-week clinical trial, obese patients on Contrave lost an average of 5 to 6 percent of their starting weight, compared with a little more than 1 percent for patients on placebo. A significant number reported side effects from Contrave, including nausea, constipation, and dizziness. A final FDA decision on Contrave was expected in January 2011.
With the October 2010 removal of Meridia (sibutramine) from the market because of the risk of major cardiovascular side effects, there's only one prescription weight-loss medication currently approved for long-term use in the U.S. It's Xenical (orlistat), which blocks your body from absorbing 30 percent of the fat you ingest. Also available in a lower over-the-counter dose under the Alli brand name, Xenical has never achieved the widespread popularity once expected.
That might be because of intestinal side effects, caused by the undigested fat, that could result in oily spotting. And in clinical trials of orlistat, severely overweight patients on a reduced-calorie diet lost only about 7 pounds more after a year of treatment than subjects who took placebos.
Source: http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/494/lose-weight-stay-active-six-small-changes-can-help-keep-off-pounds/
Friday, December 24, 2010
Oral Sex Linked to Rise in Men's Throat Cancer
Studies Show Epidemic That Could Be Stemmed by Cervical Cancer Vaccine Gardasil
For years now, doctors have urged young women to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is believed to cause cervical cancer.
But now, growing research in Europe and the United States is implicating HPV in a rising number of cases of head and neck cancers in men, and many doctors are recommending that all boys be vaccinated as well.
Doctors say that changing sexual behaviors -- earlier sex, more partners and especially oral sex -- are contributing to a new epidemic of orpharyngeal squamous cell cancers, those of the throat, tonsils and base of the tongue.
These cancers can be deadly, and are striking men at a younger age and in increasing numbers.
"There's a lag in information," said Dr. John Deeken, a medical oncologist at Georgetown University. "We physicians have done a poor job of advertising the fact that boys and girls should have the vaccine."
"This kind of cancer traditionally affects males who have been smoking and drinking all their life, and now in their mid-60s they are getting head and neck cancer," he said. "However, HPV cancer we are seeing in younger patients who have never smoked."
Two decades ago, about 20 percent of all oral cancers were HPV-related, but today that number is more than 50 percent, according to studies published by the American Association for Cancer Research.
Similarly high rates have also been seen in Europe, where a new Swedish study has shown a strong correlation between oral cancers and oral sex. Oddly, the rising rates have not been seen yet in the Southern Hemisphere in Australia and New Zealand.
Each year, more than 30,000 new cases of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx are diagnosed, and more than 8,000 people die from oral cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Cure rates are higher than for smoking-related throat cancers, but still only 50 percent.
Today, men are more likely to get oral cancer than are women, but as the epidemic grows, that could soon change.
"We expect in head and neck cancers that 85 percent are men and 15 percent are women," said Deeken. "But over the coming years that could become equal."
"It's going to take a couple of decades to see the trend turning around," he said. "The epidemiological risk factors are past sexual partners as well as marijuana exposure, not just oral sex."
Human Papilloma Virus Affecting More Men
HPV is the most common sexually-transmitted infection. Those who are infected often have no symptoms and pass it on to their partners through genital contact during vaginal and anal sex. It can also be transmitted during oral sex and, more rarely, during deep kissing through saliva.
There are more than 100 strains of the virus. Some cause genital warts, but others can result in cell changes that decades later can become cancerous. Each strain is identified by a number; oral and cervical cancers are caused by HPV sub-types 16 and 18.
HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis and anus, and there is some evidence it is associated with esophageal and lung cancers.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Gardasil for girls in 2006 and for boys for treatment of genital and anal warts in 2009. The vaccine can be given at any age, though it is most effective given young people before any sexual exposure.
Doctors say it could prevent 10,000 more cases of oral cancer a year.
Several deaths associated with the vaccine led doctors to advise caution in the rush to promote widespread use of the vaccine, and doctors say there is a lack of public awareness of its role in preventing cancer.
"With any new vaccine, you have to err on the side of caution, but every year we know more about it," said Deeken. "But we have to ask the question: What do we do for the spouses and kids of our patients? I don't see any downside to vaccination at this time. My son and daughter will get it."
Because humans are the only reservoir for HPV, "it could be eliminated like smallpox," he said.
The research isn't new, but it has not received wide attention, perhaps because of taboos associated with oral sex.
Oral sex has become more commonplace; people have more sex partners and have sex earlier in life -- all behaviors linked to HPV-related oral cancers, according to a study in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Emerging Infectious Diseases report.
A study at the Swedish Karolinska Institutet showed the risk of developing oral HPV infection increased with a rise in lifetime oral or vaginal sex partners. It also cited "open mouth kissing."
The study included 542 American students, and noted similar increases in such cancers in Britain, Finland and The Netherlands.
But Dr. Kevin Cullen, director of University of Maryland's Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, is not sure only oral sex is to blame.
"It's hard for me to believe sexual behaviors have changed that much in 15 to 20 years," he said. "It may be that as happens, epidemics get enough people infected and an infection begins to take off, and that may have happened with HPV at some point."
A study Cullen did last year found that HPV-related oral cancer in African Americans were less common than whites, perhaps because of negative cultural attitudes about oral sex.
"But it looks like blacks are beginning to catch up with whites," said Cullen.
Scientists also don't know why women tend to develop cervical cancer while men have more throat cancer. "Maybe women are better able to transmit to a man than a man to the oral mucosa of a woman," said Cullen.
Doctors also think that cancer is likely to develop in the first area of exposure ? in women, usually the vagina. The woman may then develop later immunity in the throat.
But with more oral sex, often before vaginal sex, female throat cancers could increase, they say.
Very little HPV was seen until the 1980s. "It was very rare in our archives," said Cullen. "But each year we looked, it was more prevalent. Why, no one is really sure."
And doctors say those numbers have not yet peaked.
"There is increasing evidence that boys as well as girls should be vaccinated," said Cullen. "Men and women are increasingly going to face the burden of cancer, and we have a tool to prevent it."
Why the medical community has not fully embraced vaccination is not clear.
"The lead time for development of oral cancer is in decades, so to do definitive studies would take decades to do," he said. "[The FDA] picked the simpler task of preventing HPV warts in the short time frame."
Resistance has also come from safety concerns, as well as the fear by some groups that vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease will promote sexual behavior.
Cervical cancer just may just be "sexier" than throat cancer, said Dr. Ranit Mishori, a family physician in the Georgetown University School of Medicine.
"We don't think about oral cancer except in smokers," she said. "There is no question HPV is the cause of most oral cancers, but it's partly an awareness issue relating to our kids' sex life, and who wants to talk about oral sex?"
Convincing parents to vaccinate their sons as well as their daughters is a "hard sell," said Mishori.
"Oftentimes it's the moms who take the kids to the doctor, and we tell them we have this great vaccine that can prevent their daughter from getting cervical cancer," she said. "Moms can easily relate."
But it's harder to tell her "to give her son three painful shots so that he won't transmit it to his girlfriend in the future and might not transmit cancer or have oral cancer himself," said Mishori.
As for potential side effects with the vaccine, Mishori said those concerns are "pretty minor compared to the potential."
"It hasn't been around too long, but it's been tested on thousands of women," she said. "The fact that the vaccine prevents cancer is astounding in itself."
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/hpv-oral-cancers-rise-oral-sex-popular-spread/story?id=11916068&tqkw=&tqshow=
For years now, doctors have urged young women to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is believed to cause cervical cancer.
But now, growing research in Europe and the United States is implicating HPV in a rising number of cases of head and neck cancers in men, and many doctors are recommending that all boys be vaccinated as well.
Doctors say that changing sexual behaviors -- earlier sex, more partners and especially oral sex -- are contributing to a new epidemic of orpharyngeal squamous cell cancers, those of the throat, tonsils and base of the tongue.
These cancers can be deadly, and are striking men at a younger age and in increasing numbers.
"There's a lag in information," said Dr. John Deeken, a medical oncologist at Georgetown University. "We physicians have done a poor job of advertising the fact that boys and girls should have the vaccine."
"This kind of cancer traditionally affects males who have been smoking and drinking all their life, and now in their mid-60s they are getting head and neck cancer," he said. "However, HPV cancer we are seeing in younger patients who have never smoked."
Two decades ago, about 20 percent of all oral cancers were HPV-related, but today that number is more than 50 percent, according to studies published by the American Association for Cancer Research.
Similarly high rates have also been seen in Europe, where a new Swedish study has shown a strong correlation between oral cancers and oral sex. Oddly, the rising rates have not been seen yet in the Southern Hemisphere in Australia and New Zealand.
Each year, more than 30,000 new cases of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx are diagnosed, and more than 8,000 people die from oral cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Cure rates are higher than for smoking-related throat cancers, but still only 50 percent.
Today, men are more likely to get oral cancer than are women, but as the epidemic grows, that could soon change.
"We expect in head and neck cancers that 85 percent are men and 15 percent are women," said Deeken. "But over the coming years that could become equal."
"It's going to take a couple of decades to see the trend turning around," he said. "The epidemiological risk factors are past sexual partners as well as marijuana exposure, not just oral sex."
Human Papilloma Virus Affecting More Men
HPV is the most common sexually-transmitted infection. Those who are infected often have no symptoms and pass it on to their partners through genital contact during vaginal and anal sex. It can also be transmitted during oral sex and, more rarely, during deep kissing through saliva.
There are more than 100 strains of the virus. Some cause genital warts, but others can result in cell changes that decades later can become cancerous. Each strain is identified by a number; oral and cervical cancers are caused by HPV sub-types 16 and 18.
HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis and anus, and there is some evidence it is associated with esophageal and lung cancers.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Gardasil for girls in 2006 and for boys for treatment of genital and anal warts in 2009. The vaccine can be given at any age, though it is most effective given young people before any sexual exposure.
Doctors say it could prevent 10,000 more cases of oral cancer a year.
Several deaths associated with the vaccine led doctors to advise caution in the rush to promote widespread use of the vaccine, and doctors say there is a lack of public awareness of its role in preventing cancer.
"With any new vaccine, you have to err on the side of caution, but every year we know more about it," said Deeken. "But we have to ask the question: What do we do for the spouses and kids of our patients? I don't see any downside to vaccination at this time. My son and daughter will get it."
Because humans are the only reservoir for HPV, "it could be eliminated like smallpox," he said.
The research isn't new, but it has not received wide attention, perhaps because of taboos associated with oral sex.
Oral sex has become more commonplace; people have more sex partners and have sex earlier in life -- all behaviors linked to HPV-related oral cancers, according to a study in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Emerging Infectious Diseases report.
A study at the Swedish Karolinska Institutet showed the risk of developing oral HPV infection increased with a rise in lifetime oral or vaginal sex partners. It also cited "open mouth kissing."
The study included 542 American students, and noted similar increases in such cancers in Britain, Finland and The Netherlands.
But Dr. Kevin Cullen, director of University of Maryland's Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, is not sure only oral sex is to blame.
"It's hard for me to believe sexual behaviors have changed that much in 15 to 20 years," he said. "It may be that as happens, epidemics get enough people infected and an infection begins to take off, and that may have happened with HPV at some point."
A study Cullen did last year found that HPV-related oral cancer in African Americans were less common than whites, perhaps because of negative cultural attitudes about oral sex.
"But it looks like blacks are beginning to catch up with whites," said Cullen.
Scientists also don't know why women tend to develop cervical cancer while men have more throat cancer. "Maybe women are better able to transmit to a man than a man to the oral mucosa of a woman," said Cullen.
Doctors also think that cancer is likely to develop in the first area of exposure ? in women, usually the vagina. The woman may then develop later immunity in the throat.
But with more oral sex, often before vaginal sex, female throat cancers could increase, they say.
Very little HPV was seen until the 1980s. "It was very rare in our archives," said Cullen. "But each year we looked, it was more prevalent. Why, no one is really sure."
And doctors say those numbers have not yet peaked.
"There is increasing evidence that boys as well as girls should be vaccinated," said Cullen. "Men and women are increasingly going to face the burden of cancer, and we have a tool to prevent it."
Why the medical community has not fully embraced vaccination is not clear.
"The lead time for development of oral cancer is in decades, so to do definitive studies would take decades to do," he said. "[The FDA] picked the simpler task of preventing HPV warts in the short time frame."
Resistance has also come from safety concerns, as well as the fear by some groups that vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease will promote sexual behavior.
Cervical cancer just may just be "sexier" than throat cancer, said Dr. Ranit Mishori, a family physician in the Georgetown University School of Medicine.
"We don't think about oral cancer except in smokers," she said. "There is no question HPV is the cause of most oral cancers, but it's partly an awareness issue relating to our kids' sex life, and who wants to talk about oral sex?"
Convincing parents to vaccinate their sons as well as their daughters is a "hard sell," said Mishori.
"Oftentimes it's the moms who take the kids to the doctor, and we tell them we have this great vaccine that can prevent their daughter from getting cervical cancer," she said. "Moms can easily relate."
But it's harder to tell her "to give her son three painful shots so that he won't transmit it to his girlfriend in the future and might not transmit cancer or have oral cancer himself," said Mishori.
As for potential side effects with the vaccine, Mishori said those concerns are "pretty minor compared to the potential."
"It hasn't been around too long, but it's been tested on thousands of women," she said. "The fact that the vaccine prevents cancer is astounding in itself."
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/hpv-oral-cancers-rise-oral-sex-popular-spread/story?id=11916068&tqkw=&tqshow=
Saturday, November 6, 2010
If you must go through a drive-thru, get something small just to tide you over.
Eating fast food is terrible for your body and health. However, sometimes while out there are few other options... :(
11 Best Fast Food Post-Workout Snacks Under 200 Calories.
Some protein bars can be more like candy bars, providing sugar and fillers rather than actual healthy nutrition. While a fast food restaurant may not be the best choice for a quick bite after your workout, these options are good. They provide protein, carbohydrates and, most of all, satisfaction for fewer calories than a Snickers bar.
Best in-hand option
No time to use utensils? A Starbucks latte gives you a dose of protein and carbohydrates to refuel.
Starbucks
Skim Latte (Grande)
130 calories
19 grams carbohydrates
13 grams of protein
Best breakfast option
If you work out in the morning, this wrap will get much-needed protein to your muscles.
Dunkin' Donuts
Egg White and Cheese Wake-Up Wrap
150 calories
13 grams carbohydrates
8 grams protein
Best open 'till 2 a.m. option
For the night owl, Taco Bell has a Fresco menu that offers a few low-cal options that pack a good amount of protein.
Taco Bell
Fresco Crunchy Taco
150 calories
13 carbohydrates
7 grams of protein
Best drive-thru hand held
Wipe the sweat from your brow and cool off with this chocolately boost of protein and moderate amount of carbs. Men's Health swears by the muscle building power of chocolate milk.
Burger King
1% Chocolate Low-Fat Milk
190 calories
31 grams carbohydrates
9 grams protein
See other options at Burger King.
Best high protein option
Even though this isn't under 200 calories it's very close. And it has a commendable amount of protein and slow-acting good carbs in the form of beans.
Wendy's
Small Chili
220 calories
22 grams carbohydrates
18 grams of protein
Best filling sandwich option for early risers
This sandwich will keep you filled up through to lunch. You can even add some veggie toppings for some more vitamins.
Subway
Black Forest Ham, Egg and Cheese English Muffin
180 calories
18 grams of carbohydrates
15 grams of protein
Best sides as a snack option, plus a high-protein treat
These side dishes are perfect post-workout snacks, combining good carbs and an excellent amount of protein with low-calories.
KFC
Red Beans With Sausage and Rice
160 calories
26 grams of carbohydrates
24 grams of protein
Macaroni and cheese
180 Calories
20 grams carbohydrates
6 grams protein
2 grilled chicken drumsticks
160 calories
0 carbohydrates
20 grams of protein
Best protein splurge option
Remember your childhood with these crispy little bites. While this a higher fat option, this little treat has a good amount of protein for satiety.
McDonald's
4 piece Chicken McNuggets
190 calories
11 grams carbohydrates
10 grams protein
Best sweet treat option
For when you need a sweet fix. Plus, who doesn't get great joy out of eating one of these!
Carvel
Low-Fat Vanilla Flying Saucer
190 calories
35 grams of carbohydrates
4 grams of protein
Source: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/food/11-best-fast-food-post-workout-snacks-under-200-calories-2402237/
Monday, November 1, 2010
Paying with Cash Curbs Junk Food Spending
If you’re trying to make better food choices at the grocery store, you may want to try leaving the plastic at home and paying with cash. A new study from researchers at Cornell and SUNY reports that people buy less junk food when they pay with cash, as handing over bills is "psychologically more painful" than paying with credit.
The researchers followed 1,000 families as they shopped for food over a period of six months. They tracked what the participants added to their carts and the methods they used to pay for their groceries. The results showed that shopping carts were filled with more junk food and impulse purchases when shoppers used credit or debit cards to pay for the purchases. In contrast, paying with cash was linked to fewer unhealthy food items in the cart.
Why is this? The authors’ follow-up study showed that "cash payments are psychologically more painful than card payments, and this pain of payment can curb the impulsive responses to buy unhealthy food items." And people who have paid with cash customarily over a long period of time are apparently more sensitive to this "vice-regulation" effect. The authors write that in contrast to cash payments, "credit card payments... are relatively painless and weaken impulse control." In other words, if you don’t actually see the money changing hands as (one does not when credit or debit cards are used), you’re more likely to spend on unnecessary items, including junk food.
Is there a relationship between the rise in credit card spending and America’s expanding waistline? The authors suggest that there is a link, pointing out that 40% of grocery purchases are paid for with credit or debit cards these days. They write that "the epidemic increase in obesity suggests that regulating impulsive purchases and consumption of unhealthy food products is a steep challenge for many consumers". Being aware of the credit-junk food phenomenon may help people make better choices at the grocery store. It can’t hurt to try leaving the cards at home and making a quick trip to the ATM before embarking on a grocery shopping excursion.
The study was published in the October 6, 2010 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research. Source: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/dieting/art3111.html
Shopping carts were filled with more junk food and impulse purchases when shoppers used credit or debit cards. In contrast, paying with cash was linked to fewer unhealthy food items in the cart.
The researchers followed 1,000 families as they shopped for food over a period of six months. They tracked what the participants added to their carts and the methods they used to pay for their groceries. The results showed that shopping carts were filled with more junk food and impulse purchases when shoppers used credit or debit cards to pay for the purchases. In contrast, paying with cash was linked to fewer unhealthy food items in the cart.
Why is this? The authors’ follow-up study showed that "cash payments are psychologically more painful than card payments, and this pain of payment can curb the impulsive responses to buy unhealthy food items." And people who have paid with cash customarily over a long period of time are apparently more sensitive to this "vice-regulation" effect. The authors write that in contrast to cash payments, "credit card payments... are relatively painless and weaken impulse control." In other words, if you don’t actually see the money changing hands as (one does not when credit or debit cards are used), you’re more likely to spend on unnecessary items, including junk food.
Is there a relationship between the rise in credit card spending and America’s expanding waistline? The authors suggest that there is a link, pointing out that 40% of grocery purchases are paid for with credit or debit cards these days. They write that "the epidemic increase in obesity suggests that regulating impulsive purchases and consumption of unhealthy food products is a steep challenge for many consumers". Being aware of the credit-junk food phenomenon may help people make better choices at the grocery store. It can’t hurt to try leaving the cards at home and making a quick trip to the ATM before embarking on a grocery shopping excursion.
The study was published in the October 6, 2010 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research. Source: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/dieting/art3111.html
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Can Your Sunscreen Cause Skin Cancer?
A dermatologist sheds light on a new study that claims your SPF might be doing more harm than good.
A new study has found that an overwhelming amount of sunscreens on the market contain an ingredient that speeds cancerous cell growth. That's right: sunscreen might cause cancer, the very thing people lather it on to protect themselves from.
But don't go throwing out your white creams, sprays, oils, and lotions just yet. Many doctors and dermatologists aren't convinced that sunscreen should go the way of canola oil and old-school Coppertone.
Dr. Marta Rendon, a board-certified dermatologist and global spokesperson for Procter & Gamble's Head and Shoulders division, tries to assure worried consumers that the results — released last week by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit public health organization — come from animal testing only and are the findings of "just one study."
According to that study, nearly half of the 500 most popular sunscreens may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer such as melanoma.
Why? Because they contain Vitamin A, an ingredient that was added to sunscreen formulations because it's an antioxidant that slows skin aging.
This isn't necessarily new information to Rendon, who acknowledges that some studies suggest "that vitamin A might have some phototoxicity." Still, she says that "it does not necessarily correlate that it'll increase your risk of skin cancer."
To be safe, however, Rendon recommends using sunscreen that blocks both UVA rays — the ones that penetrate the skin more deeply to cause aging issues such as fine lines and wrinkles — and UVB rays, which are the ones that can give you a sunburn and are more responsible for cancer.
"Both forms of ultraviolet light are carcinogenic and increase the risks of skin cancer, but some sunscreens don't target both — most of the new ones are UVA blockers," Rendon says. "You need to block both."
Although in its annual report, the EWG only recommended 39 of the 500 products they examined as safe to use, Rendon says that all FDA-approved sunscreens have undergone rigorous trials to prove their efficacy and hold up against safety standards. (Some brands she recommends? Any with Helioplex, such as Neutrogena's line, or with Mexoryl like La Roche-Posay.)
But regardless of where you stand, she says that by following a few simple rules, you'll be safe in the sun:
Check the product label. Make sure your sunscreen includes zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, which act as physical barriers and keep ultraviolet light out best.
Don't worry about SPF. Sun protection factor is not regulated by the FDA, and as it turns out, sunscreens with a high SPF — like 70, 80, or 100+ — really don't work any better than those half its count. "The difference between SPF 30 and SPF 60 is maybe five percent," Rendon says. "Those with lighter complexion, freckles, or red hair should use SPF 45 to 50 with good UVA and UVB blockage. For normal complexions, SPF 30 is just fine."
Don't under-do it. "A shot glass is the right amount, and reapply every two hours," she says, adding that you can't really ever put on too much.
Remember that sunscreen isn't the only armor against sun damage. "You have to be conscious of sun exposure," Rendon warns. "Wear hats and sun-protective clothing."
Look for European brands. "It's true that Europe has better sunscreens because they process ingredients faster than we do," she admits.
Source: http://health.msn.com/health-topics/skin-and-hair/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100260739>1=31036
A new study has found that an overwhelming amount of sunscreens on the market contain an ingredient that speeds cancerous cell growth. That's right: sunscreen might cause cancer, the very thing people lather it on to protect themselves from.
But don't go throwing out your white creams, sprays, oils, and lotions just yet. Many doctors and dermatologists aren't convinced that sunscreen should go the way of canola oil and old-school Coppertone.
Dr. Marta Rendon, a board-certified dermatologist and global spokesperson for Procter & Gamble's Head and Shoulders division, tries to assure worried consumers that the results — released last week by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit public health organization — come from animal testing only and are the findings of "just one study."
According to that study, nearly half of the 500 most popular sunscreens may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer such as melanoma.
Why? Because they contain Vitamin A, an ingredient that was added to sunscreen formulations because it's an antioxidant that slows skin aging.
This isn't necessarily new information to Rendon, who acknowledges that some studies suggest "that vitamin A might have some phototoxicity." Still, she says that "it does not necessarily correlate that it'll increase your risk of skin cancer."
To be safe, however, Rendon recommends using sunscreen that blocks both UVA rays — the ones that penetrate the skin more deeply to cause aging issues such as fine lines and wrinkles — and UVB rays, which are the ones that can give you a sunburn and are more responsible for cancer.
"Both forms of ultraviolet light are carcinogenic and increase the risks of skin cancer, but some sunscreens don't target both — most of the new ones are UVA blockers," Rendon says. "You need to block both."
Although in its annual report, the EWG only recommended 39 of the 500 products they examined as safe to use, Rendon says that all FDA-approved sunscreens have undergone rigorous trials to prove their efficacy and hold up against safety standards. (Some brands she recommends? Any with Helioplex, such as Neutrogena's line, or with Mexoryl like La Roche-Posay.)
But regardless of where you stand, she says that by following a few simple rules, you'll be safe in the sun:
Check the product label. Make sure your sunscreen includes zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, which act as physical barriers and keep ultraviolet light out best.
Don't worry about SPF. Sun protection factor is not regulated by the FDA, and as it turns out, sunscreens with a high SPF — like 70, 80, or 100+ — really don't work any better than those half its count. "The difference between SPF 30 and SPF 60 is maybe five percent," Rendon says. "Those with lighter complexion, freckles, or red hair should use SPF 45 to 50 with good UVA and UVB blockage. For normal complexions, SPF 30 is just fine."
Don't under-do it. "A shot glass is the right amount, and reapply every two hours," she says, adding that you can't really ever put on too much.
Remember that sunscreen isn't the only armor against sun damage. "You have to be conscious of sun exposure," Rendon warns. "Wear hats and sun-protective clothing."
Look for European brands. "It's true that Europe has better sunscreens because they process ingredients faster than we do," she admits.
Source: http://health.msn.com/health-topics/skin-and-hair/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100260739>1=31036
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Age at Menopause May Predict Cardiovascular Risk
Researchers at the University of Alabama say that asking a woman at what age she went through menopause may be a good tool to predict her future risk of cardiovascular disease. The results of the study were presented the annual meeting of The Endocrine Society, on June 19, 2010 in San Diego, CA.
Approximately 2,500 women who were part of the Multi-Ethnic Study for Atherosclerosis were followed in the current study. All women had gone through menopause naturally or surgically (for example, by having their ovaries removed). Early menopause was defined as occurring before the age of 46, and 693 of the study’s participants fell into this category. More women undergoing early menopause were African-American or Hispanic than other ethnicities, and more women who’d reported early menopause went through it because of surgery.
The researchers found that women who reported early menopause were twice as likely as others to have any kind of heart disease, which included “heart attack, resuscitated cardiac arrest, definite angina, probable angina (if followed by revascularization), stroke, stroke death, coronary heart disease death or other atherosclerotic/CVD death," said lead researcher Melissa Wellons in a University news release.
Wellons did point out that it’s important to remember that this study was correlational in nature, so it does not provide concrete evidence of cause and effect. Still, the age of onset of menopause could be an effective marker to help predict a woman’s likelihood of having a cardiovascular event down the road. She says that the findings “will give clinicians a new tool potentially to assess cardiovascular risk... the simple tool of asking when a woman had a hysterectomy or their ovaries removed or when they went through natural menopause.”
The ethnic differences found in the study may also be important for doctors to keep in mind: "Because black and Hispanic women reported more incidence of early menopause, these findings may be particularly helpful and relevant to them," said Wellons. "However, more research still is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms behind early menopause and cardiovascular disease."
Source: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/womens_health/art2979.html
The researchers found that women who reported early menopause were twice as likely as others to have any kind of heart disease.
Approximately 2,500 women who were part of the Multi-Ethnic Study for Atherosclerosis were followed in the current study. All women had gone through menopause naturally or surgically (for example, by having their ovaries removed). Early menopause was defined as occurring before the age of 46, and 693 of the study’s participants fell into this category. More women undergoing early menopause were African-American or Hispanic than other ethnicities, and more women who’d reported early menopause went through it because of surgery.
The researchers found that women who reported early menopause were twice as likely as others to have any kind of heart disease, which included “heart attack, resuscitated cardiac arrest, definite angina, probable angina (if followed by revascularization), stroke, stroke death, coronary heart disease death or other atherosclerotic/CVD death," said lead researcher Melissa Wellons in a University news release.
Wellons did point out that it’s important to remember that this study was correlational in nature, so it does not provide concrete evidence of cause and effect. Still, the age of onset of menopause could be an effective marker to help predict a woman’s likelihood of having a cardiovascular event down the road. She says that the findings “will give clinicians a new tool potentially to assess cardiovascular risk... the simple tool of asking when a woman had a hysterectomy or their ovaries removed or when they went through natural menopause.”
The ethnic differences found in the study may also be important for doctors to keep in mind: "Because black and Hispanic women reported more incidence of early menopause, these findings may be particularly helpful and relevant to them," said Wellons. "However, more research still is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms behind early menopause and cardiovascular disease."
Source: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/womens_health/art2979.html
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Bad habits can age you by 12 years, study suggests
CHICAGO – Four common bad habits combined — smoking, drinking too much, inactivity and poor diet — can age you by 12 years, sobering new research suggests.
The findings are from a study that tracked nearly 5,000 British adults for 20 years, and they highlight yet another reason to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
Overall, 314 people studied had all four unhealthy behaviors. Among them, 91 died during the study, or 29 percent. Among the 387 healthiest people with none of the four habits, only 32 died, or about 8 percent.
The risky behaviors were: smoking tobacco; downing more than three alcoholic drinks per day for men and more than two daily for women; getting less than two hours of physical activity per week; and eating fruits and vegetables fewer than three times daily.
These habits combined substantially increased the risk of death and made people who engaged in them seem 12 years older than people in the healthiest group, said lead researcher Elisabeth Kvaavik of the University of Oslo.
The study appears in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.
The healthiest group included never-smokers and those who had quit; teetotalers, women who had fewer than two drinks daily and men who had fewer than three; those who got at least two hours of physical activity weekly; and those who ate fruits and vegetables at least three times daily.
"You don't need to be extreme" to be in the healthy category, Kvaavik said. "These behaviors add up, so together it's quite good. It should be possible for most people to manage to do it."
For example, one carrot, one apple and a glass of orange juice would suffice for the fruit and vegetable cutoffs in the study, Kvaavik said, noting that the amounts are pretty modest and less strict than many guidelines.
The U.S. government generally recommends at least 4 cups of fruits or vegetables daily for adults, depending on age and activity level; and about 2 1/2 hours of exercise weekly.
Study participants were 4,886 British adults aged 18 and older, or 44 years old on average. They were randomly selected from participants in a separate nationwide British health survey. Study subjects were asked about various lifestyle habits only once, a potential limitation, but Kvaavik said those habits tend to be fairly stable in adulthood.
Death certificates were checked for the next 20 years. The most common causes of death included heart disease and cancer, both related to unhealthy lifestyles.
Kvaavik said her results are applicable to other westernized nations including the United States.
June Stevens, a University of North Carolina public health researcher, said the results are in line with previous studies that examined the combined effects of health-related habits on longevity.
The findings don't mean that everyone who maintains a healthy lifestyle will live longer than those who don't, but it will increase the odds, Stevens said.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_med_bad_habits_survival
The findings are from a study that tracked nearly 5,000 British adults for 20 years, and they highlight yet another reason to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
Overall, 314 people studied had all four unhealthy behaviors. Among them, 91 died during the study, or 29 percent. Among the 387 healthiest people with none of the four habits, only 32 died, or about 8 percent.
The risky behaviors were: smoking tobacco; downing more than three alcoholic drinks per day for men and more than two daily for women; getting less than two hours of physical activity per week; and eating fruits and vegetables fewer than three times daily.
These habits combined substantially increased the risk of death and made people who engaged in them seem 12 years older than people in the healthiest group, said lead researcher Elisabeth Kvaavik of the University of Oslo.
The study appears in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.
The healthiest group included never-smokers and those who had quit; teetotalers, women who had fewer than two drinks daily and men who had fewer than three; those who got at least two hours of physical activity weekly; and those who ate fruits and vegetables at least three times daily.
"You don't need to be extreme" to be in the healthy category, Kvaavik said. "These behaviors add up, so together it's quite good. It should be possible for most people to manage to do it."
For example, one carrot, one apple and a glass of orange juice would suffice for the fruit and vegetable cutoffs in the study, Kvaavik said, noting that the amounts are pretty modest and less strict than many guidelines.
The U.S. government generally recommends at least 4 cups of fruits or vegetables daily for adults, depending on age and activity level; and about 2 1/2 hours of exercise weekly.
Study participants were 4,886 British adults aged 18 and older, or 44 years old on average. They were randomly selected from participants in a separate nationwide British health survey. Study subjects were asked about various lifestyle habits only once, a potential limitation, but Kvaavik said those habits tend to be fairly stable in adulthood.
Death certificates were checked for the next 20 years. The most common causes of death included heart disease and cancer, both related to unhealthy lifestyles.
Kvaavik said her results are applicable to other westernized nations including the United States.
June Stevens, a University of North Carolina public health researcher, said the results are in line with previous studies that examined the combined effects of health-related habits on longevity.
The findings don't mean that everyone who maintains a healthy lifestyle will live longer than those who don't, but it will increase the odds, Stevens said.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_med_bad_habits_survival
Monday, April 19, 2010
Blood Pressure Meds Might Reduce the Spread of Breast Cancer, Study Says
Women taking the widely-prescribed blood pressure medications known as beta-blockers when they are diagnosed with breast cancer appear to have a significantly reduced risk for the cancer spreading, or metastasizing. The new study also reported that these women were much less likely to die from breast cancer than women who did not take the medication.
The research team, based at Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, England, says that their study is the first ever to look at the relationship between beta-blockers and the spread of cancer. The study was presented last month at the European Cancer Organisation (ECCO)’s European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona, Spain.
The team found that the women who were taking beta-blockers had a 71% reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, and a 57% lower risk of developing a second type of cancer.
Des Powe and his colleagues followed 466 breast cancer patients, 92 of whom were on some sort of blood pressure medication. Of these, about half were taking beta-blockers when they were diagnosed with breast cancer. The team found that the women who were taking beta-blockers had a 71% reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, and a 57% lower risk of developing a second type of cancer. These numbers are in relation to women who were either taking a different kind of blood pressure medication or who weren’t taking any kind of blood pressure medication at all. This suggests that the differences seen were actually due to the action of the beta-blocker itself, rather than to the effect of lower blood pressure.
Powe explains that beta- blocker drugs compete with stress hormones and bind, at a cellular level, to the same target receptors as those hormones. But unlike stress hormones, beta-blocker drugs do not activate cancer cells. In other words, blocking the stress hormones may block the ability of the cancer to spread, because cancer cells depend on the presence of these hormones to do so.
Powe says that more research will be needed to assess proper dosing and potential side effects and whether beta-blockers should be given as a supplement to existing breast cancer treatment. Still, he and his colleagues are encouraged by these early results.
Source: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/cancer/art2897.html
The research team, based at Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, England, says that their study is the first ever to look at the relationship between beta-blockers and the spread of cancer. The study was presented last month at the European Cancer Organisation (ECCO)’s European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona, Spain.
The team found that the women who were taking beta-blockers had a 71% reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, and a 57% lower risk of developing a second type of cancer.
Des Powe and his colleagues followed 466 breast cancer patients, 92 of whom were on some sort of blood pressure medication. Of these, about half were taking beta-blockers when they were diagnosed with breast cancer. The team found that the women who were taking beta-blockers had a 71% reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, and a 57% lower risk of developing a second type of cancer. These numbers are in relation to women who were either taking a different kind of blood pressure medication or who weren’t taking any kind of blood pressure medication at all. This suggests that the differences seen were actually due to the action of the beta-blocker itself, rather than to the effect of lower blood pressure.
Powe explains that beta- blocker drugs compete with stress hormones and bind, at a cellular level, to the same target receptors as those hormones. But unlike stress hormones, beta-blocker drugs do not activate cancer cells. In other words, blocking the stress hormones may block the ability of the cancer to spread, because cancer cells depend on the presence of these hormones to do so.
Powe says that more research will be needed to assess proper dosing and potential side effects and whether beta-blockers should be given as a supplement to existing breast cancer treatment. Still, he and his colleagues are encouraged by these early results.
Source: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/cancer/art2897.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
