The original version of this blog is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Tongue Tied and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site


A major cause of increasing obesity is certainly the campaign against it -- as dieting usually makes people FATTER. If there were any sincerity to the obesity warriors, they would ban all diet advertising and otherwise shut up about it. Re-authorizing now-banned school playground activities and school outings would help too. But it is so much easier to blame obesity on the evil "multinationals" than it is to blame it on your own restrictions on the natural activities of kids

NOTE: "No trial has ever demonstrated benefits from reducing dietary saturated fat".

A brief summary of the last 50 years' of research into diet: Everything you can possibly eat or drink is both bad and good for you

****************************************************************************************



21 November, 2009

Study suggests that heavy drinking in men is ‘good for the heart’

Here we go again: I suspect that what was actually found is that Spaniards who don't drink alcohol are sick

Drinking alcohol may cut the risk of heart disease by almost a third in men according to a new study — although health campaigners have warned that the findings should be treated with caution. Spanish research on individuals aged between 29 and 69 found alcohol consumption could protect men from heart disease — regardless of the amount or type of alcohol they consumed. But the study found no significant effect in women. The study, which monitored more than 41,000 people, was published in the journal Heart.

Evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol can be beneficial to the heart, is well documented. But the study suggests that drinking much larger volumes also offers protection. Health experts however warned that heavy drinking can damage other organs, and cause premature death.

The Spanish researchers questioned participants in the study on their lifetime drinking habits, and how much they had consumed in the 12 months leading up to the study. Respondents were classed as those who had never consumed alcohol, former drinkers, low drinkers (drinking the equivalent of less than 5g of alcohol a day), moderate drinkers (between 5g and 30g a day), high drinkers (between 30g and 90g) and very high drinkers (more than 90g a day).

In Britain, one unit of alcohol contains 8g — equivalent to about half a pint of ordinary strength beer (3-4 per cent alcohol by volume), or a small pub measure (25ml) of spirits (40 per cent).

The number of coronary problems suffered over a ten-year period was then recorded and categorised according to alcohol consumption. The results showed moderate male drinkers could cut their risk by 51 per cent, high drinkers by 54 per cent and very high drinks by 50 per cent.

Robert Sutton, professor of surgery at the University of Liverpool, said the study had “several flaws” and should not be taken to suggest that high alcohol consumption can improve health. He said the finding that there was no relationship between alcohol and heart disease in women was “highly unusual” and suggested the need for more research.

Cathy Ross, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: “While moderate alcohol intake can lower the risk of having a heart attack, coronary heart disease is just one type of heart disease. “Cardiomyopathy, a disease of the heart muscle, is associated with high alcohol intake and can lead to a poor quality of life and premature death. “The heart is just one of many organs in the body, and while alcohol could offer limited protection to one organ, abuse of it can damage the heart and other organs such as the liver, pancreas and brain. “This study does not change the message that drinking moderately can be beneficial to the heart, but drinking in excess is harmful and a danger to your health generally.”

Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “The relationship between alcohol and heart disease remains controversial. “While there is good evidence that moderate consumption is protective in people who are at substantial risk of heart disease — which excludes most people under the age of 40 — we also know that most people underestimate how much they drink. “This paper adds to the existing literature, but should not be considered as definitive. Certainly, people should not be encouraged to drink more as a result of this research.”

SOURCE




An unusually sane comment on weight loss

Australian scientists Garry Egger and Sam Egger separate truth from fiction in the quest for weight loss. Garry Egger is Adjunct Professor of Health and Applied Sciences, Southern Cross University. Sam Egger is a statistician at the Cancer Council NSW.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about weight loss, which extends well beyond the public to health professionals. On one level, that is hardly surprising because the evidence can be very unclear. The science of health behaviour - including nutrition, exercise, sleep and weight management - is generally less developed than research relating to other medical questions. Unvetted ''expert'' claims abound.

Commercial sponsors of weight-loss diets make loud proclamations for the superiority of their product but lifetime adherence to a restrictive diet - which is necessary to keep off weight once it is lost - is unrealistic for most people.

We assessed the best available evidence on weight loss and maintenance and used this to compile a 20-statement survey - with true or false responses - which we then gave to two groups of people: 173 GPs and 129 truck drivers and tradesmen.

We found doctors were almost as confused as truckies and tradies. The doctors disagreed with most of the supporting evidence on 40 per cent of our questions, the others on 49 per cent.

The statements below attracted the most incorrect answers, with our summary of evidence for and against them. It seems doctors could benefit from more education and training in this area, and much more research into these questions is required, to confirm or challenge the accuracy of so-called ''facts'' on which weight-loss advice is based.

Fruit juice is about as fattening as beer - TRUE

In terms of kilojoule content, equivalent servings of fruit juice and beer are similar. But as alcohol cannot be stored in the body, and is never directly converted to fat, any fattening effect of alcohol is dependent on other factors, particularly accompanying energy intake. So the often-quoted ''beer belly'' is really more of a ''beer plus food and drink'' belly. Fruit juice is as potentially fattening as beer in equivalent amounts.

Humans need eight glasses of water a day - FALSE

The physiologist Heinz Valtin tried to track the basis of this belief, which he claims may be responsible for the excessive intake of high-calorie fluids in the modern diet.

Valtin showed a person's fluid needs depended on age, gender, activity level and state of health - as well as the weather - and varied from 500 millilitres (about three glasses) to four litres (24 glasses) a day. Despite the popularity of the eight glasses ''rule'', international guidelines on fluid intake, now under development, suggest it is arbitrary and meaningless.

Dairy products can help weight loss - TRUE

The accuracy of this statement remains controversial. Because of the fat content of most natural dairy products, a common belief exists that all dairy products cause weight gain. But recent research - both across communities and in dietary experiments with individuals - suggests eating low-fat dairy is linked to weight loss.

There are indications that certain dairy ingredients, such as whey protein, and combinations of ingredients, such as protein and calcium, can increase feelings of fullness, and increase the calories lost in the faeces - both of which may assist weight loss.

Chocolate is healthy provided it is dark - FALSE

There has been more than a decade of research on the health benefits of dark chocolate since the antioxidant effects of cocoa were discovered. Cocoa is high in bitter-tasting flavinoids, which are the prime source of such antioxidants but which many chocolate manufacturers extract to improve taste.

However, there are no labelling requirements to inform the consumer of this. Sugar, which can lessen the benefits of cocoa, is also often added to improve palatability. Hence, while genuine dark chocolate has health benefits, chocolate that is simply labelled ''dark'' does not necessarily have these benefits.

Exercise is better than dieting for weight loss - FALSE

It is easier to reduce energy intake by a given amount than to increase energy expenditure by the same amount. Reducing intake by 1000 calories a day, for example, is the equivalent of walking an extra 15 kilometres daily. For this reason, dieting is more likely to be successful in the early stages of a weight-loss program. But exercise is important in weight loss and it may be more important than dieting in the maintenance stage, after effective weight loss. And both psychological and physiological factors must be considered, in which case neither exercise nor dieting is better than the other.

A low-protein diet is best for weight loss - FALSE

The success of a weight-loss diet depends mainly on the total calories. Specific nutrients generally make little difference but some have advantages. Protein can increase the sensation of fullness, particularly in comparison to sugary, starchy carbohydrate foods. In the context of the modern high-calorie diet, a reasonable intake of protein is likely to be better for weight loss than a low-protein diet.

The present protein intake of about 13 to 15 per cent of total energy is well below the estimated 25 to 30 per cent often proposed for weight loss and a healthy diet.

Fat people don't get more hungry than lean people - TRUE

It is difficult to evaluate a subjective feeling such as hunger among individuals, but research indicates hunger is not a distinguishing factor in obesity. Much overeating has a psychological and environmental, rather than physiological, basis and hence there is little reason to believe in a difference in genuine hunger - as distinct from psychologically conditioned ''appetite'' - between slim and overweight people.

Swimming is better than walking for weight loss - FALSE

In general, the best exercises for weight loss are those that are weight-bearing, such as walking or jogging. Up to 30 per cent less energy is used in activities such as swimming or cycling, which support weight and can be carried out at a more leisurely pace.

Because fat floats, an obese individual is likely to use relatively less energy while swimming, particularly if that person is an experienced swimmer. This does not negate the benefits of swimming as an exercise but reduces its relative effectiveness for fat loss compared with walking.

Weight lifting is good for fat loss - TRUE

In general, any form of exercise involving energy expenditure has benefit for weight loss. Resistance training is often underrated and considered only for the development of strength or size. However, where large muscles or muscle groups are used - or in resistance training using light weights at high repetitions - weight lifting can be effective for weight loss as well as muscle strengthening.

The best measure of body fat is body mass index -FALSE

Body mass index - a ratio of weight to height - does not correlate well with fatness in individuals. Body mass index is less accurate in people with a more muscular body type, some ethnic groups such as Pacific Islanders, and the elderly, whose height shrinks with age. This can lead to unrealistic goal weights. Waist circumference and some other body measures, or bioimpedance analysis, provide better estimates of body fat.

You lose more weight doing exercise you are good at - FALSE

Individuals become more efficient and expend less energy as they become experienced with a particular form of exercise. A fit, experienced runner, for example, requires less energy to cover a set distance than an unfit individual of the same weight, age and gender. Weight loss requires excess energy expenditure, which comes more from activities with which an individual is not so familiar.

An obese person can be fit and healthy - TRUE

While fitness and fatness are usually inversely linked, studies have shown that many active individuals can maintain good health irrespective of body weight. There is also accumulating evidence that a significant proportion of obese individuals do not suffer the damaging metabolic effects from their extra weight that might be expected, while a significant proportion of lean individuals do suffer such health problems. This has led to new questions about the effects of obesity as a marker, rather than a cause, of disease.

SOURCE





20 November, 2009

Study claims that walking slowly increases heart disease risk

Cheeesh! More colossal stupidity. They've discovered that people in poor health walk more slowly so say that slow walking causes poor health! Unbelievable

Slow walking may not only mean getting to your destination later but it could also be taking its toll on your health, according to a French study. Researchers from the Paris-based medical research institute Inserm found that older people who walk slowly are almost three times more likely to die of heart disease and related causes than older people who walk faster. "The main message for the general population is that maintaining fitness at older age may have important consequences and help preserve life and (muscle) function," researcher Alexis Elbaz, director of research at Inserm, said.

He said the study, which appeared in the journal BMJ, also suggests that a test of walking speed might be used to test the health of elderly patients. Previous studies had linked slow walking speed with increased risk of death over a given period, as well as with falls and other bad health outcomes, but hadn't shown whether it was heart disease or another cause that accounted for that higher risk.

The five-year study, part of Inserm's ongoing Three City Study, involved more than 3200 relatively fit men and women, aged 65 to 85, living in three French cities. At the start of the study in 1999, the scientists assessed the health of each participant and clocked the participants' speeds as they walked down a corridor as fast as possible.

Over the next five years, 209 of the participants died - 99 from cancer, 59 from heart disease and 53 from infectious diseases and other causes - for an overall death rate of almost seven per cent. The death rate among the slowest-walking one-third of participants - those men who walked at the equivalent of about 5.4km/h or slower and women who walked at about 4.8km/h or slower - was 44 per cent higher than that among the two-thirds of participants who had walked faster. Death from heart attack, stroke, and related causes was 2.9 times more common among the slowest one-third of participants than among the participants who had walked faster.

The increase in death from heart disease was seen in both men and women and was unrelated to the ages of participants or how physically active they were. The researchers found no connection between walking speed and other causes of death, including cancer.

Mr Elbaz said one possibility for the result was that the same risk factors that raises heart disease risk - high blood pressure and diabetes - also causes "silent strokes" that make it hard to walk fast. This idea "deserves additional studies to be confirmed," he said.

SOURCE




A food cop failure

New York began requiring calorie counts on restaurant chains' menu boards in July 2008. The first study to examine the regulation's impact, reported in the American Economic Review last May, found that average calorie intake (measured by receipts showing what a sample of customers had bought) remained basically the same at a Manhattan coffee shop and at a Manhattan location of a hamburger chain, while falling by 77 calories at a Brooklyn location of the same chain.

Another study of New York's menu mandate, reported in Health Affairs last month, was even less encouraging. The researchers found that the average calorie count for meals at four fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods (McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC) rose by 2.5 percent after the rule took effect.

Comparing interview responses to diners' receipts, the researchers found that what people said did not correspond very well to what they ate. The share of diners who said they noticed calorie counts rose dramatically after the menu mandate kicked in, from less than 20 percent to 54 percent. But less than a quarter of those who reported seeing calorie information said it led them to consume fewer calories, and "even those who indicated that the calorie information influenced their food choices," the researchers noted, "did not actually purchase fewer calories."

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene prefers to cite its own, unpublished data, but even these numbers do not live up to the hype that preceded the menu mandate. Surveying 275 locations, the department found statistically significant drops in calorie consumption at just four out of 13 chains (McDonald's, KFC, Au Bon Pain and Starbucks).

It appears that all of these decreases were modest. The one highlighted by the health department was a 23-calorie drop at Starbucks, 9 percent of the pre-regulation average.

"We were not expecting to see miracles," a health department official told The New York Times. But it's hard to see how such weak results -- which may not even represent net reductions, since people could easily make up for fewer calories at Starbucks by eating more elsewhere -- can possibly stop 150,000 people from becoming obese and prevent 30,000 cases of diabetes over five years, as the health department predicted last year. Nor are they likely to translate into an average weight loss of 3 pounds a year, as the California Center for Public Health Advocacy claimed in pushing that state's menu mandate.

Press coverage of the health department's study emphasized a seemingly more impressive finding: Diners who said they saw calorie information and used it in deciding what to eat -- 15 percent of all customers -- consumed 106 fewer calories than the other diners. But that difference cannot be attributed to the menu mandate, since diners who use nutritional information are apt to be the ones who were most calorie-conscious to begin with.

Such customers had this information even before New York decreed that it appear on menu boards, since fast food chains were already providing calorie counts on their Websites and on posters, tray mats and flyers in their restaurants. The impact of making the numbers more conspicuous was therefore limited to the customers who were least inclined to use them, and the same will be true if a similar menu mandate is imposed nationwide.

SOURCE





19 November, 2009

Old ladies with inflamed arteries can be helped a little by statins

Provided they can stand the side-effects. My summary heading above is accurate. Compare that with the newspaper headline: "Statins reduce risks of heart attack in women by nearly half, research suggests". Things to note: 1). A relative 46% reduction is tiny in absolute terms. 2). The article has not passed peer-review and been published so no info is publicly available on dropout rates. Almost certainly, the dropout rate among the non-placebo group was high because of the severe side-effects. So only women who were robust to start with would have completed the trial in that group. If so, the results are meaningless. The determination to show benefit from statins really is pathetic

Women who take a statin can reduce their risk of having a heart attack or stroke by nearly 50 per cent, even if they do not have unhealthy cholesterol levels, research suggests. A daily dose of Crestor (rosuvastatin) reduced the chances of subsequent cardiovascular events by 46 per cent compared with those who took a placebo.

The trial involved almost 18,000 people — one in seven of them from Britain. Initial findings that showed an overall benefit for men and women who took the drug were published last year. The latest analysis, focusing on the effects for women, were presented to the meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida.

More than six million people are prescribed statins to lower their cholesterol levels, but at present the drugs are given only to those at significant risk of a heart attack or stroke.

All the women involved in the trial were over 60 years of age and did not have high cholesterol. They each had high levels of a protein called hsCRP — high sensitivity C-reactive protein — which is linked to inflammation in the arteries.

Sarah Jarvis, a GP in London and the Royal College of General Practitioners’ spokeswoman for women’s health, said: “Cardiovascular disease can be mistaken as an ‘old man’s’ disease, while unfortunately the evidence suggests that people are suffering cardiovascular events younger and more women are at risk of developing the disease. “There has long been support for the wider use of statins in women but we didn’t have the outcomes data to support these recommendations. This data is extremely exciting.”

SOURCE




British government advisers rethink calorie counting

Once again what was wisdom yesterday is wrong today

Slimmers, rejoice — those forbidden sweet treats or extra bags of crisps may no longer be off-limits. Scientists advising the Government say that the calorie counts used as the basis of diet plans and healthy-eating advice for the past 18 years may be wrong.

According to a draft report by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), the recommended daily intake of calories — currently 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men — could be increased by up to 16 per cent, suggesting that some adults could safely consume an extra 400 calories a day (equivalent to an average-sized cheeseburger, or two bags of ready-salted crisps).

The committee, made up of some of Britain’s leading nutritional experts, says that its report provides a much more accurate assessment of how energy can be burnt off through physical activity.

However, health campaigners and consumer experts warned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to “sweep this report under the carpet”, as it could send out mixed messages in the middle of a [non-existent] obesity epidemic.

Ministers are considering the introduction of new food-labelling schemes that would highlight the calorie content of foods relative to guideline daily amounts (GDAs). Industry sources expressed concern that revising figures and estimates on which the GDAs were based could cause confusion among consumers and mistrust of scientific advice. The FSA has been evaluating for two years new methods of labelling, including a “traffic light” scheme to colour-code unhealthy food. Existing guidelines on energy intake required for good health have formed the basis of food labelling and dietary advice from doctors and nutritionists since 1991. If the committee’s proposals are accepted some foods would be upgraded to a healthier rating.

The draft proposals, seen by The Times and The Grocer magazine, are due to go out for a 14-week consultation before final recommendations are made. The report comes two weeks after the Government’s chief drugs advisor was sacked by the Home Secretary for “crossing a line” by publicly criticising existing policy.

About 60 per cent of British adults are overweight or obese, with growth in the nation’s waistlines being blamed on sedentary lifestyles as well as excessive eating. The cost of overweight and obese individuals to the NHS is estimated to be £4.2 billion a year [Rubbish! People of middling weight are healthier than either skinnies or fatties] and the Department of Health has pledged to cut levels of childhood obesity partly through its £375 million “Change4Life” strategy.

Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, said it was a “dangerous assumption” to say that adults could safely consume an extra 400 calories a day. “This is not a green light to eat yourself silly,” he said.

The last significant study on energy use, carried out by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy in 1991, was based on observational studies, with students being shut in a room for a week having their breathing measured, a method prone to underestimating “normal” levels of physical activity. SACN assessed studies using the Double Labelled Water technique, which measures how much carbon dioxide the body has produced converted into equivalent values of energy.

Adam Leyland, editor of The Grocer, said: “The ramifications for the industry are significant, to say the least. All the UK’s labelling schemes, including GDAs and traffic lights, are based around the 1991 energy report.”

SOURCE





18 November, 2009

No Cranberries in Texas? No Lobster in Colorado? Blame the ‘Locavores.’

Researchers at MIT and Columbia University believe the answer to the so-called obesity “epidemic” lies in getting Americans to eat more regional food. So they’re outlining different “foodsheds” that we should all be relying on for our needs —especially if we live in a U.S. city. Will it work? Can we afford it? Let’s take a look. The PhysOrg news service spells out the proposal:

Each metropolitan area, the researchers say, should obtain most of its nutrition from its own “foodshed,” a term akin to “watershed” meaning the area that naturally supplies its kitchens … [T]hese local efforts should form a larger “Integrated Regional Foodshed” system, intended to lower the price and caloric content of food by lowering distances food must travel, from the farm to the dinner table.

Lower the price? We don’t know about shopping in New England, but the farmers’ markets selling “local” foods in our nation’s capital are where people go for $11-per-pound pork chops and $5 pints of raspberries, not discounts. As for lowering the caloric content, it’s hard to see how a local carrot might have fewer calories from a carrot that’s traveled 500 miles. Unless it’s a scrawny organic veggie, of course—which makes the price differential even more appalling.

We suspect that these researchers’ real motive is to attack what they see as a food system that’s too efficient and provides too many calories. But with over 1 billion hungry people in the world, efficient food production is hardly a bad thing.

So-called “locavore” advocates usually make environmental arguments for reducing our “food miles,” the distance food travels from farm to fork. This, too, is just another trendy foodie myth. In 2006, researchers at New Zealand’s Lincoln University compared the emissions and energy performance of their country’s domestic agriculture industry. They found that shipping lamb from New Zealand to England was four times less emissions-intensive than serving the Brits lamb produced right in the UK.

Why is this so? Because of economies of scale. It’s the same reason fresh flowers grown in Kenya and shipped to England have a smaller environmental impact than blooms grown by Dutch producers closer to home. The production process in Kenya is much more efficient, and emits fewer greenhouse gases per flower. This efficiency more than makes up for the jet (or truck) fuel burned to bring it to market. Food miles, the New Zealand researchers aptly note, is “a very simplistic concept.”

But back to today’s “foodshed” research: If switching to a regional-food-only diet has any chance of reducing our waistlines, it’s likely to be the result of food boredom. Maybe people in Boise will eventually get sick of eating recipes dominated by sugar beets and potatoes. And as for Alaskans and North Dakotans, a long canned-food winter is enough to make anyone eat less. Especially when they see everything Californians would be allowed to eat in a locavore utopia.

Of course, instead of slimming down by ditching our whole food production system, people could simply balance their calorie intake with physical activity. Or would that be too simplistic?

SOURCE




Female 'Viagra' boosts woman's sex drive after failing as antidepressant

A 'female Viagra' that works on the pleasure centre of a woman's brain to restore flagging libido could be on sale within two years. Women who take flibanserin once a day make love more often and enjoy it more, large-scale trials have shown. The pill proved so popular that its German manufacturers are poised to apply for permission to sell it across Europe, meaning it could be on British bedside tables by 2011.

With up to a quarter of women suffering from low libido, it is predicted to be at least as successful as Viagra, with worldwide sales topping £2billion a year. Like Viagra, which was originally designed to treat heart problems, flibanserin was formulated with another purpose in mind. It was created as an anti-depressant. However, those taking part in trials said it did nothing to boost their mood but did wonders for their sex drive.

Trials involving almost 2,000 women with low libido have now confirmed its worth as an aphrodisiac. After taking the drug, the women made love 60 per cent more often and also found it more satisfying. They also felt less stressed about their sex lives, the European Society for Sexual Medicine's annual conference heard yesterday.

The drug works directly on the brain's pleasure zones, correcting levels of the chemicals involved in generating feelings of desire. Researcher Dr Elaine Jolly said: 'By modulating these systems, flibanserin may help to restore a balance between inhibitory and excitatory factors, leading to a healthy sexual response.' However, it takes several weeks for the effect to build up, meaning it cannot simply be 'popped' on demand. It also has side-effects, with up to one in eight of the women in the trials dropping out with dizziness, fatigue and sleep problems.

It is not known yet how much it will cost, but is unlikely to be widely prescribed by a Health Service struggling to find cash to fund treatment of life-threatening illnesses. Some doctors are also sceptical about the need for pills to boost female sex drive.

But Paula Hall, of Relate, said: 'Female loss of libido is a big problem and it is not going away. It can cause problems within a relationship and affect self-esteem. 'This research is really quite exciting for women with loving partners whose loss of libido is a physical thing. But it is not going to fix a broken relationship or help with looking after the kids or cleaning the house.'

SOURCE





17 November, 2009

Household chores found to be damaging to sperm count (?)

What they actually found was that people who had high exposures to strong magnentic fields had lower sperm counts. They did NOT trace the sources of those fields. It seems reasonable that they were factory workers who probably had poorer health anyway and hence the fields were not to blame

It's the get-out clause work-shy husbands have been praying for. A study has found doing household chores could reduce a man's chances of having children.

Researchers exposed male volunteers to electromagnetic fields – high doses of which are produced by all electrically charged objects, including refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and microwaves – and found such exposure could double the risk of having poor-quality sperm, the Daily Mail reports.

Fertility expert Dr De-Kun Li said his work provides the first evidence of a link between electrical goods and declining male fertility. Dr Li, of Stanford University, California, said he would advise men and couples trying for a baby to reduce their exposure to electromagnetic fields as much as possible. "I’m not saying you shouldn’t use a microwave but it makes sense to turn it on, then move away and go back when it is done," Dr Li said. "Keep devices, especially those with electric motors, away from the body."

The study recruited 148 donors at a sperm bank in Shanghai. Tests showed that 76 had poor sperm mobility, shape or count, while 72 had good-quality sperm. Those volunteers whose job involved working with high temperatures or being exposed to chemicals linked to sperm damage, such as solvents and pesticides, were excluded. Participants were asked to wear meters which took readings of magnetic fields every four seconds for 24 hours on days they considered ‘typical’.

They found that the half of the group who had peak readings above 0.16 microtesla – a measure of magnetic field strength – were twice as likely to have low sperm quality as those with readings below this level. Dr Li’s team also revealed the chances of having poor sperm quality increased as the time exposed to higher-strength magnetic fields rose. "This is the first study to show a link between measured electromagnetic fields and poor semen quality in humans, which may provide a logical explanation for why we have seen reductions in sperm quality in men over the past century."

Although the study, due to be published in January in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, did not look at what was producing the magnetic fields, electrical appliances – especially those containing motors such as hairdryers – produce high frequencies and therefore strong magnetic fields.

In previous studies, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, a poor diet, drug use and obesity have all been shown to reduce sperm count. Dr Allan Pacey, of the British Fertility Society and a fertility researcher at Sheffield University, said he believed there might be something in it. "If these results are repeated in a bigger study, we need to start thinking seriously about promoting advice about avoiding exposure," Dr Pacey said.

SOURCE




FDA backs off oyster ban after strong criticism

A rare retreat for the food dictators

Facing fierce resistance, the Obama administration on Friday backed off a plan to ban sales of raw oysters from the Gulf of Mexico during warm-weather months. The Food and Drug Administration said it would put the proposal on hold while it studies ways to make the popular shellfish safer.

The abrupt turnaround came as oyster-lovers and industry officials _ as well as Democrats and Republicans across the Gulf _ blasted the plan as unnecessary government meddling. Industry officials said it could have killed a $500 million economy and thousands of jobs. "They might have been tone-deaf in the beginning, but they got the tune pretty quickly and listened to what we had to say," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg notified her of the decision Friday afternoon. "I'm really thankful that they listened."

About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between April and October. Most of the deaths occur in people with weak immune systems caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or AIDS. While the total number of deaths is small compared with the annual estimates of 5,000 U.S. deaths from food-borne illnesses, FDA officials say it is a relatively high frequency that could be easily eliminated by processing oysters through treatments such as pasteurization.

Industry officials argue that anti-bacterial processing is too costly. They also say the treatments ruin the fresh taste and texture of raw oysters, which are considered a delicacy by many, particularly in the Gulf, which supplies about two-thirds of the U.S. oyster harvest.

Mike Voisin, an industry leader and oyster processor in Houma, La., said the FDA's proposal had became "a focal point for people to vent" during a time of pent-up anxiety. "Who can understand the bailout of Chrysler? Who could read a 1,000-plus page health care bill?" Voisin said. "This they could understand."

Kevin Begos, the director of the Franklin County Oyster & Seafood Task Force in Apalachicola, Fla., said FDA was snowed under by complaints. "We got 6,000 signatures on our petition in a week and on Facebook we had 7,000 members in one week," Begos said. "We got broad support: restaurants, food lovers and support from people who don't even like oysters who felt that consumers have a right to choose what food they want to eat."

In a statement, FDA said it heard "legitimate concerns" and decided that further studies are necessary to explore the feasibility and costs of new processing requirements. The White House declined to comment.

The oyster industry has been working with regulators for years to improve its safety performance by increasing refrigeration and trying to raise awareness of the hazards to people with weak immune systems. But the FDA says the results haven't changed much. The agency points to California as evidence that the ban is needed. In 2003, the state prohibited untreated Gulf oysters and has not seen any confirmed deaths since. By comparison, between 1991 and 2001, 40 people died in California from the infection.

The FDA proposal _ which was announced last month and had been slated to go into effect in 2011 _ would have prohibited sales of raw oysters from the Gulf for much of the year unless the shellfish were treated.

SOURCE





16 November, 2009

Long term relationships lead to healthier babies

Sheeesh! The nonsense never stops. Married women almost certainly have less risky lifestyles and THAT is why their babies are healthier -- not the nonsense below

Scientists found that women who had slept with a partner exclusively for at least six months had fewer undersized babies and a lower rate of pre-eclampsia - pregnancy induced high blood pressure. Experts believe that the reason for the healthier birth is long-term exposure to the biological father's sperm which boosts the immune system.

In the study by Auckland University in New Zealand researchers asked 2,507 first time pregnant women how long they had been with the baby's father. It was found that when the pregnancies came to term, pre-eclampsia was found to be less common in women who had long-term sexual relations exclusively with the biological father, than in those who had been with their partner only for a short time. The study also revealed that women who had undersized babies were also more likely to have been in shorter relationships.

Dr Larry Chamley, the lead author from the think tank Faculty of 1000 Medicine and also Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Auckland, said that female immune system was boosted by exposure to "paternal antigens" - beneficial antibodies in the male sperm. "Although the issue of whether prolonged semen exposure does protect against developing pre-eclampsia is not yet resolved this paper seems to tip the weight of evidence back in favour of suggesting that prolonged semen exposure is protective," he said.

The results of the study, published in the Journal of Reproductive Immunology, were adjusted for the lifestyle and background of the women including their weight, whether they smoked and their general health. Those who did not know the identity of the father were excluded from the research.

SOURCE




Obesity in America linked to 'liquid Satan' from Iowa corn fields

I like the first sentence below: "The link has not been proven". Obesity is a product of total food intake, not where you get the calories from

The link has not been proven, but the theory is compelling. It suggests that America is doomed to lead the world’s obesity rankings as long as the process by which it elects its presidents starts in Iowa — a state known for its cornfields and corn subsidies.

With a minimum price of $1.90 per bushel of corn guaranteed by the 2007 Farm Bill, activists say that the crop is a guaranteed winner for the farmers of the Midwest — and one of the results is something called super-abundant high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Known to its detractors as “liquid Satan”, HFCS is the sweetener of choice in the vast bulk of fizzy drinks and packaged cakes and biscuits consumed in the US. Its producers have long enjoyed the solid support of the US Senate and most presidential candidates, who gravitate every four years to Iowa to pledge their allegiance to its voters. “Farm subsidies are a third rail of Iowa politics,” a former staffer on Senator John Edwards’s presidential campaign said yesterday. “You don’t touch them.”

President Obama certainly didn’t. As an Illinois Senator and presidential candidate, he consistently backed corn subsidies, on the grounds that they promoted the production of corn-based ethanol and thereby enhanced US energy security.

The 2007 Farm Bill conferred more than $2 billion on Iowa in corn subsidies for 2007 to 2012 — nearly 80 per cent of the state’s subsidies for all crops for the period. Americans’ consumption of corn on the cob has not risen markedly as a result, but their intake of HFCS has been climbing for decades, from 0.6lb per person per year in 1970 to 73.5lb in 2007.

It is sugars that make people put on weight, the paediatrician James Bailes insists. “I used to tell people to eat less fat and exercise more — and none of them lost weight,” he said. “It’s the carbohydrates, the sugary drinks, that do the damage.”

SOURCE





15 November, 2009

The old Bisphenol scare rumbles on

Anti-business alarmists have been trying for years to demonize this stuff so every now and again they should get an apparent hit by chance alone. In this case the groups with different levels of exposure probably differed in other ways and even if we accept the findings it probably shows only that many things (even water) can be harmful if you ingest huge amounts of them. It does not follow that something ingested in huge amounts is harmful in small amounts. The opposite can be true. Check hormesis

Exposure to high levels of a controversial chemical found in thousands of everyday plastic products appears to cause erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems in men, according to a new study published Wednesday. The study, funded by the federal government and published in the journal Human Reproduction, is the first to examine the impact of bisphenol A, or BPA, on the reproductive systems of human males. Previous studies have involved mice or rats.

The research comes as government agencies debate the safety of BPA, a compound that is found in thousands of consumer products ranging from dental sealants to canned food linings and that is so ubiquitous it has been detected in the urine of 93 percent of the U.S. population.

Researchers focused on 634 male workers at four factories in China who were exposed to elevated levels of BPA. They followed the men over five years and compared their sexual health with that of male workers in other Chinese factories where BPA was not present. The men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty with ejaculation, said De-Kun Li, a scientist at the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, which conducted the study with funds from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

BPA, which was developed in the 1930s as a synthetic version of estrogen, appears to throw off the hormonal balance in the human body, Li said. The workers studied did not have to spend years in the factory to develop problems -- sexual dysfunction began in new workers after just months on the job, Li said.

The workers had levels of exposure to BPA that were 50 times what an average U.S. man faces. But the findings raise questions about whether exposure at lesser levels can affect sexual function, Li said. "This was a highly exposed group, and we see the effect," he said. "Now, we have to worry about lower-level exposure."

Li said the study is significant because chemical manufacturers and other defenders of BPA have long complained that research raising questions about its health effects was conducted on laboratory animals. "Critics dismissed all the animal studies, saying, 'Show us the human studies,' " Li said. "Now we have a human study, and this can't just be dismissed."

Since BPA is most readily absorbed through food and drink containers, health advocates have been particularly focused on how the Food and Drug Administration is regulating the chemical. The agency has maintained that BPA is safe. But a growing body of research over the past decade has linked BPA to a range of health effects in laboratory animals, including infertility, weight gain, behavioral changes, early-onset puberty, cancer and diabetes.

Steven G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, said the new study has little meaning for consumers. "Although this study presents interesting information, it has little relevance to average consumers who are exposed to trace levels of BPA," he said.

Still, concern about the chemical among consumers has created pressure in the marketplace. Manufacturers have pledged to take BPA out of baby bottles and water bottles. A handful of jurisdictions around the country have banned BPA from baby products, and similar measures are pending in state legislatures.

Last year, the FDA's scientific advisory board criticized the agency for ignoring more than 100 academic and government studies that linked BPA with health effects. The Obama administration has pledged a "fresh look" at the issue, and the FDA is expected to complete that review by the end of this month.

Meanwhile, the federal government announced last month that it is giving $30 million to researchers across the country over the next two years in an aggressive push to advance knowledge about BPA and end the debate about its safety.

SOURCE




Yoghurt drinks could beat bugs that pile the weight on

Rather a long-shot, I think. The finding is that the bactertial load adjusts by itself quite strongly, so trying to alter it seems futile

Bugs that live in our stomachs could be causing us to get fat, research suggests. Scientists have shown that the type of bugs in our gut change depending on the food we eat. And bacteria that thrives on junk food may make it easier for us to pile on the pounds. The discovery, by U.S. scientists, suggests that bugs found in the digestive tract are helping fuel the obesity epidemic.

The research could also open the way to designing probiotic yoghurts similar to Yakult to combat weight gain.

The link between bugs and weight gain was discovered when the researchers gave mice 'transplants' of bugs among the trillions normally found in the human gut. A junk food binge rapidly altered the make-up of the bugs, with some types thriving and others struggling to survive.

To study the effect of the changes, the researchers from Washington University in Missouri, took stomach bugs from mice fed fatty food and injected them into lean mice. These mice rapidly put on weight, despite being fed low-fat foods, the journal Science Translational Medicine reports. It is thought that stomach bugs that thrive when we eat fatty foods affect metabolism, leading to more fat being stored.

In future, probiotic drinks or supplements designed to boost numbers of the bugs that prefer healthier foods could help keep us trim.

Harvard University obesity expert Jeffrey Flier said that many factors contribute to obesity and it is important to find new ways of combating them. He wrote: 'The gut microbiome (population of bacteria) seems poised to serve as such a promising new scientific platform. It is important, however, to keep this new knowledge in perspective.'

SOURCE







SITE MOTTO: "Epidemiology is mostly bunk"

Where it is not bunk is when it shows that some treatment or influence has no effect on lifespan or disease incidence. It is as convincing as disproof as it is unconvincing as proof. Think about it. As Einstein said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Epidemiological studies are useful for hypothesis-generating or for hypothesis-testing of theories already examined in experimental work but they do not enable causative inferences by themselves

The standard of reasoning that one commonly finds in epidemiological journal articles is akin to the following false syllogism:
Chairs have legs
You have legs
So therefore you are a chair


"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact" -- Charles Darwin


"Most men die of their remedies, not of their diseases", said Moliere. That may no longer be true but there is still a lot of false medical "wisdom" around that does harm to various degrees. And showing its falsity is rarely the problem. The problem is getting people -- medical researchers in particular -- to abandon their preconceptions


Bertrand Russell could have been talking about today's conventional dietary "wisdom" when he said: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”


"Obesity" is 77% genetic. So trying to make fatties slim is punishing them for the way they were born. That sort of thing is furiously condemned in relation to homosexuals so why is it OK for fatties?


****************

Some more problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

11). A major cause of increasing obesity is certainly the campaign against it -- as dieting usually makes people FATTER. If there were any sincerity to the obesity warriors, they would ban all diet advertising and otherwise shut up about it. Re-authorizing now-banned school playground activities and school outings would help too. But it is so much easier to blame obesity on the evil "multinationals" than it is to blame it on your own restrictions on the natural activities of kids

12. Fascism: "What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

*********************


More on salt (See point 5 above): Salt is a major source of iodine, which is why salt is normally "iodized" by official decree. Cutting back salt consumption runs the risk of iodine deficiency, with its huge adverse health impacts -- goiter, mental retardation etc. GIVE YOUR BABY PLENTY OF SALTY FOODS -- unless you want to turn it into a cretin


Trans fats: For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.


The "antioxidant" religion: The experimental evidence is that antioxidants SHORTEN your life, if anything. Studies here and here and here and here and here and here and here, for instance. That they are of benefit is a great theory but it is one that has been coshed by reality plenty of times.


The medical consensus is often wrong. The best known wrongheaded medical orthodoxy is that stomach ulcers could not be caused by bacteria because the stomach is so acidic. Disproof of that view first appeared in 1875 (Yes. 1875) but the falsity of the view was not widely recognized until 1990. Only heroic efforts finally overturned the consensus and led to a cure for stomach ulcers. See here and here and here.


NOTE: "No trial has ever demonstrated benefits from reducing dietary saturated fat".


Huge ($400 million) clinical trial shows that a low fat diet is useless . See also here and here


Dieticians are just modern-day witch-doctors. There is no undergirding for their usual recommendations in double-blind studies.


The fragility of current medical wisdom: Would you believe that even Old Testament wisdom can sometimes trump medical wisdom? Note this quote: "Spiess discussed Swedish research on cardiac patients that compared Jehovah's Witnesses who refused blood transfusions to patients with similar disease progression during open-heart surgery. The research found those who refused transfusions had noticeably better survival rates.


Relying on the popular wisdom can certainly hurt you personally: "The scientific consensus of a quarter-century ago turned into the arthritic nightmare of today."


Since many of my posts here make severe criticisms of medical research, I should perhaps point out that I am also a severe critic of much research in my own field of psychology. See here and here


This is NOT an "alternative medicine" site. Perhaps the only (weak) excuse for the poorly substantiated claims that often appear in the medical literature is the even poorer level of substantiation offered in the "alternative" literature.


I used to teach social statistics in a major Australian university and I find medical statistics pretty obfuscatory. They seem uniformly designed to make mountains out of molehills. Many times in the academic literature I have excoriated my colleagues in psychology and sociology for going ga-ga over very weak correlations but what I find in the medical literature makes the findings in the social sciences look positively muscular. In fact, medical findings are almost never reported as correlations -- because to do so would exhibit how laughably trivial they generally are. If (say) 3 individuals in a thousand in a control group had some sort of an adverse outcome versus 4 out of a thousand in a group undergoing some treatment, the difference will be published in the medical literature with great excitement and intimations of its importance. In fact, of course, such small differences are almost certainly random noise and are in any rational calculus unimportant. And statistical significance is little help in determining the importance of a finding. Statistical significance simply tells you that the result was unlikely to be an effect of small sample size. But a statistically significant difference could have been due to any number of other randomly-present factors.


Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology: below:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.


The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of the prevailing health "wisdom" of today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."


The Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition says (p. 384): "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Very few of the studies criticized on this blog meet that criterion.


Improbable events do happen at random -- as mathematician John Brignell notes rather tartly:
"Consider, instead, my experiences in the village pub swindle. It is based on the weekly bonus ball in the National Lottery. It so happens that my birth date is 13, so that is the number I always choose. With a few occasional absences abroad I have paid my pound every week for a year and a half, but have never won. Some of my neighbours win frequently; one in three consecutive weeks. Furthermore, I always put in a pound for my wife for her birth date, which is 11. She has never won either. The probability of neither of these numbers coming up in that period is less than 5%, which for an epidemiologist is significant enough to publish a paper.