Chronicling the Assortment of Anthocyanin Benefits

Black currant berries are a very rich source of Anthocyanins.

Anthocyanins – the phytochemical compound found in brightly colored vegetables – are so health-promoting, so ubiquitous in their disease prevention, there ought to be an anthocyanin anthology.

As documented here, anthocyanins help prevent cancer cell growth.  And as documented here, the anthocyanins in red cabbage helps prevent Alzheimer’s and metabolic syndrome.

The latest addition to the anthocyanin anthology?  They may improve one’s cholesterol profile.

Anyone at least mildly versed in health matters knows there are two types of cholesterol:  HDL, the good kind, and LDL, the bad kind.  So the ideal way to improve that profile is to increase the good cholesterol while lowering the bad cholesterol, right?
Well, anthocyanins appear able to pull off that double-duty trick…and then some.

According to a study of 120 people (not rats, as is so often the case), participants supplementing with high amounts of anthocyanin reduced their LDL cholesterol by nearly 14 percent (13.6 percent) and increased their HDL profile by 14 percent (13.7 percent).  This was based on a 12-week study of 40 to 65-year-old men and women, all of whom had dyslipidemia.  Dyslipidemia is a blood disorder characterized by high levels of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, or both.

Approximately half of the participants received a daily supplement containing 320 milligrams of anthocyanins for about three months.  The other half received a placebo.  By the end of the study, the anthocyanin contingent saw serious improvements in their cholesterol count (again, about a 14 percent uptick in HDL), while the placebo group barely scratched the surface in improvement (a mere 3 percent increased HDL count).  And the LDL lowering fared even worse – just a 0.6 percent drop (compared to the anthrocyanin group, which dropped 13.6 percent).

The study was randomized and double-blind, which lends credibility to the test because it means that neither the test subjects nor the researchers themselves knew whether the supplement contained anthocyanins or were water pills.

The researchers – who hail from Sun Yat-Sen University in Kaohsiung, China – believe that anthocyanins help improve cholesterol profiles because of an LDL cholesterol-clearing protein they contain called CETP. CETP replaces triglycerides with cholesterol esters, the chemical compound make-up of HDL.

The study is published in the online version of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, soon to be published in its print version.

I’m all for supplementation, as most of you know, but there’s nothing better than getting anthocyanins from foods themselves.  And because anthocyanins are what give fruits and vegetables their color, anyone who eats their fruits and veggies regularly is getting a healthy dose of anthocyanins already.

But for those looking for the highest yield, look no further than the bodacious berry.  Berries are chock full of them, even fruits that resemble berries but aren’t really berries, like grapes and cherries.  The supreme leader of the berry barrel in anthocyanins is the black currant, which can carry up to 400 mg for every 100 grams.

The blackberry, blueberry, chokeberry and cranberry round out the top five berries.

But that’s among berries.  If you’re looking for the head honcho, the grand poo-bah in anthocyanin count, that title goes to the underappreciated eggplant.  There’s a whopping 750 milligrams of anthocyanins in 100 grams of eggplant.

Source:
nutraingredients.com
food-info.net

Study Says Protein Is “Whey” Good For Heart Health

Whey protein supplementing improves heart health by increasing blood flow, study concludes.

In the debate over which protein source is better for you – soy or whey – most natural health advocates wouldn’t hesitate for a moment:  Whey, they say, pooh-poohing soy all the way.

As documented here, I feel no need to censure soy, as it has an array of heart healthy benefits, particularly for women.  But I’m also no respecter of non-meat protein sources either, meaning that I don’t advocate one over the other:  soy and whey both have their strong points. The latest study on the heart-healthy benefits of whey illustrates this.

When most people think of whey and soy, they think of how it’s going to fuel their muscles after hitting the gym.  But in the study conducted by University of Connecticut researchers, they wanted to know how whey fueled the most important of muscles:  the heart.

Prognosis?  Positive.

Quite positive, in fact.  After just two weeks of 20 healthy men and women supplementing with five grams of whey protein, they found that their blood flow improved for everyone!

The measure in which they assessed blood flow was through something called flow-mediated dilation, FMD for short.  Flow-mediation dilation testing assesses how effectively blood is flowing to and from the heart by analyzing the endothelium, or the inner lining of the blood vessels.  FMD is considered to be the first line of defense in determining whether or not someone’s at risk for atherosclerosis, or a hardening of the arteries.  It’s also considered to be a precursor to heart disease.

The study is published in Nutrition Journal.

As noted by Nutra-Ingredients.com, Frost & Sullivan (a market research organization with offices throughout the world) says that four supplements dominate the heart-health supplement market:  beta-glucan, omega-3s, soy and phytosterols.  If further investigation into the heart-health benefits of whey indicate it benefits people with deteriorating health (those who have flow-mediated dysfunction, for example) that’s all the better for heart-health conscious consumers.  It stimulates competition, and competition stimulates growth.

Capitalism at it’s finest.

So when it comes right down to it, you have to “whey” its pluses and minuses.  Soy has its negatives, but so does whey, as past studies have linked it to things like osteoporosis, kidney stones, even organ damage (when consumed in excess, which isn’t difficult to do, as many whey protein supplement serving size suggestions are “whey” too high).

For heart health, though, you can’t go wrong with either soy or whey.  The participants in this study consumed just five grams of whey per day for 20 days, and saw improvement in blood flow.  And while there has been question as to just how effective soy is in heart health and cholesterol lowering, there are a number of studies out there that indicate it is, in fact, heart healthy (so long as the soy isn’t genetically modified).

Anyway you slice it, whey and soy are ultimately a wash.  They’re both great options.  Keep it in moderation and your heart will thank you.

Sources:
aloka-europe.com
nutraingredients.com

Five Cups of Green Tea (or More!) Billed as Best Defense from Cancer, Says Japanese Research

As many as five cups of green tea or more per day is believed to be the best defense from cancer.

If you’re looking to cut back on your five cups of coffee a day but are at a loss for what to replace your coffee-fill with, green tea is the perfect substitution solution.

Moderation in all things may typically be the best route to all-around health, but when it comes to green tea consumption, moderation does not equal disease prevention.  In fact, as many as five cups of green tea or more – clearly not a moderate amount – is believed to be the best defense from cancer.

The latest study to tout the benefits of green tea hails from the Tohoku School of Medicine based in Japan, a country whose population is awash in green tea consumption (the most commonly consumed beverage in a country of 127 million).

Charting how green tea affected cancer diagnoses of the nearly 42,000 men and women involved required a food frequency questionnaire, which was administered to the participants at the start of the nine-year study.  The study’s researchers followed up with the participants throughout, charting both their health and their diets to see if what, if anything, changed.

In that nine-year period, things did change for about 320 of the participants.  One hundred and ninety three of the men and women involved were stricken with blood cancer, and another 119 were stricken with a cancer of the lymph nodes.

When researchers looked at what the participants ate and drank over the near decade-long study, they found some commonalities in the drinking decisions of cancer-stricken participants and those unaffected.

Not so much what they drank, though, but rather how much.

Virtually all of the participants drank at least one cup of green tea per day, but the people who drank five cups or more were 40 percent less likely to be diagnosed with blood cancer and about 50 percent less likely to be diagnosed with cancer of the lymph nodes.

The Japanese study – published in the American Journal of Epidemiology – does not go so far as to say there’s a causal relationship between green tea consumption and cancer diagnosis (i.e. that drinking more directly impacts the risk of being diagnosed with cancer), but it might as well have, for this study is the latest one to be added to the scores of studies gone by that link cancer prevention with green tea consumption.  Past studies have linked green tea consumption to ovarian cancer prevention, prostate cancer prevention, bladder cancer prevention, breast cancer prevention, even lung cancer prevention (the deadliest form of cancer).

The study did not make any conclusions as to what component of green tea has anti-cancer properties, but past studies indicate its likely green tea’s high polyphenol content.  Besides green tea leaves, polyphenols are found in the skins of various fruits and vegetables and are extolled for their disease-fighting prowess, Alzheimer’s and heart disease among them.

There are many green teas from which to choose, some every bit as good as others.  Always opt for organically brewed tea, paying special attention to its “Sell By” date.  For the sake of taste – not to mention nutrition – you don’t want anything that’s been sitting on the shelf unopened for more than six months.  The further the “Sell By” date is from the date in which you’re purchasing, the better.  Once opened, the shelf-life reduces even further.

Sources:
whfoods.com
cia.gov
o-cha.com
nutraingredients.com

Omega Fat Consumption Can Affect Bowel Health, According to Study

Excess consumption of Omega-6s can lead to ulcerative colitis.

In a recent “Mangano Minute” posting, I talked about the importance of balancing omega-3s and omega-6s.  I talked about how omega-6 fats – often painted as a bad source of fat – are actually good for you, so long as they’re eaten in proper proportion to omega-3s and from quality food sources (you can read it in full here).

Here’s another reason why they should be eaten proportionally:  It can affect your bowel health, be it positively or negatively.
The bowel health I speak of is a condition called ulcerative colitis.  And according to British researchers from the University of East Anglia, people whose diets are high in omega-6s but low in omega-3s are at the highest risk.

Ulcerative colitis is a specific kind of inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, and it specifically targets the inner lining of the digestive tract’s large intestine and rectum.  The symptoms vary in type and intensity, but some common ones include bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping, unintended weight loss, and tenderness in the rectal area (people with ulcerative colitis often feel the urge to pass a bowel movement but can’t because of the severe inflammation).

In the researchers analysis of over 200,000 men and women, Dr. Andrew Hart and his colleagues used food frequency questionnaires to gauge what the then-healthy men and women were eating over a four-year period.  At the end of the study, Hart and company found that a very small proportion got ulcerative colitis, just 126 people.  What really spoke volumes, though, was the commonality of dietary intake among those who got the inflammatory bowel disease.  They found that those whose diets were highest in lineolic acid – a type of omega-6 fatty acid – were about 150 percent more likely to have been affected by ulcerative colitis.

On the other hand, there was also a linkage among those whose diets were high in omega-3s, specifically DHA (or docosahexaenoic acid, a fatty acid found most abundantly in flax seeds, walnuts and salmon).  For those people, they were about 80 percent less likely to have ulcerative colitis compared to those whose diets were low in omega-3s but high in omega-6s.

Speaking to Nutra-Ingredients.com, Hart said that if these results prove accurate – and more testing will confirm that – there’s every reason to suspect that the incidence rate of ulcerative colitis can be minimized through some dietary tinkering.

According to the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearing House, there are about eight new cases of ulcerative colitis per 100,000 people per year.  That’s the incidence rate.  But for the prevalence rate, it’s much higher – about 246 cases per 100,000 people every year (there’s a subtle difference between prevalence and incidence.  Basically, “prevalence” is the total number of cases at any given point in time, while “incidence” is the number of new cases at a given time).

This study was published in the journal Gut.
Once again, it’s important to consume quality food sources that have both omega-3s and omega-6s.  As my last article referenced, the optimal amount of omega-6s to consume should be right around 12 to 22 grams worth, depending on age and activity level.  This is important to remember because omega-6s are found in far more foods than omega-3s, so they can be easily eaten in excess.  In more general terms, omega-6 fatty acids should take up about 10 percent of your daily calorie allotment.

Sources:
mayoclinic.com
nutraingredients.com
digestive.niddk.nih.gov

British Study Tries to Debunk Nutrition Benefits of Organic

Organic farming relies on natural ways to maintain soil productivity.

On the heels of my writing about the Environmental Working Group’s analysis of the most pesticide-riddled foods, this little news bulletin crossed my computer monitor:  “Organics no healthier than other foods.”

Talk about timing, huh?

Of course, many of us are used to this dog and pony show by now, but it’s really unfortunate that the organic deniers are still out there, doing all they can to deride the sustainability of our soil and our long term health.

Before I start defending, yet again, the organic industry, here’s the latest “study” to debunk the health benefits of organic vegetables.

It comes out of Britain, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to be specific.  In their analysis of over 150 different studies, they claim to have found no statistically significant differences in the nutrient levels of organic foods and conventionally produced foods.  Whether they were vegetables, fruits, dairy or meat products, nutrients like vitamin C, iron and calcium were all the same.

Most people who buy organic produce know that it’s better for them both nutritionally and taste-wise. They’re not going to dignify some study’s findings by not buying organic produce.

However, there are a number of people out there who are right on the edge, unsure of whether it’s worth the extra money to buy organic.  It’s these people I wish to speak to.

So is it worth it?  Three words:  Yes, yes and yes.

One of the main reasons why it’s worth it is the sustainability factor of our soils.  Pesticide is poison; no study will say otherwise.

Farmers find pesticide useful because it kills stubborn insects and garden pests, while at the same time helping their fruits and vegetables to grow quicker and larger.

Sounds great, right?

Well, no, actually.  Because there’s a trade off.

While garden pests will stay away, the toxic concoction has to go somewhere.  And the stuff that isn’t consumed by us when we bite into an apple (one of the more pesticide-laden fruits) poisoning soils, (making it less fertile), flows into river waters (harming wildlife), and reduces the number of species that help plants germinate and produce fruits and vegetables.

Speaking of species, bees are crucial to crops’ survival and rate of production.  Yet bees are in short supply on conventionally grown farm lands.  In fact, according to Molly Conisbee of the Soil Association, organic farmlands have 50 percent more species, like bees, than conventional farmlands that use pesticides.

So by buying organic, you’re guaranteeing a better environment and greater crop yield for the future.

As far as nutrition goes, there’s no question organic is better than conventional – I don’t care what the British study says.  And the reason I don’t care is because the study was extremely subjective in its analysis.

For example, the researchers said there wasn’t any real difference in vitamin C, iron and calcium.  OK.  But what about other nutrients, like beta-carotene and the number of flavonoids?

Surprise!  There was a difference – and the organic produce had higher levels!

Further, as noted by Paula Crossfield at The Huffington Post, there is a difference in vitamin C content among organically grown and conventionally grown produce.  And according to the 2008 study commissioned by The Organic Center, organic produce had 25 percent more vitamin C than the conventionally grown produce in the Organic Center’s analysis.

If all that weren’t enough, going back to the Soil Association’s analysis, not only does organic produce have more of what you want, it has less of what you don’t want, like cadmium and nickel.  These two chemical compounds are typically found on industrial sites, cadmium being a carcinogen.

Studies abound, and virtually anybody can find a study that either supports or negates an issue.  But in the argument over organic versus conventional produce, it boils down to common sense:  Is something produced naturally more likely to be healthier, or is something that’s loaded with pesticides and artificial growth hormones more likely to be healthier?

I know which one I’m choosing for my health.  How about you?

Sources:
blogs.usatoday.com
huffingtonpost.com
telegraph.co.uk

Too Much, or Too Little, Can Affect Dementia Risk, According to Study

Alcohol intake impacts Dementia Risk, study concludes.

In a recent posting, I talked about the importance of moderation in all things and used prostate cancer as an example.  How something like alcohol could be beneficial to avoiding the deadly disease when drunk in moderation, but how it can actually increase the chances of getting it when taken in excess.

Well, finding that “booze balance” also applies to dementia, for according to a new report, moderate alcohol consumption can stave off the brain disease, but it can trigger dementia if drunk in excess.

The Wake Forest University study looked at over 3,000 healthy men and women over the age of 75.  Each of the participants were part of a larger study, called the Gingko Evaluation of Memory Study.  Through this study, the researchers were able to identify which participants had zero cognitive impairment and those who had mild cognitive impairment (a number of different tests were run to determine this).  None of the participants had full-fledged dementia at the study’s outset (only about 500 of them had mild cognitive impairment; the rest were quite brain healthy).

Through questionnaires, the researchers then determined what each participant’s drinking behavior was.  In other words, were they stone-cold sober (zero drinks over the course of a week), sporadic drinkers (one to seven per week, moderate drinkers (eight to 14) or heavy drinkers (14 or more).

Here’s what they discovered at the conclusion of the six-year study:  First, about 500 of the participants went on to be diagnosed with full-fledged dementia, which is a pretty good percentage of the total (about 12 percent).  But the study’s real takeaway was how much the participants drank or didn’t drink and whether or not dementia was their fate.

They found that those who drank moderate amounts of alcohol were much less likely to be among those diagnosed with dementia – 40 percent less likely, in fact – compared to those who were heavy drinkers or light drinkers.

But what about between the heavy drinkers and light drinkers?  Which one fared better there?  You guessed it – the light drinkers.
While the light drinkers were more likely to be diagnosed with dementia than the moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia as the light drinkers.

In other words, if you’re debating between too much or too little, you’re definitely better off going the “too little” route.

The study will eventually be published, but the findings were presented at the International Association Conference for Alzheimer’s in Vienna, Austria on July 13.

Now, this study defines “moderate” as between eight and 14 drinks.  If you ask me, that’s a bit much, especially if that amount is in the 12-14 range week after week.  As I wrote in my piece about moderation, I define moderate drinking as 1 to 2 glasses of wine per day, preferably one.  And I stand behind that.  It’s fine to have more than seven glasses of wine per week occasionally, but it shouldn’t go much further than eight to 10.

Source:
msnbc.msn.com

Why Omega-6s Should Be Commended, Not Contemned

Pistachios are a healthy source of Omega-6 fatty acids.

There are goods and bads when it comes to reporting on health news – and oftentimes, they’re one and the same.

For example, it’s great that health news is constantly flowing and improving on itself. What was true today may not be true tomorrow. In other words, science discovers something and makes adjustments to previous research, in the hopes that this new found knowledge improves on what was previously believed to be accurate.

At the same time, though, this constant flow of information can be extremely confusing – if not irritating – because what was true today may be contradicted several years from now through advancements in technology and learning (just how dangerous smoking is to health today compared to 50 years ago is perhaps the best example).

A great example of this dilemma is omega-6 fatty acids. Last November, I wrote about omega-6 fatty acids and how they shouldn’t be confused with omega-3s, essentially saying that omega-3s are far healthier than omega-6s.

I don’t change my tune on that point, for omega-6 fatty acids are found in lots of processed foods, and its believed that the average person gets far more omega-6 fatty acids than they should be getting – 10 times more, in fact.

Further, unlike omega-3s, high levels of omega-6 fatty acids in the body have been linked to a bevy of health concerns, like suppressing the immune system, cause prostate tumor cell growth, and increasing blood clotting above and beyond the normal rate (thus blocking blood flow to and from the heart).

But unlike trans fats and saturated fats, which have no nutritional value whatsoever, the same can’t be said for omega-6 fats. In other words, they’re not ALL bad, as my previously article may have implied.

As I said previously, omega-6s are found in lots of unhealthy food sources, which is why experts believe we’re consuming too much of them. On the other hand, they’re also found in plenty of healthy sources, like nuts, seeds and various healthy cooking oils.

One such healthy oil is safflower oil. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Since when was safflower oil considered a ‘healthy’ oil?” While I grant you it’s not as healthy as, say, extra virgin olive oil, it does have its redeeming qualities.

For instance, researchers at the Ohio State University had two groups of women – 35 in all – take one of two oils for 16 weeks: safflower oil or conjugated linoleic acid. Both oils are chock full of omega-6 fatty acids.

After 16 weeks of supplementing with approximately one and two-thirds tablespoons of either oil – and making sure that each woman did not change anything else about their diet or exercise habits (all of the women were considered obese) – all of the women saw improvements in weight levels.

Those women who supplemented with the safflower oil increased lean muscle tissue by an average of two pounds and decreased their girth around the middle by an average of four pounds. Due to the increased muscle mass, however, they did not decrease their BMI levels.

On the other hand, those women who consumed the CLA did see a decrease in BMI levels, dropping overall weight by about four pounds and their BMI levels by half a point on average.

Remember, these improvements were without any changes in their caloric intake or activity levels. So while the weight loss levels may be marginal at best, the fact that weight levels dropped at all without changes to their diet plan is pretty impressive.

But the benefits of omega-6s didn’t stop at the scale. Blood sugar levels dropped by as much as 19 points for some women (the women’s blood sugar levels were between 129 to 148; anything above 110 milliliters per deciliter is risky territory).

This confirms why omega-6 fatty acids are highly recommended to people with diabetes, not to mention those who want to improve their overall heart health (the American Heart Association is a staunch advocate of omega-6 fatty acids).

As we stand today, most people are getting far more omega-6 fatty acids than needed. So deficiency isn’t the problem (like it is with omega-3s). The problem stems from the sources of foods we eat.

So instead of eating foods that are unhealthy and rich with omega-6 – like creamy salad dressings and thick mayonnaise – opt for healthy omega-6 sources instead, like fish, pistachios, olives and the aforementioned safflower oil (used sparingly).

If you take anything away from this article, take this: Don’t paint omega-6 with a broad “bad” stroke. They are just as crucial to a healthy diet as omega-3s are, so long as they are consumed from healthy sources and in proper proportion to omega-3s. Per the American Heart Association’s recommendation, shoot for between 12 and 22 grams per day, depending on your activity level, age and gender.

Sources:
sciencedaily.com
americanheart.mediaroom.com
optimal-heart-health.com

According to a recent report, breast cancer misdiagnosis affects one in three women.

In about three months, you’re going to hear a lot about breast cancer.  That’s because breast cancer awareness month is held every October, where women and men encourage their moms, sisters, and wives to get screened. 

While screenings have without question saved the lives of millions of women, these screenings haven’t been an entirely positive practice.  That’s because according to a recent report, almost one in three women that are diagnosed for breast cancer are actually misdiagnosed.  More specifically, they’re being treated when no treatment is necessary!

Naturally, this results in unnecessary health care costs on an already overwrought health care system, but more importantly, irreversible damage done to a woman’s physical health and emotional psyche.

The whole point of a breast cancer screening is for a mammogram to discover a polyp in a woman’s breast before it grows too large so that effective treatment can be employed and mortality rates from breast cancer can drop.   

But when researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark investigated this, they found that increases in screenings did nothing to drop the number of advanced breast cancer cases (again, the whole point behind increasing the number of screenings).  The only thing it identified was more breast cancer cases – thousands more – and that many of these cases were of women who had polyps so small and insignificant that they’d never advance to a point where they’d become cancerous.

Similar cases have been documented among men with prostate cancer, where men were treated with the whole nine yards that comes with conventional cancer treatment (radiation, chemotherapy, etc.).  In fact according to a Netherlands study that uncovered this, two out of every five men diagnosed with prostate cancer were treated unnecessarily.

The Denmark study was 14 years in length and analyzed breast cancer trends among several European nations.  It looked at women diagnosed with breast cancer between the ages of 50 and 69.  It’s published in the British Medical Journal. 

It’s sad to have to admit this, but this really doesn’t come as much of a surprise when you look at the breast cancer numbers over the years.  Think about it:  When there’s an increase in the number of breast cancer screenings, there ought to be a drop in the number of breast cancer deaths and advanced diagnoses. 

But breast cancer has remained on top of the heap in prevalence among women – second only to non-melanoma skin cancer – and is the leading cancer-related death among Hispanic women.  And since 2005 (the latest year with statistics like these available), it is the seventh leading cause of death among women, with just a few hundred more dying from unintentional injuries like traffic accidents (41,116).

My reporting this should not be construed as a call not to get screened.  Screening remains important and has certainly saved more lives than it’s harmed. 

Nevertheless, it is a call to be cautious when undergoing screening and be willing to get a second opinion if you are in fact diagnosed with breast cancer.  Going the conventional treatment route is extremely invasive and costly (which is why if at all possible you should pursue non-chemotherapy based treatments), and an extremely emotional one at that. 

Imagine the emotional turmoil of believing you may be dying, only to find out later – after all the side effects that come with chemotherapy – that you were treated unnecessarily.  Sadly, for 33 percent of those diagnosed with breast cancer, this experience is not uncommon. 

Sources:
msnbc.msn.com
cdc.gov

Yet Another Drug Deemed Ineffective, Only Side-Effective

Interferon gamma-1b is a deadly drug with a deadly side effect: death.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before:  A drug’s been taken off the market because it’s been found ineffective.

I know, I know, you’ve heard it before, but humor me.

The latest ineffective drug is called interferon gamma-1b.  This drug – with a rather appropriate name given its “interfering” side effects – was believed to help treat people with a deadly lung disease.  As it turns out, though, the only thing this drug does is “interfere” with the body’s internal processes, churning up a veritable smorgasbord of side effects like those found in people who get the flu (fever, chills, fatigue, etc.).

The deadly lung disease the drug was supposed to treat is called Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

IPF is a condition that afflicts approximately 200,000 Americans – usually those between the ages of 50 and 75 – and is diagnosed among people whose breathing patterns are severely altered due to the scarring of lung tissue.  This scarring of lung tissue severely restricts normal oxygen flow, thus adversely affecting the brain and all of the body’s internal processes that rely on oxygen (which is pretty much everything in the body).

Because of this, the prognosis for IPF sufferers isn’t good.  People with it usually die within five years of diagnosis.  What’s worse, there’s no known cure.

The best way to avoid it is through preventive measures, like keeping your blood pressure low, not smoking, and exercise (three conditions believed to cause IPF include hypertension, lung cancer and heart failure).

These preventive measures take on additional importance after a study that involved injecting 826 people with either a dose of interferon gamma-1b or a placebo.  What they found was that more people died after being injected with the interferon – the very drug that was supposed to treat the IPF – than people who were injected with the placebo (15 percent to 13 percent).

And among those that didn’t die, those injected with the interferon were more likely to suffer from flu-like symptoms.

The study was 64 weeks long and participants were injected with the ineffective dosage three times a week, 200 micrograms per dose.

The study’s full details are published in the online version of the world renowned British medical journal The Lancet.
I think this study speaks for itself.  It also speaks to the cause that natural health advocates like me have devoted our lives to:  Pharmaceuticals are ineffective – they’re only side-effective.

Diseases like this, unfortunately, aren’t treatable through natural methods; preventive measures need to be taken to avoid it.

This study demonstrates just how important preventive measures are in maintaining natural health – because pharmaceuticals won’t be your saving grace.  If more people came to this realization, I have no doubt we’d see less disease, for people would start living a life where diseases rarely lurk.

Source:
health.msn.com
nhlbi.nih.gov

UNC Study:  Cardio Activity Keeps Brains Younger

Regular exercise improves brain health, study shows.

People often ask me, “Frank, when I exercise, should I do weight training or cardio training?”  The answer to this is both, ideally, as weight training and cardio activity is a complete way of addressing the body’s anaerobic and aerobic exercise needs.

But when push comes to shove, when time will only allow one or the other, you’re better off going with cardio over weight training.

There are many reasons for this.  One of them is that it works the heart more effectively and efficiently than weight training.  And that’s what every exercise session should accomplish – a thorough working out of the body’s most important muscle to help keep you “young at heart,” as Frank Sinatra used to croon.

Another reason why I prefer cardio over weight training is that it helps keep you “young at thought,” as a study published in the most recent issuing of the American Journal of Neuroradiology reports.

This probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise, as it seems like I’ve written about this in the past.  But believe it or not, this is the first time that a study has compared and contrasted the brain images of elderly people who exercise regularly with those who did not.

Those who exercised regularly did so for a period of at least 10 years (in a row) and for approximately 180 minutes per week.  Those who did not exercise were those who barely got 90 minutes of physical activity in the course of a week.

When they analyzed the men and women’s brains, they found that those who exercised had blood vessels that weren’t nearly as strained as those who barely exercised.  When I say “strained,” I mean that the blood vessels weren’t as twisted, or to use more scientific lingo, they were less tortuous.

Of course, the less tortuous blood vessels are, the more blood flow can travel throughout the brain.

These kinds of blood vessel patterns are very much like those found in young brains, and the researchers from the University of North Carolina believe that the elderly folks’ consistent cardio activity for 10 years or more was the catalyst in keeping their brain looking young.

More research is in the offing, as researchers hope to learn whether or not cardiovascular activity can reverse the natural narrowing and twisting of blood vessels in the brain that occurs over the course of a lifetime.

While there are many other reasons why I prefer cardio over weight training when pressed for time, brain health is among the most important reasons.

Finally, another thing people often ask me is what I prefer to do when I do aerobic activity.  I like to mix it up, walking outside and soaking up the vitamin D on nice days.  But when the weather is bad – like it’s been in Manhattan for nearly a month now – I like to hit the elliptical at my local health club.  Elliptical machines are very easy on the joints, and you can get a good muscle burn that burns up a lot of calories.

Best of all, it really works out the heart – and in keeping with the theme of this article, the mind as well.

Source:
sciencedaily.com