Lots of Beef Recalls, But Can You Think of a Bison Recall?

Bison are grasss fed and is a much healthier choice than beef.

Is it me, or does it seem like food recalls have never been higher than they have been in the past few years?

Whether its peanuts or peppers, sausage or spinach, it seems like there’s always a food in the headlines that’s being thrown out by the thousands of pounds.

No food rivals beef in the number of recalls.

Do a simple Google search of “beef recall” and you’ll receive a huge listing of beef recalls that have occurred in the past few months, never mind the last few years.

The latest beef recall comes from the Centennial state of Colorado, where 41,000 additional pounds of beef are being snapped up from store freezers and shelves, as the number of people stricken with E-coli has increased since the original recall (the original recall occurred on June 24th, when 380,000 pounds of beef was recalled).

But the list of recalls doesn’t stop in Colorado.  Less than three weeks ago, a South Carolina meat processing plant recalled pounds of ground beef after E.coli contamination; a Chicago company did the same thing a few days ago (their recall totaled around 6,100 pounds of beef); and another Chicago company recalled 240,000 pounds of ground beef in May…only the 240,000 pounds were recalled for reasons unrelated to E.coli – theirs was because of metal clips found lurking within several pounds of ground beef.

Nice.

But as many recalls as there have been in the last month with beef, I defy anyone to “recall” of a bison recall over the past several years.

This is not to say that there hasn’t been one, but I certainly can’t think of one (In fact, if you can think of one, I’d like to know about it).

There are several reasons for this.  One of them is that bison, unlike cattle, is not a mainstream commodity.  There are far fewer bison that undergo inspection by the USDA per day, thus a smaller pool of potential bison sources that could be infected with some food-borne disease.

Another reason is that bison are primarily raised by private ranchers.  In fact, among the 225,000 estimated bison in the country, 198,000 of them roam on private land.  And since private farmers know that bison is a “niche” meat – a meat that mostly health conscious consumers are interested in – it’s in their economic interest to make sure their bison remain as healthy as possible.

And given the bison industry is only recently making strides economically, an E.coli outbreak among bison could very well send the bison back to the brink of extinction due to diminished demand (there were only around 1,000 bison on the planet at the turn of the last century).

There is always the chance that bison will one day become a mainstream commodity, where the USDA will start inspecting bison in the hundreds of thousands per day like they do now with cattle (at present, roughly 125,000 cattle are inspected per day by the USDA, compared to the 54,000 bison).  If that happens, the chance of food-borne illnesses among bison also increases.  But rest assured in the knowledge that bison remains a “niche” market, and the National Bison Association doesn’t foresee bison becoming a commodity any time soon.

Finally, while there are many causes and sources of food-borne illnesses, two of them are how often they’re handled in production and the environment in which bison roam.  Bison farmers pride themselves on the fact that bison graze in wide open fields and not in feedlots like cattle so often do.  Further, in the production process, bison are barely handled, which diminishes the risk of cross-contamination.

These are all reasons why you should start consuming more bison meat.  And I haven’t even mentioned how much more nutritious bison is compared to so many other protein sources…including chicken, fish, and the leanest cuts of beef!

For example, bison is lower in calories and fat than chicken (even skinless), has more protein than salmon, and more iron than a select cut of beef!

In summary, by increasing your bison intake and decreasing your beef intake, you’re not only improving the chances you won’t be stricken with a food-borne illness, but your vastly improving your health in the process.

Sources:
bisoncentral.com
msnbc.msn.com
bisoncentral.com

Study Shows Carbohydrates Contribute to Heart Disease.  Are All Carbs Bad?

White bread is a refined carbohydrate, which should be consumed in moderation.

Anyone who knows me knows I’m not one who shuns carbohydrates.  I enjoy my carbs, I’m just careful about what kinds of carbohydrates I consume.

Carbohydrates supply the body with the nutrients it needs to perform daily tasks that require effort (even the slightest effort).  They replenish the body’s glycogen stores and keep the body energized.

Some people in the health profession, though, advise avoiding carbohydrates entirely.  They say that all they do is add weight to the body, and that the easiest way to lose weight is to cut back on carbs.

There’s no question that cutting back on carbohydrates will help you lose weight.  But cutting back entirely on carbohydrates is not the answer.  In fact, I’ve found that it’s a recipe for gaining more weight down the road, as the body is starved of carbs for so long that it will eat them voraciously sooner or later.

The best way to lose weight – and keep it off – while remaining energized is to consume the right kinds of carbohydrates.  By not consuming carbohydrates, you’re making other nutrients do carbohydrates job.

For instance, protein is supposed to replenish and repair muscles that get broken down, not serve as the body’s source for energy.  But by not consuming carbs, you’re stretching the role of protein too thin, making it far less effective in replenishing broken down muscle.

At the same time, though, we shouldn’t be consuming carbohydrates that ramp up our blood sugar levels  too quickly.  Simple carbohydrates are an inefficient source of energy – where our energy levels peak, but go down quickly soon thereafter.

An overconsumption of simple carbohydrates also increase our risk for long term heart health problems, like heart disease, the leading cause of death in the country.

And we now know why simple carbohydrates tend to increase our risk for heart problems, as a recent study published in the Journal of American College of Cardiology explains.

The risk is not necessarily that carbohydrates make us fatter – though they can when eaten in exorbitant amounts – but rather in how they affect our arteries, making them far less elastic.

This is precisely what Dr. Michael Schecter from Tel Aviv University envisioned before conducting this study, and his envisions were realized when he observed the arterial function of 56 people after a high carb meal.

He had four groups of 14 people each consume high carbohydrate meals.  One ate pure sugar, another ate corn flakes with milk (one of the higher foods on the glycemic index) and another ate bran flakes (not as high on the glycemic index, but still high).  The last group was the placebo group, so they abstained from a meal.

Dr. Schecter and his colleagues found that each member of each group had endothelial function that diminished after their meal compared to prior to their sugary cereal servings – even those that ate bran flakes.  The one group whose endothelial function remained healthy?  You guessed it, the placebo group.

Endothelial function is just a fancy word for describing the lining of the arteries.  When foods high in sugar and high on the glycemic index are consumed, there’s undue stress put on those arteries, so much so that the arteries become dysfunctional for a short period of time, according to Dr. Schecter.

While Schecter is quick to point out that this dysfunction is sudden and only temporary, it doesn’t take a study of his to know that that endothelial dysfunction will become permanent the more often a person eats foods high on the glycemic index.

Maintaining a healthy heart is not accomplished by cutting out carbohydrates from your diet but rather to eat carbohydrates low on the glycemic index.  These should be complex carbohydrates, like oatmeal, 100 percent whole wheat bread (make sure it says “100 percent,” as many breads that claim to be “wheat” are made with refined flour), beans, nuts, and seeds.

You can’t go wrong with fruits and vegetables either, but just be aware that they tend to vary on the glycemic index considerably (e.g. cherries have a low GI of 22, while watermelon has a high GI 72; potatoes have a high GI of 82, while broccoli has a low GI of 15).

Sources:
sciencedaily.com
southbeach-diet-plan.com

Salmonella Fears at Dunkin’ Donuts Make for a Great Time to Switch Coffees

Equipment used to produce Dunkaccino mix for Dunkin' Donuts may have contained salmonella contamination.

As most of you know, I’m not a coffee drinker.  Nonetheless, I know that millions of Americans can’t live without their morning libation, which is why I recommend opting for organic coffee beans to brew at home, or to ask for them specifically at their favorite coffee house.

Once people enter their favorite coffee house, though, there are tempting offerings on the menu that people find hard to resist.

Dunkin’ Donuts’ flavor offering, the Dunkaccino, is a great example.   The Dunkaccino boasts a flavor profile that’s almost impossible not partake in:  smooth coffee balanced with a decadent hot chocolate – the perfect pairing, no?

It may be a tasty treat, but if you’re watching your weight, it’s nutrition facts should serve as the hand slap you need to keep your hand out of the proverbial cookie jar:  230 calories, 11 grams of fat, 35 grams of sugar and an additional nine grams of saturated fat – and that’s in a small!

With nutrition like that, it makes soda seem downright healthy!

But if the Dunkaccino’s nutritional profile isn’t enough to make you steer clear, how does a possible bout with salmonella sound?
To Dunkin’ Donuts credit, they’ve voluntarily stopped selling Dunkaccinos to customers after one of their suppliers that produce their Dunkaccino mix may have had their equipment contaminated with salmonella.

Dunkin’ Donuts says that none of their equipment was contaminated, but they still want to make sure no one’s health is adversely affected by salmonella.  Again, kudos to Dunkin’ Donuts.

As of this writing, there have been no reported illnesses linked to the salmonella scare, which is why Dunkin’ Donuts plans to continue Dunkaccino production “shortly.”  But just as every fire and every murder isn’t reported, the same applies to food poisoning.  Who knows how many salmonella poisonings there have actually been.

People are obviously free to choose what they’ll drink and whether or not they trust the media or a restaurant when they say that a salmonella scare has past.  But some people need more than nutrition facts to steer them away from tempting treats like Dunkaccinos, which can become addictive.

The best way to stop any addictive behavior is to replace it with another behavior.  And with this salmonella scare in place, now is a great time in which to make that replacement.

So, instead of driving out of your way for that Dunkaccino, pick up a bag of organic coffee beans instead.  Before you know it, you’ll find it to be every bit as good as a regular cup of coffee and can rest assured in knowing that it’s free of salmonella and is the best nutrition among stores’ coffee coffers.

Sources:
baltimoresun.com
dunkindonuts.com

Parents’ Helping Hand May Make OCD Hand Washing Worse, Says Study

Study shows that parents actually worsen their child's obsessive hand washing.

There’s a humorous television series on one of the cable channels called “Monk.”  The show is built out of the “Columbo” mold, only the show’s protagonist – Adrian Monk – is a bit quirkier and has a pretty severe case of obsessive compulsive disorder.

The show’s both humorous and entertaining; with Monk always cracking the “whodunit?” in 60 minutes flat, while at the same time satirizing his obsessive-compulsive tendencies along the way.

In real life, though, for those whose life is controlled by their obsessive-compulsive tendencies, it is neither humorous nor entertaining.

All of us have some OCD proclivities to one degree or another, whether it’s washing one’s hands a bit too excessively , or checking to make sure the stove burners are off maybe one time too many.  Many people live with these behaviors for all of their lives without seeking treatment, which is why the estimated 1 in 50 Americans diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder is a statistic that’s probably more like 1 in 25 Americans.

The question, of course, is how best to treat this mind-over-matter problem, where normal feelings of anxiety slowly overtake one’s life and mental processes?

There are natural treatments – which I’ll get to in a moment – but some people believe that they can accomplish the problem on their own, or through the assistance of their families, where parents or spouses can simply remind their excessive hand washing son that his hands are clean and he doesn’t have to wash his hands so vigorously.

If only it were that simple.  In fact, according to some studies on families who acknowledge their child’s OCD tendencies, acknowledgement compounds their compulsions by reinforcing the behavior.

In the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Therapy, researchers write about their observations of approximately 50 children with obsessive-compulsive disorder and how their parents dealt with their children’s compulsions.  What they found was that those parents who interjected the most in their kids’ habits – like telling their excessive-hand washing son that his hands were clean – it actually perpetuated the problem, as the child would become more and more obsessed with hand washing over the course of the study.

“You would think if parents were helping, they would be less impaired,” said University of Florida professor Lisa Merlo in a news release, the study’s lead researcher.  “But what we are seeing is that it snowballs and makes it worse and worse.”

While parents’ hearts are certainly in the right place, Merlo says that this kind of “help” validates the behavior, which is the precise wrong thing to do.

The right thing to do is to seek professional help.  When parents were advised what they ought to be doing by professionals, the kids’ – who were between the ages of 6 and 18 – behaviors grew less rigid.

Professional counseling and medical treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder are important and you should always follow your doctor’s counsel when it comes to medicating.

However, if you feel like you might have some obsessive-compulsive tendencies and that you’d like to nip in the bud now before they becomes full-blown habits, there are some natural supplements you can take that can help.

For information on those supplements and proper dosing, please peruse my article on hypochondria, which many experts believe to be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder (officially, though, hypochondria is classified as a psychosomatic disorder).  I tend to agree, as both hypochondria and obsessive-compulsive disorder thrive on stress levels.  These natural supplements help to reduce stress levels.

Please read it, as I believe as it will help you bid a fond farewell to OCD.

Sources:
health.msn.com
mayoclinic.com
ocfoundation.org

Baby Boomers Now the Heaviest Americans

America's obesity rate is very high, especially among baby boomers.

This article is brought to you by the word “boom.”

The unemployment rate?  Booming, reaching a 26 year high in the month of June at 9.5 percent.

The amount of rain in New York?  Booming, as June was one of the cloudiest, rainiest Junes on record – ever!

And the obesity rate in America?  Booming, particularly among baby boomers.

The focus on the obesity rate in America always seems to be centered on America’s youth.  And given that so many youth have sedentary proclivities – particularly in comparison to when I was a kid, when sedentary activities were far less prevalent – the finger pointing has been for good reason.

But the pointing of fingers might be better served by turning them around at our parents, as a recent report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has found that baby boomers weight levels are booming across the country.

According to the report, not a single state showed decreases in weight levels, rather nearly half the states (23 states) showed increases in weight levels.

The heavyweight states are mostly in the southern belt, with Mississippi topping the corpulent charts for the fifth year in a row.  Other heavy hitters include Alabama, West Virginia and Tennessee, three states that now have the dubious distinction of having a 30 percent obesity rate.

Perhaps the most sobering statistic – for baby boomers, at least – is just how poorly middle-agers fared.  In all 50 states, the rate of obesity was highest among the 55 to 64 age group than any other age grouping.  The fattest boomers come from the Heart of Dixie and Water Wonderland (i.e. Alabama and Michigan, respectively).

If any positive news can be taken away from this report, it’s that there were fewer states that gained weight this year than last year.  Last year, 37 states increased their average weight levels.

Then again, last year, at least some states lost weight.  Not the case this year.  This year, states either stayed the same or gained weight.

With healthcare and health insurance being such an issue these days – as an estimated 47 million Americans are uninsured, according to most reports – keeping our weight levels in check has never been more important.  Obesity is the cause of more deaths than smoking is today.  Who would ever have guessed that back in, say, 1990, when no state had a rate of obesity higher than 20 percent (today, the only state that has a sub-20 percent obesity rate is Colorado).

As Jeff Levi says, the director of the group that funded the study, there’s no “magic bullet” to beating obesity.  No pill, no waving of a magic wand.

The only way to turn obesity levels from something horrific into something terrific (1991 levels, when obesity was below 20 percent) is with two things:  diet and exercise.

It’s the oldest trick in the book, yet one that so few have been able to learn.

Sources:
msnbc.msn.com

Acetaminophen Overuse Leads to Liver Failure

Overuse of acetaminophen-based medicines like Tylenol can lead to liver problems.

For a pounding headache, millions upon millions of Americans turn to pills like Excedrin, the pill that bills itself as “the headache medicine.”  And for millions of Americans, pills like these do the trick—24 billion doses of acetaminophen medicines sold last year alone is a testament to that fact.

And even though pills like these will continue to be sold by the billions for years on end for headache relief, our livers will suffer as a consequence if bought and consumed as prevalently as they are now.

Did you know that the most common cause of liver failure is the overuse of acetaminophen-based medicines like Tylenol?  That’s right.  It’s not due to excessive alcohol consumption, malnutrition, or diseases like Hepatitis B.  Nope.  Liver failure’s most frequently caused by people popping too many Tylenol.

So it was a long time coming when an FDA panel recommended this week that pharmaceutical companies lower the recommended dosages of acetaminophen found on bottles of Tylenol and the like.  This panel is different from the FDA, so the FDA isn’t recommending lowering the dosage.  Just why the FDA isn’t recommending lowering the dosage is anyone’s guess.

Something else that’s anyone’s guess is whether pharmaceutical companies will take the panel’s advisement into action.  You’d think they would, especially considering that thousands are hospitalized every year because of overuse of over-the-counter medicines like these and that hundreds of people have been given liver transplants due to acetaminophen overuse.

Despite these worrisome warning signs, they appear loath to make any adjustments, as the maker of Tylenol issued a statement recently saying, in part, that “…the safety and efficacy of acetaminophen has been established in over 150 clinical studies” and that it’s the “pain medicine that doctors recommend most.”

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to realize is that acetaminophen is a lot like high fructose corn syrup – it’s everywhere!  So when people are taking one medication that contains acetaminophen for a cold, and then start taking Tylenol for a headache, all that acetaminophen has to go somewhere.  And where does it go?  The liver, where the overconsumption of it can’t be metabolized properly, ultimately leading to the failure of one of our most vital organs.

Some may consider this bad news.  “What will we do for our headaches?” some might wonder.  Well, naturally, there are “natural” solutions to headaches.   And while the alternatives aren’t as plentiful or as prevalent as acetaminophen is in over-the-counter medicines, there’s more than one to choose from.

Some of the most common natural herbs and spices include skullcap, which is really great for stress-related headaches.  Another is curcumin, the herb found in the curry spice turmeric.  The properties of curcumin help to shield the brain’s pain receptors.  One other is capsaicin.  Capsaicin is neither an herb nor a spice, but rather a compound that gives chili peppers their spice.  Capsaicin is good for other pain problems, too, like the pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis.

Acetaminophen has been used entirely too much for entirely too long.  Sadly, it took liver failure to bring it to everyone’s attention.  Perhaps now people will do what they should have been doing a long time ago and turn to natural treatments for headache relief.

Sources:
voices.washingtonpost.com
examiner.com
basilandspice.com
altnature.com

Obesity Increases Deadliest Forms of Cancer

Obesity early in life increases the risk of acquring pancreatic cancer later in life.

It goes without saying that any cancer diagnosis is bad news, but some diagnoses are worse than others.

Virtually all cancers have good survival rates, so long as they’re diagnosed early, but some are hard just plain hard to pinpoint, which means that by the time they are diagnosed and pinpointed, they’ve already advanced past the point of no return.

Among the worst of these cancers is pancreatic cancer.  Lung cancer may be the deadliest form of cancer in the United States, but pancreatic isn’t far behind (fourth deadliest).  And what makes pancreatic cancer really standout is its survival rate – or lack there of.

Again, while lung cancer is the deadliest form of cancer, its five-year survival rate is 15 percent (in other words, 15 percent of people who are diagnosed with lung cancer survive for five years).  That’s an exceptionally low number, but those chances of survival are downright ambitious in comparison to pancreatic cancer – a 5 percent five-year survival rate!  In fact, it metastasizes so quickly, statistics indicate that most people die within six months of diagnosis.

All that said, it is with great concern and worry that I report to you the following:  People who are obese early in life increase their chances of developing pancreatic cancer by as much as 60 percent (a BMI index level over 30).

This chilling discovery was made by researchers from the University of Texas at the M.D Anderson Cancer Center.  In coming to these conclusions, researchers had their group of participants – about half of whom had already been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer – fill out detailed questionnaires that questioned their current health and weight status, how much they weighed in past years, and also some family background information.  This background information was important, as it helped the researchers control for contributing factors (ethnicity, history of pancreatic cancer in the family, smoking prevalence, etc.).

After taking these contributing factors into account, they found several linkages to pancreatic cancer and weight.  One of them was that those who were obese in their teens and 20s were about 60 percent more likely to have pancreatic cancer than those who were thin at that age.

Another interesting fact they discovered was weight being tied to how early on in life one is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.  For instance, those who were obese in their early adult years were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer around the age of 59 on average, while those who were of normal weight were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer around the age of 64 on average.

The study’s published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

That obesity increases the risk of cancer is not the news here.  That’s been known for a while, and this study confirmed that (there was a higher percentage of people obese and diagnosed with pancreatic cancer than those who were of normal weight and diagnosed with pancreatic cancer).  What is the news is that just being obese, no matter what stage of life, increases the risk of one of the deadliest forms of cancer – and increases that risk more than smoking does!

If that’s not a glaring indication of how risky obesity is, then nothing is.

Sources:
sciencedaily.com
reuters.com
lung-cancer.emedtv.com

Did Painkiller Popping Kill King of Pop?

Was Demerol, a prescription painkiller, a contributing cause to Michael Jackson's death?

Around 5:45 p.m. this past Thursday evening, people the world over received news so shocking, so earth shattering, it could very well could have registered on the Richter scale:  Michael Jackson had died.

Within hours, fans of the King of Pop descended on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, lighting candles and adorning his star with flowers, pictures, and cards.  Amazon.com and other retailers were flooded with orders for his DVDs and CDs, and thousands of Web sites sprang up devoted to his memory.

Just hours before Jackson’s death, another pop culture icon died, Farah Fawcett, after undergoing several months worth of chemotherapy treatment.

Since then, it’s been all Jackson, all the time on the 24-hour news cycle (some Fawcett coverage too, but to a far lesser extent).

The ubiquity of coverage isn’t a surprise, as both Fawcett and Jackson are symbols of American pop culture.

And as more and more information comes to the forefront regarding Jackson’s puzzling death, the missing pieces are coming together and illuminating what was once a mystery.

The presumed culprit in Jackson’s death is a well-known painkiller called Demerol. 

For those unfamiliar with Demerol, it’s toxicity and characteristics are best summed up by Dr. Patrick Annello, an anesthesiologist that works at the St. Francis Hospital in New York (on Long Island).  As he told FoxNews.com, “[Demerol] can cause rapid heart rate, arrhythmias and – when given in high doses – it can cause respiratory depression or shallow breathing.”

He prefaced this laundry list of side effects by warning that Demerol has “a tremendous number of side effects.”

And this is precisely the problem with prescription drugs like Demerol – they offer way more side effects than they do benefits.  Michael Jackson is the latest exhibit of the deadly toll prescription drugs like Demerol place on the body.

Doubters of Demerol’s deadly deeds will chalk Jackson’s death up to happenstance, the occasional instance of prescription drugs taking the life of someone.  A classic case of “That may have happened to him, but what are the chances that will ever happen to me?”

The doubters will justify its use further by suggesting that the abuse of Demerol is not the nature of the drug itself, but rather the nature of people – that some people are just more prone to addiction and want to feed their addictive personalities. 

Whether Michael Jackson had an addictive personality is beside the point.  He was likely put on Demerol by his doctor because he was, indeed, experiencing legitimate pain.  But his doctor did him a profound disservice because one of the known side effects of Demerol is that it’s addictive – whether someone has an addictive personality or not. 

His doctor could have pointed him to alternative treatments that alleviate pain naturally and that aren’t addictive.  Instead, his doctors gave him a license to: take something that highly trained athletes have become addicted to and sought treatment for (like Brett Favre), take something that killed one of the most bright, entertaining and up-and-coming movie stars of our era (like Heath Ledger), and take something responsible for ruining professional wrestlers careers (though their matches may be scripted, their falls or “bumps,” to use wrestlers’ lingo, are quite real), including Chris Benoit, Andrew “Test” Martin, and the “British Bulldog” Davy Boy Smith, just to name a few.  All of them took painkillers, got hooked on them, and died as a result.

As untimely a death as Jackson’s was (no matter what your thoughts on Jackson and his personal exploits, there’s no denying he was an incredible entertainer and  revolutionary performer), a positive to take away from all this is that Demerol is finally getting its fair share of negative publicity.  Perhaps now the public will be wary of painkillers and whether or not they want to prescribe their life away – quite literally.

On the negative side, though, Michael Jackson’s cause of death will detract from Farah Fawcett’s cause of death.  It won’t be focused on at all; in fact, it will be chalked up as inevitable. Her cancer just got progressively worse, and that’s that. 

But just as Michael Jackson was victim of the things he put into his body, so too was Farah Fawcett. Their deaths were hastened by their treatments – Demerol in Jackson’s case, and chemotherapy in Fawcett’s.

To quote NaturalNews.com’s Mike Adams, “Had [Fawcett] chosen natural remedies, she could have skipped all the pain and suffering, restored her immune function, reversed her cancer, and gone on to live a much loner and more abundant life.”

Death is a part of life, but these deaths didn’t have to happen so soon.  They were taken from the earth far too early.

Farah and Michael’s memories live on through their acting and singing.  But to use a few lines from Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror,” we can all “make the world a better place,” by “taking a look at ourselves and making a change” in the way we perceive the pharmaceutical industry, knowing that the pills they peddle aren’t in our best interest.  

(Note:  While speculation of Michael Jackson’s cause of death centers on his use of Demerol, it remains just that – speculation.  Toxicology reports won’t be released for several weeks.  That said, what do you think?  Was Demerol the cause of Jackson’s death, or was it something else entirely?  Leave your comments below.) 

Sources:
Fox News
Natural News

Correcting the ‘Chubby’ Headlines on Lifespan Claims

Misleading headline suggests it's good to be overweight!

I’ve found in my writing of articles over the years that misleading headlines are becoming more and more commonplace. I wonder if I shouldn’t make it a weekly feature, something like, “The Latest Head‘lie’.”

It’s almost as if the goal of headline writers is to get people to read the article, not to accurately reflect the content of what the article is about.

Come to think of it, given the economic state of newspapers and the lack of readership, perhaps this isn’t such a bad idea (half-joking).

Seriously, though, it’s SO important to look beyond the headlines when you see or hear a story, particularly when it comes to health.

The latest example of headline beguiling says this:  “Study:  Chubby People Live Longest.”  This is what one of the most popular Web sites in the world, the Drudge Report, lists as the takeaway of the study, a Web site that garners 23 million page views in the average 24-hour period.

Talk about misleading the public!

I say that because the focus of the study was not on the fact that chubby people live longer, but that people who are severely underweight tend to have a shorter lifespan.

The headline suggests that it’s actually good to be overweight, but when you actually take time to read  the article, that’s not an accurate representation. You don’t have to take my word for it, though; take the words of one of the study’s lead researchers, Shinichi Kuriyama, from Tohuku University in Japan:  “It’s better that thin people try to gain normal weight, but we doubt it’s good for people of normal physique to put on more fat.”

That statement alone illustrates how misleading the headline is.  It’s not that chubby people live longer; it’s that people who are malnourished need to try and gain a normal weight.

Does this finding really come as a surprise, though?  After all, when someone is underweight (below 18.5 on the body mass index), their immune system is compromised, and the body’s organs aren’t given the proper amount of protection that quality muscle and fat stores provide as insulation.

Further, even though I’m not a proponent of chemotherapy because of all the side effects that come along with it, it’s well-known that chemotherapy adversely affects people who are underweight more than it affects people of normal weight or those who are overweight (for the same reasons as listed above).

What the headline ought to have read is something to the effect of “Underweight Have Shorter Lifespan.”  But because this isn’t much of a surprise and it isn’t “attention-getting,” headline writers fudge the truth and fill headline space with words that entice, don’t accurately inform.

But who knows?  Perhaps the misinforming of these articles will inspire people to actually read the article – the whole article – who can then determine for themselves that the story doesn’t accurately reflect its title.  But given the average person’s attention span – which is seconds, not minutes – I’m not too optimistic people will read much beyond the headline or the opening paragraph, both of which are misleading (You have to get to the ninth paragraph of an 11-paragraph story before reading the doctor’s proviso on weight gain quoted above).

Source:
breitbart.com

Study:  Together, Antioxidants and Exercise Fight Osteoporosis

Exercise and antioxidant supplementation help fight osteoporosis

When it comes to bone health, we typically think of two nutrients that are particularly bone-friendly:  calcium and vitamin D.  But the results of a new study should cause the mind to think of a new bone-building bloc:  antioxidants and exercise.

A recent report from a Canadian university shows that women who supplemented with antioxidants and exercised over an extended period of time saw no bone loss in a six-month period, while those who did not exercise and received a placebo saw “detrimental” bone loss.

The study comes out of the University of Sherbrooke, located in Quebec, Canada.  It involved approximately 35 women (average age: 66) randomly assigned to one of four groupings:  exercise and an antioxidant supplement (vitamins C and E), exercise and no supplement, a placebo and exercise, a placebo and no exercise.  The length of the study was six months.

At its conclusion, the researchers examined all of the women’s bone density levels, measuring in places like the hip and spine, two areas of the body that are essential to maintaining a healthy range of motion.

The researchers found that only the group that had no exercise and supplemented with a placebo showed “detrimental” bone loss, while the exercise and antioxidant supplement group was the only group that saw no bone loss whatsoever.  This suggests that the combination of exercise and antioxidant supplementation is what seems to have an impact on bone loss or bone strength maintenance.

Why exercise improves bone health is pretty straightforward:  Just as a muscle strengthens the more it’s used, so too does a bone.

What isn’t so straightforward is antioxidants’ role in bone strength.  Past research performed by researchers from Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts suggests carotenoids have bone-building characteristics.  Carotenoids are a specific type of antioxidant, which have been shown to promote healthy immune system function, and to work as a bulwark against free radical dominance of the body’s reproductive processes, particularly among females.

Unfortunately for women, osteoporosis affects them much more than it does men (80 percent of osteoporosis diagnoses are women).  An estimated 75 million people are stricken with it in the United States, Europe and Japan combined (10 million of that number being Americans), with 50 percent of all women over the age of 50 breaking a bone as a result, according to the National Osteoporosis Foundation.

It’s estimated that every 20 seconds someone breaks a bone because of osteoporosis , so time really is of the essence when it comes to reducing one’s susceptibility to bone breakage.

The Canadian study was a trial one, so their loath to make any dosage recommendations until more in-depth studies can be conducted.

In the meantime, look for foods rich in carotenoids – the antioxidant believed to be key in bone strengthening.  These include fruits and vegetable-based products with intense colors, like the orangey orange of sweet potatoes and carrots, the ravishing red of tomatoes and tomato sauce, or the garish green of kale and spinach.

For exercise, aim for 30 minutes that’s low to moderate in intensity.  Even though non-weight bearing activities are good for joints long-term, moderate amounts of weight-bearing exercises are important as well, as the bones need to work to maintain strength.  Great forms of weight-bearing exercises include hiking, walking, tennis, and light jogging.

Sources:
whfoods.org
nutraingredients.com
cdc.gov
nof.org