Study:  Statins Don’t Decrease Alzheimer’s Risk, Increase Cognitive Decline

According to a recent study, statins don't halt Alzheimer's Disease.

If you’re a frequent consumer of news, it may feel like you’re living in a parallel universe at times.  What’s reported on what network is often avoided or given a totally different spin on another network.

And when it comes to health news, there’s no better example of this than statins.  Here, you’ll find information on statins and how their side effects outweigh their perceived benefits.  But watch or read news on statins from some major media outlet, and you’re likely to find information on all the benefits of taking statins.  That not only will they lower blood pressure levels, but they’ll also cut the risk of stroke, even prevent Alzheimer’s disease.

Some of the smartest people on earth are doing their best to uncover the riddle that is Alzheimer’s disease.  A recent string of studies suggests its onset may be due to elevated cholesterol levels in the blood.  Though there are other ways of lowering cholesterol levels, this has led the pill-popping public (the scientific community included) to suggest that statin use may be an Alzheimer’s preventer.  But a recent study testing this theory reveals a significant flaw in that argument.  The flaw?  Statins don’t decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s: not one iota.

Approximately 26,500 men and women participated in the study, all of whom were between the ages of 40 and 80 and “at risk” for developing Alzheimer’s or some other form of dementia.  The majority of those followed took Zocor for a period of five years; the rest took a lesser-known statin for just over three years.  The health statuses of the participants were attended to regularly throughout the study.

Despite the significant amount of precautions taken to assure that the medications taken weren’t given short-shrift, the findings revealed no difference among statins in prevention of Alzheimer’s.  In short, people who received the statins got Alzheimer’s just as frequently as those who received placebos got Alzheimer’s.  This review is published in the most recent  issue of The Cochrane Library.

That may have been enough for the average medical professor to denounce statin use with regard to staving off Alzheimer’s.  But like the aging athlete who doesn’t know when to hang them up, a professor well-versed in statin safety had this to say about what impact statins have to the brain overall:

“There are a number of case reports and case series where cognition is clearly and reproducibly (emphasis added) adversely affected by statins.”

No one can deny that statins work for some people in lowering cholesterol, but the side effects are far too costly.  And when one considers that taking statins to prevent Alzheimer’s may actually impair overall cognition, that, in and of itself, testifies to just how deep those side effects go.

The Fox News’ and MSNBC’s will continue to grind their political news through their own individual mills made of spin, but here’s one thing that can’t be spun:  Statins don’t prevent Alzheimer’s; to the contrary, they impair cognition.
In the immortal words of Walter Cronkite, “That’s the way it is.”

Source:
Science Daily

Sleep That Isn’t ‘Just Right’ Increases Diabetes Risk

Lack of sleep can endanger your health, including increased diabetes risk.

It sounds like a study straight out of the timeless nursery rhyme Goldilocks and the Three Bears, where the porridge can’t be too hot or cold, the chair can’t be too big or small and the bed can’t be too spacious or cramped.  It has to be “just right,” or the results can be devastating for your health.

What am I talking about?  Sleep.  How too little or too much of it increases the chances of developing type II diabetes, this according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Copenhagen.

Sleep is one of those mysterious things in life that we all know we need, but no one really knows why.  Without it, the effects are quite apparent—we don’t perform at our jobs as effectively, our personalities are affected negatively (crabbiness, short-temperedness) and we increase our risk of developing life’s nuisances, like colds, or plagues like expedited aging.

So I suppose it comes as no surprise that sleep also impacts whether one develops diabetes – after all, it seems to impact every other aspect of life.

Before coming to their conclusions, the Danish researchers made sure to take into account contributing factors for developing diabetes, as it’s often predicated on one’s ethnicity, family background, weight and age.  Once those things were given their due attention, they arrived at some fascinating results.

After tracking the sleep pattern behaviors of approximately 280 participants in their study over a six-year period, they found that those who slept more than what was considered “average” were 20 percent more likely to have developed diabetes.  The same percentage was found among those who slept below the “average” amount of time.

What did the researchers classify as “average”?  You guessed it—between seven and eight hours of sleep per night.

This isn’t to say that those who slept the average amount of time didn’t get diabetes, but their rate of developing diabetes was significantly lower, about 7 percent overall.

Despite all the data and the importance placed on sleep in the media and elsewhere, many of us consider it to be something of an afterthought.  After all, with only 24 hours in which to perform our daily tasks, who has time to sleep?  I know I often fall into this line of thinking.

It’s a flawed line of thinking, though.  Study after study shows just how important sleep is, but most of us don’t need to see a study to appreciate sleep’s importance.  We can feel it and we can see it in our diminished performance at work, at home, or at the gym.

To get more sleep, you really need to commit to a routine.  The body enjoys routine, particularly when it comes to quality shuteye.  If you can, try to go to bed at the same time every night and wake up at the same time every morning.  Use your bed for its purpose – sleep – not as a couch for television watching or as a La-Z Boy for snacking.  And don’t underestimate the power of sound when sleeping.  Small things can improve or disturb one’s ability to sleep, like the television (disturb) or, as my mom used to call it, “the sounds of the night” (improve).  Find a noise that’s comforting while sleeping, like the chirping of the peepers if you live in a more rural area, or the pitter-patter of rain if you live in the often rain-soaked Northwest.

Sleep could very well prevent a life spent pricking your finger to test your blood sugar.  But as it pertains to life in general and how the lack of it often causes lashing out at those around us, sleep can prevent us from being hostile to others, not to mention our long term health.

Source:
Science Daily

Organic Maintains Lead in Debate over Nutrition

Basket of organic apples.

For several years now, the British Nutrition Foundation has doggedly held by the notion that organic produce is no more nutritious than conventional produce.  They hold that the only real reason one ought to pony up the extra two to three bucks for a head of lettuce or a peck of peppers is to preserve farmers’ soil from which vegetables derive, as organic farmers don’t use artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

That, in and of itself, is a reason to go organic.  But there’s an increasing amount of evidence that suggests organic produce is indeed more nutritious than conventional produce.  And it’s not just studies drummed up from several years ago.  These are very recent studies, one of which was done on the f’apple’ous apple.

According to German researchers who published their findings in the most recent issuing of the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, organically-grown apples produce 15 percent more antioxidants than conventionally-grown apples.  They discovered this after a three-year observational study that literally started from the ground up:  comparing how apples produced conventionally to those produced organically measured up in terms of how much polyphenols they produced by harvest time (polyphenols are a type of antioxidant found primarily in the skin of fruits that have loads of anti-cancer properties, not to mention anti-aging properties).  Their results indicated that those grown organically – the golden delicious variety, between 2005 and 2006 – yielded 15 percent more antioxidant capacity than the conventional crop.

A finding like this flies in the face of some scientists who argue that not only do organic foods have no nutritional benefit over conventional produce, but that conventional produce is more nutritious than organic produce, as a Rutgers University scientist asserts!!

He’s entitled to his opinion, but I’m curious if he – unlike the British Nutrition Foundation – is willing to modify his assertion after this study.  Or how about the University of California-Davis study on tomatoes, which found that organically-grown tomatoes had approximately 100 percent more quercetin than conventionally-grown tom-toms (quercetin is a chemical compound known for it’s anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties).  Or how about the finding published in a 2007 issuing of the Nutrition Bulletin, which found “strong and consistent” evidence of more vitamin C found in organically-grown potatoes than conventionally grown spuds.

The great thing about science is that it’s always improving; what wasn’t known at one point becomes known, due to advancements in technology and methodology.  The not-so-great thing about science – or should I say scientists? – are those who are too pigheaded to believe that they could be, in fact, wrong about something.

Eventually, some will change their tune. In the meantime, don’t stop humming this unchained melody:   Organic foods are not only better for the earth, but they’re better for you nutritionally – whether they’re kiwis or apples, tomatoes or potatoes (I’ll talk about the kiwi study in a future article).

Sources:
Foodnavigator.com
Foodnavigator.com
Foodnavigator.com

Study:  Low Levels of Magnesium Increases Stroke Risk

Spinach is a rich source of heart-healthy magnesium.

If you’re familiar with my latest book, The Blood Pressure Miracle, then you know about a triumvirate of minerals that are highly beneficial to maintaining a healthy blood pressure: potassium, calcium and magnesium.

Well a new study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology backs up my claims, as its results indicate that low magnesium levels heighten the risk of stroke.

Now, to me, this isn’t a big surprise, as my book is packed with information supported by scientific studies.  But there are still a number of people out there too stubborn to believe that natural health is bupkus, that the only real way to turn one’s health around is through prescription drugs.  Here’s just one example of why they’re wrong.

Before I get into the details of the study, you may be wondering how blood pressure is tied with stroke.  Well, to make it as simple as possible, when someone has high blood pressure, blood is not flowing to and from the heart (and throughout the body) as it normally should due to build-up or narrowing of the arteries.  And if blood and oxygen is not flowing throughout the body properly, the risk of stroke (where oxygen is not reaching the brain due to artery blockage) increases tremendously.  Some estimates indicate that 70 percent of stroke incidents can be directly linked back to high blood pressure!

That said, how does having low magnesium increase one’s risk for developing the country’s third leading cause of death?  For that answer, we go to the study’s researchers.

I suppose their answer doesn’t tell us much, but they say that magnesium has an “anti-hypertensive mechanism” built into it.  What this “anti-hypertensive mechanism” is, not even they know, but what they do know is that the lower the 14,000 men and women’s magnesium levels were that were studied, the higher their risk for stroke.  And in the approximately 600 cases of stroke incidents over the 15-year study period, those who had diabetes and high blood pressure were the most common stroke victims.

The researchers, unsurprisingly, are loath to advocate using magnesium supplements as a method in which to staunch the risk of stroke, but at least one researcher, who came away with similar results with respect to magnesium and diabetes prevention, said that consuming a magnesium-rich diet would at least be “prudent.”

Well, there’s a ringing endorsement.

I’m grateful for these researchers and their work that supports what I and many others have long been telling you with regards to minerals and avoiding life-robbing diseases and conditions, but I wish they’d be straight with the people and make a definitive statement:  Magnesium is one of the three great minerals that diminish the risk of stroke.

In the meantime, you can increase your intake of magnesium through supplements (400 to 800 milligrams per day), or through the regular consumption of magnesium-rich foods, like halibut, beans, whole grains, and spinach.

To keep your heart functioning magnificently, put a premium on magnesium.

Sources:
About.com
Nutraingredients-usa.com
American Heart Association

Pilot Study: Wild Oats May Cut Cigarette Use in Half

Smoking is a very unnatural habit.

There’s definitely been a full-scale blitz on the tobacco industry in recent years.  Everywhere you look, from the federal government to state government, legislators are pushing cigarette taxes northward.  This past March, for instance, the president signed a new bill into law that would increase the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1.00 and the tax on chewing tobacco from 20 cents to 50 cents!  Percentage wise, that’s the largest tobacco tax hike in the history of tobacco tax hikes.

And that’s just the federal tax. Add in the excise tax states imposed, and you’re spending as much as $5.00 before paying for that 20-pack of cigs!

Because the health effects of cigarette use spurn the economy an estimated $193 billion in expenses, it’s no wonder the government is tackling the issue by going after the smoker’s wallet.  After all, what better way to curb the use of cigarettes than by making it difficult to buy them?

I’m all for curbing cigarette use, but as a natural health advocate, I’m much more inclined to advise using natural methods than financial ones.  And according to a pilot study, a natural one may be found with the ol’ oat.

We all know of the benefits oats hold, by minimizing cancer risk, reducing heart disease risk and controlling cholesterol levels.  But curbing cigarette use?  After a 28-month study, we now may be able to add “natural suppressant” to oats’ highlight reel of benefits.

The study originates in Japan, where researchers recruited eight smokers to take 900 mg of an extract taken from wild oats that has this suppressive characteristic.

While the oats didn’t kick the habit entirely, the number of cigarettes smoked dropped significantly among the eight gentlemen studied.  Consider: The average number of cigarettes smoked was about 20 per day when the study started.  But by the study’s conclusion, that number had dropped to about nine per day!

Granted, nine is nine too many, but that’s a significant drop off for a suppressant entirely derived from nature.

There are several questions that need answers before putting too much credence into this study, though.  For one, it was a very small group of volunteers (thus the reliability is lacking a bit), and we also don’t know how the oats compare to other suppressants, like nicotine gums or patches.  But given that nicotine gums and patches carry side effects of their own, and given that this is a pilot study (i.e. in its seminal stages of development), the results show huge potential to be another natural way in which to break a very unnatural habit. 

The pilot study is published in the journal Pharmacometrics.

Sources:
Fox News
NUTRAingredients-usa.com

Kiwi Researchers Find Exercising Prevents Elderly from Falls

It’s a line that ought to be canonized in the annals of the Advertising Hall of Fame. 

Elderly man lifting weights.

“I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”

When the distressed woman and the company behind the commercial first hit the TV box, her dire call was considered humorous rather than serious (mainly because of the way in which the elderly woman yelled out, not so much because she’d fallen).

Falls sustained by the elderly are anything but humorous, of course.  Falls are quite serious and quite commonplace.  Consider these numbers compiled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2005 as to just how commonplace they are:

• Between 1991 and 2002, there was a near 75 percent increase in product-related slips, trips and falls among the elderly, virtually all of them serious enough to require emergency room treatment

• Each week, more than 30,000 elderly (age 65 and older) are treated for an injury related to a fall

• Falls are the leading cause of injury-related death among males and females over the age of 75

Whether it’s slipping on a sheet of ice in the driveway, losing one’s balance in the kitchen, or a misstep in a stairwell, falling when elderly is not the same as falling when young or even middle-aged.  Rarely can you pick yourself up and dust yourself off without having sustained some kind of injury.

Thankfully, companies use advertisements like the one mentioned to help illustrate the nature of the problem.  The company Life Alert allows an elderly person to simply press a button on their wrist or necklace when they’ve fallen so that local authorities can be notified.

But that’s after the fact.  What if there was a way to assure an elderly person doesn’t fall down in the first place; one that helps him or her maintain their independence at the same time?  Answer?  Exercise.

We all know the benefits of exercise:  old or young, it improves quality of life.  So it stands to reason that exercise improves quality of life by minimizing falls, right?  After all, the stronger you are, the less likely you are to take a tumble or stumble.  Well thanks to some researchers from New Zealand, we now have concrete evidence that this is indeed the case.

Researchers from the University of Otago reviewed data from over 55,300 elderly and compared how people who exercised regularly measured up to other treatments aimed at decreasing the incidence of falls (e.g. treatments included vitamin D supplements, home care interventions, home safety renovations, eye surgery to improve eyesight, etc.). 

Their review revealed just how effective exercise is in comparison to other remedies aimed at minimizing falls, because those who exercised were both less likely to fall and fell less frequently overall in comparison to other treatments aimed at reducing fall frequency.

The only other intervention that showed improvements in the elderly falling less frequently was the weaning off of prescription drug treatments.  Initially, the prescription drugs were taken so that they could sleep better or as an aid in battling depression.  But as they were weaned off these drugs, they too decreased the likelihood of falls.

Yet more evidence of the positive impact exercise has on the body; likewise, how weaning off of prescription drugs makes for a “steadier” lifestyle – quite literally. 

Sources:
ScienceDaily
SeniorJournal.com

Study:  No Difference in Results for Bladder Cancer Patients Receiving High or Low Intensity Treatments

Chemotherapy drugs are part of traditional medical treatment for bladder cancer.

Clichés are anathema to the writer who wants to pepper his or her prose with provocative witticisms.  But try as they might, clichés find their way into articles and books because – more often than not – they’re true.  Few clichés are more undeniable in their truth-telling than the one coined by furniture designer Ludwig Mies Van Der Roche:  Less is more.

Whether it’s book length, a fashion statement, a meal plan, or a kind word, the lesser the amount, the more meaningful its result.  I’ve certainly found this to be the case.  But all too often, more is equated with more better.

To illustrate my meaning, look no further than bladder cancer.  Yes, bladder cancer.

Bladder cancer is as prevalent a cancer in America as any one you can name – in the top five in America and in the top 10 in England.  But it’s in a class by itself when it comes to the cost patients and families incur through treatment.

Researchers from the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center found that the average high intensity treatment for bladder cancer – i.e. the invasive kind – averaged about $7,200 per treatment, about $4,300 more than the average low intensity treatment! 

Now, subscribers to the “more is more” theory would expect a higher survival rate among those getting the high intensity treatments.  After all, the more testing and procedures, the better the doctors can determine what needs to be done and what treatment(s) to implement.  But that wasn’t the case in the researchers’ findings.  The survival rates were actually quite similar among those who received little treatment and lots of treatment. 

As the good researchers say, who published their findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, this suggests that doctors often implement unnecessary testing procedures, putting unnecessary financial stress on the patient, and unnecessary strain on the patient through treatment. 

Perhaps the most damning finding of the researchers was that the aggressively treated patients were more than 2.5 times more likely to need radical procedures due to the rapid decline of their condition – again, despite the intensive nature of treatment!

Now, I understand that some diagnoses require aggressive treatments.  But doctors and, to some extent, individuals themselves, are often loath to try natural treatments for bladder cancer. 

Take frankincense oil as an example.  Today, frankincense oil is traditionally used as a topical crème that improves skin complexion and promotes the healing of wounds.  But way back in the day, it was used as a medicinal elixir for generations in Southeast Asia. Well, researchers from Oklahoma have discovered why their use of it was so commonplace – at least as far as bladder cancer treatment goes.

Through gene expression, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center found that when regular bladder cells and cancerous bladder cells were exposed to frankincense oil, the frankincense oil was able to decipher between the two, killing the cancerous cells!  

Now, more research needs to be done before frankincense oil can be heralded as a bladder cancer cure, but this is the perfect example of how less treatment often translates to bigger, better results.  And with the boom in the natural health arena, more and more people are realizing this. 

That more and more people are realizing the effectiveness of natural health is the one area of life where the less is more rule doesn’t apply.  Because the more people jump aboard the natural health bandwagon, the better off we’ll all be in the long run.

Sources:
ScienceDaily
ScienceDaily

Study: Overweight in Young Life Triples Likelihood of Mobility Issues in Older Life

Being overweight in young life can contribute to mobility issues later in life.

Establishing a healthy lifestyle while young is so important.  It sets up a healthy habit that we’ll continue to live by throughout our life (remember, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior); it ensures that we won’t fall victim to the smorgasbord of diseases and illnesses that are linked with obesity; and it gives us a sense of accomplishment that all of us need to be truly happy.

But it also helps reduce the likelihood that we won’t have a string of mobility issues later in life – at least that’s what a recent study has concluded. 

I think if there’s one thing I dread most about old age, it’s not being able to move around as freely as I can now.  Being in my early 30s, I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for the once spry to now be tied to walkers, wheel chairs, and canes.

Some problems with mobility are unavoidable, as in those who were quite active, but for circumstances beyond their control, they’re now held hostage by the aforementioned mobility assistants.  But for others, mobility issues could have been avoided if they hadn’t been so torpid in their salad days.

According to researchers from Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 20somethings that struggled with weight gain throughout their 20s and into their middle-aged years greatly increase their chances of walking with walkers and canes by their 70s.

The researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing health information statistics from people averaging 74 years of age.  All of them were healthy and free of any life-threatening illnesses at the start of the seven-year study. 

Through a series of follow-ups, many of the participants’ bodies began to break down.  This is a natural thing, of course, but the researchers found an interesting corollary when they asked about their struggles with weight in their younger years.

What they found was that among women with mobility issues, they were three times more likely to develop them if they were overweight in their 50s, despite being thin in their 70s.  The same was true for men, only they were twice as likely. 

Researchers defined “mobility issues” as not being able to walk a quarter-mile without struggling.

The study is published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

These results could very well prove to be a harbinger of what’s to come.  The focus on convenience has never been more prevalent than it is today (e.g. elevators, convenience food, fast food, television watching, video gaming, etc.) and in a population where approximately 65 percent are overweight or obese, we could be headed for a disability rate of seismic proportions.

To paraphrase the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Denise Houston, an intervention of sorts may be required to stifle the forthcoming cavalcade of injuries, disabilities, and handicaps in the next 10, 20 and 30 years.

I’m not sure what it that intervention will be or what it will take, but in the meantime, do yourself a favor and form your own personal intervention.  Make healthy living a priority:  not simply for your present health, but for the sake of your future mobility.

Source:
ScienceDaily

Cyclist’s Study May Dispel ‘No Pain, No Gain’ Mantra

Could coffee reduce pain related to exercise?

Caffeine consumption is one of those topics where there’s no hard-fastened rule.  For instance, if you’re pregnant, it’s best to avoid it; if you need an energy booster, it’s best to have it. If you’re sleeping patterns have been off-kilter lately, you may want to cut down; if you’re looking for a post-workout potion, you may want to drink up.

See what I mean?

A new study adds to the confusion regarding the pluses and minuses of caffeine, but chalk this one up in the plus category, as this study’s results could go a long way in dispelling the notion of “no pain, no gain” when it comes to exercise.

The study’s lead researcher wanted to see what effect caffeine use had on feelings of pain during exercise.  He got the idea for it after years of having a cup of coffee or two before he and his friends would go out for their regular bike ride.  Years of this ritual convinced him and his fellow riders that the caffeine was improving their performance.

Seven years and multiple tests later, he now has a better understanding of caffeine on the body – and it seems to be that caffeine improves performance via its soothing impact on the brain.

Their study involved 25 college-aged participants, half of whom were habitual caffeine users; the other half rarely ever consumed it, or as the lead researcher called them, the “caffeine-naïve.”

When the researchers supplied the caffeine-craven with varying dosages and then monitored their perceptions of pain (through questions and machinery that measured oxygen consumption and heart rate), they found that, indeed, caffeine diminished their pain levels when compared to those instances in which they received a placebo.

But what researchers found the most interesting was that even among the caffeine-carnivorous, they also experienced less pain.  Now, conventional wisdom would tell you that it wouldn’t produce the same effect, as those who drink a lot of caffeine are more accustomed to the effect it has on the body. 

Apparently, that tolerance factor doesn’t seem to apply to exercise.

Robert Motl, the study’s lead researcher, hopes to perform future studies on the ties between caffeine and exercise.  He hopes future analyses will uncover why the body doesn’t exhibit a tolerance to caffeine when it comes to exercise, and also whether or not caffeine actually improves athletic performance. 

With regards to pain tolerance, Motl says the suppression is due to the blocking of certain receptors released in the brain.

The study’s findings are published in the April issue of the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism.

Source:
ScienceDaily

After Eight-Month Sabbatical, Brown Fat News Returns

Overweight

I often like to review past articles so as not to repeat myself.  Even though there’s a fairly constant flow of new health news developing, major media outlets are sometimes slow on the uptake, reporting on things that yours truly already knew about.

So when news “broke” about brown fat being better than white fat, I felt certain I’d covered it.  Why repeat what’s already been discussed here eight months ago, right? 

But as I combed through previous postings, there was one thing I didn’t cover that this most recent report uncovered.  Here’s a portion of what I wrote in that past article (note the bold type):

Sadly, white fat – called “white” fat because of the lesser amounts of mitochondria and capillaries compared to the amount found in “brown” fat – makes up the majority of fat cells found in our bodies, at least in our adult years…

The latest news throws something of a wrench into that statement, because researchers now say adults have more brown fat than originally thought. 

As reported in the April issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers have found previously unforeseen brown fat deposits through PET scans, potentially paving the way for curbing diseases associated with obesity – even obesity itself.

Brown fat burns fat more efficiently than white fat does.  So much so, researchers say, that it burns as much as 400 to 500 more calories while at rest than the same person who has more white fat deposits.  Further, when fully activated, brown fat could burn as much as 10 pounds over the course of a year!

Now, all that’s well and good, but this research is entirely fruitless and falls on deaf ears if no one knows how to pump up brown fat stores and deflate white fat stores.  And when I first reported on this topic back in August, all the research seemed to point to some sort of pharmaceutical drug as a means to boost brown brawn.

Not exactly my idea of a good idea, thus not worthy of further reportage.

While researchers haven’t shied away from pill popping as a suitable means, there appears to be some natural forms for stimulating brown fat reserves.  And if you hate the cold, it’s not good news.  One of the ways researchers stimulated brown fat was by exposing the participants’ bodies to cold temperatures.  In other words, when participants reported being the coldest was when brown fat stores were the most active.  

Another way to stimulate more brown fat?  Stay thin.  When comparing obese adults to slim adults, the slender adults had more brown fat stores than the obese adults.  I don’t necessarily doubt this finding, but here’s one of those classic “chicken or the egg” cases:  Are the obese adults obese because they have less brown fat, or are they obese simply because of overeating and not exercising and that’s what’s caused them to have lesser amounts of brown fat?

As researchers determine how to stimulate the adult body’s brown fat reserves, the finding is “stimulative” (to use a frequent phrase we’ve all become familiar with in these economic times) in and of itself.  The topic of brown fat versus white fat has been in and out of the R&D phase for more than 40 years now, but when new evidence comes to the forefront, expect more discoveries to result.

And if history is any guide – considering this is the first we’ve heard about the topic in eight months – expect to hear more about brown fat around Christmastime.  In the spirit of the season, here’s hoping the news brings glad tidings of great joy (i.e. how to stimulate brown fat stores naturally through foods or environmental conditions, not pills permeating with side-effects).

(Note:  Speaking of pills permeating with side effects, one of the side effects of taking beta-blockers is diminished brown fat stores).

Sources:
NewsDaily
MSN Health & Fitness