Burgers revival on British school menus

Food freaks forced to back down



England's school food watchdog has denied it is watering down its healthy food guidelines after many pupils opted out of school dinners. Seven months after healthy food guidelines were introduced, the School Food Trust is revising the standards. Canteens will now be allowed to offer manufactured meat products like pies, sausages and healthier burgers four times a fortnight instead of just once. The trust said it was responding to calls for more clarity and flexibility.

New standards were brought into force in September 2006 after TV chef Jamie Oliver revealed the poor nutritional standards of meals on offer in school canteens. But a number of reports and surveys, including one for the BBC, suggest that fewer pupils have been taking school meals.

A trust spokeswoman said the 2006 standards were always going to be refined and clarified, but denied the move was a result of pupils opting for the chip shop instead of the school canteen. "We undertook consultations with cooks, schools and manufacturers and decided clarifications of the standards were needed. "Having listened to people we understand how difficult it is to get from having chips and Turkey Twizzlers every day to not having burgers and chips at all. "There's still a ban on lower quality economy burgers - schools have to serve a good quality one and it might be grilled."

She added: "It's about being informed about making these choices and understanding that having burgers every day is not a choice that is normal. "This is a response to help and encourage children make healthy choices, not because swarms of them are going to the chip shop."

The changes to the meat products restrictions mean canteens will be able, no more than once a fortnight, to offer pupils one item from each of the following four groups:

• Burgers, hamburgers, chopped meat and corned meat
• Sausages, sausage meat, link, chipolata and luncheon meat
• Meat pies, meat puddings, Melton Mowbray pie, game pie, Scottish pie, pasty, pasties, bridie and sausage rolls
• Any other shaped or coated meat product

Other changes mean kitchens can now serve breadsticks and crackers - as long as they are served with fruit, vegetables or dairy foods. They were previously banned along with crisps, salted nuts and other flavoured snacks, but the trust thought they might encourage pupils to eat more fruit, vegetables and dairy food.

School kitchens are still being encouraged to serve more fruit, vegetables, fresh meat and fish, and deep-fried food should not be served more than twice a week. A small snapshot survey of secondary schools for the trust suggested the take-up of the new healthier, school meals has remained roughly stable. Some 30% of the 74 secondary schools that responded said they had seen a reduction in the numbers of pupils having school meals, while a further 30% said they had seen an increase. The rest said things had not changed.

The survey suggests the results were better in primary schools. A poll of 206 for the trust found half had seen no change, a third had seen an increase and just under a fifth had seen a decrease.

Source




Big advance in cornea surgery

Australian surgeons have restored a man's vision by performing a procedure that eliminates the need for a complete transplant of the cornea. The procedure causes fewer complications and restores eyesight faster than a cornea transplant, doctors say. Rasik Vajpayee, head of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital's corneal unit in Melbourne, who performed the surgery, said it was an exciting development. "This new treatment has the potential to help sufferers of endothelial corneal blindness to see again, offering them the ability to lead an independent life," Professor Vajpayee said.

Diseases of the cornea -- the clear surface at the front of the eye that lets it focus -- can lead to blurred vision or blindness. Previously, doctors would make a large incision in the eye, remove the diseased or damaged cornea and replace it with a donated cornea, using sutures. Although the procedure has a 90 per cent success rate, it can take 12 months for the eye to heal and patients can experience complications, including infection and distorted vision. Some require corrective surgery if the replacement cornea becomes loose.

In the new procedure, which rarely requires sutures, surgeons make a small incision in the eye and remove only the diseased layer of the cornea, which is then replaced with a layer of healthy donor tissue. "Previously we were replacing the whole cornea, which has about five layers," Professor Vajpayee said. "But there is a serious shortage of corneas around the world. This procedure could allow us to treat two or three patients with tissue from the same donor."

Professor Vajpayee said surgeons had performed the procedure on hundreds of patients in the US, with great success. "The complete transplant uses up to 20 sutures, which all have to be removed," he said. "This has better outcomes and patients recover faster."

David Wall's vision has improved daily since a fortnight ago, when he became the first Australian to undergo the procedure. The 75-year-old's eyesight had deteriorated significantly over the past year. "Eventually I couldn't see anything out of my left eye, it was just a blur," Mr Wall said. "It was affecting my balance and I had to concentrate really hard on the ground when I walked, so I didn't fall." Mr Wall said he could already see objects and read large letters. "It's getting better each day -- I'm very happy with it."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

SMOKING: ANOTHER NAIVE STUDY FROM THE CRUSADING BMJ

Most medical journals have their faults but the BMJ journals deliberately sacrifice good scholarship. Articles with a politically correct conclusion are almost certain to be accepted there regardless of their scholarly merit. The following hopelessly naive article is a case in point. It ignores the possibility that the group of "light" smokers are different to start with -- that many of them are smoking "light" because they already have real health concerns. The study therefore proves nothing. Journal abstract follows:

Light Cigarette Smoking Impairs Coronary Microvascular Functions as Severely as Smoking Regular Cigarette

By Hakan Gullu et al

Background: Smoking is the most prevailed and the most preventable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Smoking of low-tar, low-nicotine (light cigarette) cigarette looks like less hazardous than smoking regular cigarette for general population due to the lower nicotine and tar yield.

Purpose: In this study, we compared the chronic and acute effects of light cigarette and regular cigarette smoking on coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR).

Methods: 20 Regular cigarette smokers (mean age:24.8~5.0) and 20 light cigarette smokers (mean age:25.6~6.4), and 22 nonsmoker healthy volunteers (mean age: 25.1~4.2) were included. In the first run, each subject underwent echocardiographic examination including CFVR measurement after 12 hours fast and smokeless period. Two days after, in the second run, each subject smoked two cigarettes, which were their usual cigarette, in a closed room within 15 minutes. Then, within 20-30 minutes, each subject underwent echocardiographic examination including CFVR measurement.

Results: CFVR values were significantly and similarly lower in the light cigarette smokers and the regular cigarette smokers compared to the controls (2.68~0.50, 2.65~0.61, 3.11~0.53, P=0.013) (Table 1). Post hoc Sheffe analysis revealed that in both smokers group, CFVR values were significantly lower than that in the controls. Before smoking and after smoking paired t test revealed that smoking of two light cigarettes acutely decreased CFVR from 2.68~0.50 to 2.05~0.43 (P=0.001), and smoking of two regular cigarettes acutely decreased CFVR from 2.65~0.61 to 2.18~0.48 (P=0.001).

Conclusion: Smoking of low-tar, low-nicotine cigarette impair CFVR as severely as regular cigarette.

A media summary below:

LOW-TAR "light" cigarettes are just as damaging to heart blood flow as regular cigarettes, finds a new study in the journal Heart . Researchers recruited 62 participants in their mid-20s with no history of heart disease. Twenty had smoked low-tar, low-nicotine cigarettes (8 milligrams tar, 0.6 milligrams nicotine) for at least three years. Another 20 had smoked regular cigarettes for the same period (12 milligrams tar, 0.9 milligrams nicotine), and the rest were non-smokers. All participants were given a fitness test, with the smokers tested 30 minutes after smoking two of their normal cigarettes within a 15-minute period. Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) - a measure of how well the heart's blood vessels can stretch in response to increased blood flow - decreased from 2.68 to 2.05 after smoking in the low-tar group, and from 2.65 to 2.18 in the regular cigarette smokers, while CFVR was 3.11 in the non-smokers. The findings show that switching to "light" does not reduce the hazards of smoking, say the authors.






Bird flu antibodies look good

RESEARCHERS in Switzerland have successfully immunised mice against the H5N1 strain of bird flu using human antibodies taken from survivors of the deadly virus, according to a study released today. The antibodies, reproduced at the Institute for Research in Biomedicine, also vastly enhanced the survival rate of infected animals, pointing the way to a treatment for people stricken with the often lethal disease, said Antonio Lanzavecchia, co-author of the study and director of the Institute's immune regulation laboratory. "We are very confident that this data can be reproduced in humans,'' he told AFP, saying that the antibodies "provided immediate, short-term immunity'' in mice.

The H5N1 bird flu has killed millions of wild and domestic fowl across the world since it first emerged in the late 1990s, and has caused 185 fatalities out of 306 known cases - most since 2003 - in humans, according to the World Health Organisation. Experts fear that the virus could mutate into a form easily communicable among people as happened during the great flu epidemic of 1918, which caused some 50 million fatalities. In the experiments, mice were injected with antibodies generated from the blood of avian flu survivors in Vietnam, where more than 40 people have succumbed to the disease since 2003. The country's first human case of H5N1 in 18 months, meanwhile, remained in an intensive care unit yesterday in Hanoi.

The mice were then exposed to the same strains that proved so deadly in humans. The treatment provided virtually complete protection, according to the study, published in the open access journal PLoS Medicine. As important, said Mr Lanzavecchia, was the efficacy of the antibodies in neutralising the virus in mice that had been infected as much as 72 hours earlier. The antibodies significantly reduced the amount of virus found in the lungs - by a factor of 10 to 100 - and almost completely stopped it from reaching the brain or the spleen. By contrast, none of the untreated mice in a control group survived.

The development of a vaccine against a possible global H5N1 pandemic has been a major focus of scientists in the field, many of whom are gathering at the end of this week in Paris for the second International Conference on Avian Influenza in Humans. But relatively little attention had been devoted to antibodies, which acted differently, Mr Lanzavecchia said. A vaccine induces a long-term or permanent immune response, but typically takes weeks or months to take effect. Vaccines are also useless to a patient once the disease has struck.

Antibodies, however, worked immediately, and were relatively easy to manufacture on an industrial scale. But the protection was only likely to last a few months, he said. This could still be critical in saving the lives of those infected, who typically seek medical help only a couple of days after flu-like symptoms appear. Antibody treatment could also immunise frontline nurses and doctors during a possible pandemic.

Because it was not possible to conduct regular clinical trials due to the lack of cases, regulators in the US and Europe had authorised a ``fast track'' approval process for an antibody-based drug, Mr Lanzavecchia said. If a treatment showed the same results in two animal models, including one on primates, and then passed a safety analysis, it could then go to market. This process took between three and four years, he said. The research has been funded by Britain's Wellcome Trust, the second largest medical research charity in the world, as well as the US National Institute for Health and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Scientists find more genes linked to breast cancer

I was rather pleased personally to read the report below. QIMR is located about 15 minutes drive from where I live and I did in fact meet Georgia Chenevix-Trench socially some years ago -- a very pleasant lady despite her frightening surname. My congratulations to her on her research. I write without fear or favour, however. I was quite dismissive of research by another QIMR group on May 21st

AUSTRALIAN scientists have helped to uncover four new genes involved in breast cancer and believe they hold the magic key to exposing all others behind the deadly disease. The breakthrough is being heralded as the most significant in the field of breast cancer genetics for more than a decade. "This is huge, absolutely huge, because now we know how to find them all," said Queensland researcher Georgia Chenevix-Trench, who was involved in the landmark international study of more than 40,000 women.

In research released yesterday, the collaborators revealed four genes that slightly increase a woman's chance of developing breast cancer. Everyone carries these genes but those who carry specific abnormal variants will have a 10 to 30 per cent increased risk of disease. The find sharply boosts the number of known low-risk genes to five, after the group publicised the discovery of another gene, Caspase 8, earlier this year.

Although the latest developments are promising, scientists say there is no point screening women for these dangerous variants until 30 or 40 more have been uncovered. A woman would need to carry multiple bad variants to really increase their cancer risk, said Dr Chenevix-Trench, of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Dr Chevenix-Trench said the most exciting aspect of the research, published in the international journal Nature, was that researchers now understood how to find these genes.

Source




AH! WHAT A LAUGH! VITAMINS AND WEIGHT LOSS

The American Journal of Epidemiology is usually at the top of my list for amusing absurdities but I think I am going to have to add "Archives of Internal Medicine" to my list of guffaw-provoking reading. One of their latest articles is a real lulu. I will reproduce below first the Abstract and then a media summary. See if you can spot the absurdity:

Calcium Plus Vitamin D Supplementation and the Risk of Postmenopausal Weight Gain

By: Bette Caan et al

Abstract:

Background: Obesity in the United States has increased significantly during the past several decades. The role of calcium in the maintenance of a healthy body weight remains controversial.

Methods: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was performed with 36 282 postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 79 years, who were already enrolled in the dietary modification and/or hormone therapy arms of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial. Women were randomized at their first or second annual visit to receive a dose of 1000 mg of elemental calcium plus 400 IU of cholecalciferol (vitamin D) or placebo daily. Change in body weight was ascertained annually for an average of 7 years.

Results: Women receiving calcium plus cholecalciferol supplements vs women receiving placebo had a minimal but consistent favorable difference in weight change (mean difference, -0.13 kg; 95% confidence interval, -0.21 to -0.05; P = .001). After 3 years of follow-up, women with daily calcium intakes less than 1200 mg at baseline who were randomized to supplements were 11% less likely to experience small weight gains (1-3 kg) and 11% less likely to gain more moderate amounts of weight (>3 kg) (P for interaction for baseline calcium intake = .008).

Conclusion: Calcium plus cholecalciferol supplementation has a small effect on the prevention of weight gain, which was observed primarily in women who reported inadequate calcium intakes.

A Media summary below:

CALCIUM and vitamin D supplements could help postmenopausal women to control their weight, according to research in the latest issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine . The study included 36,282 women aged 50 to 79 who were randomly assigned to receive either 1000 milligrams of calcium plus 400 international units of vitamin D each day, or an inactive placebo. Participants were weighed each year for approximately seven years. At the end of the study, women who took the supplements weighed an average of 130 grams less than those who did not. The benefits were greatest in women who were not previously getting their recommended daily intake of calcium, with those in the supplement group weighing an average of 190 grams less than those in the placebo group by the end of the study. The authors suggest that calcium and vitamin D may help to break down existing fat cells and prevent the development of new fat.

Dja geddit? Popping all those pills over all those years helped the ladies lose all of one quarter of one pound! Wotta laugh!

A more honest conclusion to the study would have been something like: "Calcium and vitamin D supplements were found to be unimportant to weight control in this study".

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Diabetes scare -- again over a tiny risk

Post lifted from New Editor. See the original for links

My father takes Avandia for his diabetes, so naturally I was a little alarmed when I saw the USA Today headline: Diabetes Drug Called Heart Death Risk. But one must turn to page 2 of the print version to get to the pertinent facts.

Taken together, the studies involved more than 27,000 patients. There were 86 heart attacks and 39 deaths from heart disease among Avandia patients; there were 72 heart attacks and 22 deaths among patients not taking the drug.

The story makes it sound as if GlaxoSmithkline were trying to cover up the risks, when in reality the test results were available on a website the company set up for the purpose of disclosure. The USA Today writer calls the website "obscure," showing obvious anti-corporate bias. Government officials are doing the "who knew what when" thing, as if 17 deaths in 27,000 diabetes-afflicted people is cause for government action.

It's true that 39 deaths instead of 22 is a 64% increase. But 17 deaths out of 27,000 is .0006, or 6 hundredths of one percent. That's barely within statistical significance.

Vioxx was taken off the market for an elevated risk that was fairly tiny compared to the number of people taking it, and by all accounts, suffering from arthritis pain much less because of it.

3.5% of the subjects on Vioxx had suffered a heart attack or stroke, compared with 1.9% on placebo

Merck volutarily took Vioxx off the market. But USA Today ran a story that makes Merck seem shadowy, marketing relentlessly while withholding information about danger. But anyone on Vioxx would tell you about how it made their daily life less painful.

Marjorie Chepp of Milwaukee had been taking Vioxx for nearly two years. Her doctor first prescribed it for a knee injury, but Chepp found that it also relieved her osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. She asked to remain on it.

Why, in a free country, can't adults in consulation with their doctor make an educated risk decision about a drug that works?




Scientific fraud

Replication is the only test of truth and I myself repeatedly assist those who wish to replicate my research findings

You have to wonder at some people. I have been wondering at Jon Sudbo, a Norwegian scientist who published a paper in The Lancet in 2005 showing that a certain class of painkillers cut the risk of oral cancer. Sudbo, it turned out, made the whole lot up. And he was astoundingly dim in the way he went about inventing his 908 patients: he gave 250 the same date of birth.

As I learnt at a terrific conference in London last week, hosted by the charity Fraud Advisory Panel, there are many more Sudbos out there but scant means of spotting them. The handful who are found must be a tiny minority, said Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature. And so, he says, we need to consider "going the extra mile" to find them. He is considering whether some studies, especially ones that make headlines, should be replicated before going to press.

Science operates on an assumption of honesty - raw data are rarely scrutinised by either institutions or journals, and academics are encouraged to work independently. Rogue researchers feed off this culture of trust: busy superiors and colleagues often sign off research papers and grant applications without reading them. Fame ensues and grants and citations roll in. And so it becomes hard to "out" a suspect. Do you snitch to your head of department, for example? To your vice-chancellor? Might he or she wish to conceal an issue that could make the institution look culpable? If the person moves and you divulge your suspicions to his new employer, can you be sued?

One solution is to make whistleblowing easier. On Friday the Research Integrity Office, a panel set up last year to promote good practice in biomedical research, launched a confidential hotline for the reporting of misconduct in universities, industry and the NHS (0844 7700644). About 1 per cent of clinical trials are thought to be suspect. This can distort the literature and put patients at risk.

It is a useful step but a modest one: it does not deal with bad behaviour in the physical sciences. And the onus is still on the host institution to investigate and punish. As Dr Campbell told me, some institutions take this responsibility more seriously than others. Woo Suk Hwang, the South Korean biologist who falsely claimed to have cloned a human embryo and extracted embryonic stem cells from it, was brought down chiefly by his own university. Others close ranks.

The conference brought a provocative contribution from Nicholas Steneck, a scientific fraudbuster from the University of Michigan, who pointed out that while plagiarism is undesirable, it may do less harm than the commoner practice of altering data analysis methods to achieve a desired result [See the righthand column of this blog for MY comment on the statistical analyses characteristic of medical research]. Professor Steneck asked: "What does plagiarism do to the literature? Not very much - as long as the plagiariser is accurate." And provided, of course, that the person whose work you're copying has higher standards of integrity than you.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

POT-USING MOTHERS HAVE DUMBER OFFSPRING

Particularly if you are a rat. Journal abstract below followed by plain English summary:

Hardwiring the Brain: Endocannabinoids Shape Neuronal Connectivity

By Paul Berghuis et al.

The roles of endocannabinoid signaling during central nervous system development are unknown. We report that CB1 cannabinoid receptors (CB1Rs) are enriched in the axonal growth cones of gamma-aminobutyric acid-containing (GABAergic) interneurons in the rodent cortex during late gestation. Endocannabinoids trigger CB1R internalization and elimination from filopodia and induce chemorepulsion and collapse of axonal growth cones of these GABAergic interneurons by activating RhoA. Similarly, endocannabinoids diminish the galvanotropism of Xenopus laevis spinal neurons. These findings, together with the impaired target selection of cortical GABAergic interneurons lacking CB1Rs, identify endocannabinoids as axon guidance cues and demonstrate that endocannabinoid signaling regulates synaptogenesis and target selection in vivo.

Summary:

The effects of marijuana are mediated by cannabinoid receptors on neurons in the brain, and a causal relationship between marijuana use during pregnancy and permanent cognitive deficits in the offspring has been identified. Berghuis et al. (p. 1212) now define the molecular hierarchy that controls marijuana actions within single neurons and show that activation of cannabinoid receptors by their natural ligands controls the establishment of functional connections between neurons in the brain. These findings define the cellular context through which prenatal marijuana use perturbs brain development.




Keep the government out of my clogged arteries!

Food Fascism as a civil liberties issue

Do you think lawmakers in Hartford should decide what you can eat when you go out in Greenwich or Stamford or Norwalk? Do you think they should keep unhealthy options away from you?

They've taken one step closer to banning trans fats from being used in any restaurant in the state, not because the production of trans fats uses child labor, not to reduce our dependence on foreign trans fats, and not even because trans fats deplete the ozone. None of those tired excuses for interfering in your life were even trotted out.

This was pure paternalism. They think it's bad for you. Therefore, you shouldn't have the option to decide otherwise. Can't a guy even eat a nice, greasy basket of fries anymore without the nanny state slapping his hand?

Eating trans fat does not cause more crime or put pushers on school grounds ("Hey, buddy, want some trans fat?" is not a commonly heard schoolyard expression).

The worst possible thing trans fat will do is kill you, and you alone-if you eat way too much of it. But it's your life. Who gets to make decisions about your life and the amount of risk you can take?

Can you go skydiving? Rock climbing? Can you attempt to hike Mount Everest, or should we file papers for permission from Connecticut's Senate Deputy Minority Leader John McKinney (R-Fairfield), one of the co-sponsors of the trans fat legislation? Can you take stressful or dangerous jobs? Can you drive a car? Can you eat raw fish on rice? Can you enlist and ship out to Iraq?

No one ever forced you to eat trans fats. You can go to another restaurant, or start your own, or eat at home, or order different food. You may not even want the choice of eating trans fat, since you, a healthy person, would never choose it anyway. Perhaps you are okay with this legislation, even though it was underhandedly tacked on as an amendment to a bill to repair a swimming pool.

If you are okay with them making those kinds of decisions for you, then logically you should be okay with them telling you what kind of healthy career opportunities are available to you, what kind of healthy spouses you can marry, what kind of friends you can have, and what kind of person you can vote for, especially if the options they take away from you are ones you weren't really considering anyway.

The real issue isn't even about the trans fat. It's about who runs your life when not a single other person is even remotely involved. As an aside, if you think the government should make this decision for you because otherwise you would be eating up public funds with health-care costs, then that same logic applies to the government deciding your friends, job, dates, hobbies, etc., because otherwise you might be depressed or hospitalized and take up public funds again.

The problem is the size of the government. You can bathe in trans fat in your own home if you want to, because that's out of the government jurisdiction. If they could, they'd regulate that too, but they can't, so they stick to regulating restaurants, because for some reason we've allowed them that leeway without any limits on what they can do with that power.

To paraphrase a famous poem by Martin Niemoller:

First they took the alcohol, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't an alcoholic.

Then they took the marijuana, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a pothead.

Then they took the tobacco, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't smoke.

Then they took the trans fats, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't eat it anyway.

Then they took the chocolates, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't have a sweet tooth.

Then they took my TV and internet, and by that time, there was no one to speak up for me.

They were all at the gym working out.

And I hate exercise

If you let the government take away this choice from you by force, you are authorizing them to do it about other choices as well, and you won't be able to argue later that it's none of their concern. And the next choice they take away might be something you used to like.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Alcohol and pregnancy: Bureaucracy trumps science

Lying to people as a way of getting them to behave in an approved manner is a hoary old Leftist strategy -- e.g. their patently absurd but endlessly-repeated claim that there is no such thing as race

Women who are pregnant or trying for a baby should stop drinking alcohol altogether, the Government's leading doctors give warning today. The new advice radically revises existing guidelines, which say that women can drink up to two units once or twice a week. Fiona Adshead, the deputy chief medical officer, said that the change was meant to send "a strong signal" to the thousands of women who drank more than the recommended limit that they were putting their babies at risk. But she admitted that it was not in response to any new medical evidence

Women are often confused about what drinking in moderation really means, the new guidelines say, and surveys suggest that many accidently or deliberately exceed the limit. "Our advice is simple: avoid alcohol if pregnant or trying to conceive," Dr Adshead said. "We have strengthened our advice to women to help ensure that no one underestimates the risk to the foetus." She suggested that bottles of beer, wines and spirits should carry the new warning that pregnant women give up drinking. However, it emerged yesterday that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists intended to stick with its advice that moderate drinking was perfectly safe, which could leave many pregnant women confused. The college said that it would examine the new advice and decide whether to adopt it "in due course".

The change brings Britain into line with a growing list of countries which recommend abstinence. For years, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have recommended that pregnant women abstain from alcohol. France joined them last autumn, saying that research had linked moderate levels of drinking and permanent brain damage.

Research from the Office for National Statistics has shown a sharp rise in fatal drinking habits among women. The study, of "preventable mortality", found that the annual rate of alcohol-related deaths had risen by two thirds between 1993 and 2005, to 1,873. However, the statistics only refer to death certificates where alcohol-related conditions such as cirrhosis are specifically mentioned. Charities put the annual death toll for both sexes at about 22,000.

Ministers were moved to act over drinking in pregnancy after recent research found that 9 per cent of expectant mothers drink more than the recommended limit. Other data found that a quarter drink right up to the limit. The existing advice to drink in moderation has been in place for about ten years. Previously, midwives regularly told pregnant women to drink up to eight units a week, and even recommended Guinness to prevent anaemia.

Heavy drinking can cause foetal alcohol syndrome, an incurable condition resulting in retardation, poor memory and, in the worst cases, facial abnormalities. About 1 in 1,000 babies are born with the syndrome each year worldwide. But a milder condition, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, is more common, affecting more than 6,000 children in Britain each year, and is a leading cause of learning difficulties.

Because many women do not realise that they are pregnant for the first few months, the advice was extended to those trying to conceive as well. It also states that should a pregnant woman choose to carry on drinking, she should not get drunk and keep to the previous recommendation of one to two units once or twice a week in order to minimise risks to the baby.

Source




Deceitful cancer scare -- those wicked "pollutants"

In her article below, Elizabeth Whelan seems surprised to find utter junk in a mainstream academic journal. If she read this blog, she would know that it is in fact routine

For years, self-appointed "environmental advocates" have generated press releases claiming that "chemicals" in our air, water, food, and consumer products such as cosmetics pose a risk of cancer. Nearly twenty years ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council caused a national panic by asserting that the agricultural chemical Alar posed a cancer risk to children (a claim that was later determined to be false). Advocates on Long Island have long claimed -- with a paucity of evidence -- that the elevated breast cancer rate in that area is the result of exposure to environmental chemicals like PCBs and DDT. These assertions can be dismissed as pure scare tactics, as they are not based on scientific data which have survived the rigor of the peer review process and been published in a professional medical journal.

But data and conclusions reported in peer review journals are sound and trustworthy, right? Apparently, we can no longer assume that peer review journals are free of "junk science." The peer-reviewed journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society (ACS), just published a special online supplement that clearly meets the definition of "junk"in every way.

This journal, which boasts a long and distinguished list of editorial advisors, featured an article by Dr. Julia Brody, the executive director of the Silent Spring Institute and researchers from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. The journal supplement section was funded by the foundation Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Brody is the principal investigator of the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study -- a study of exposures to "mammary carcinogens" from air and water pollutants, pesticides, detergents, plastics, and cosmetics. Why is this study "junk"? Let me count the ways:

First, the conclusions drawn by the authors, namely that environmental pollutants cause breast cancer, are not based on human studies but instead on high-dose animal studies. The authors identify a series of synthetic chemicals that cause breast tumors in rodents and then leap to the assumption that these chemicals also cause breast cancer in women.

There is now a nearly-universal rejection by scientists of the use of laboratory rodent data to predict human cancer risks. Thus, it is astounding that this lengthy paper is predicated on the assumption that rodents are just "little women." Indeed, in a companion article in the same Cancer supplement -- this one written exclusively by staff members of the Silent Spring Institute -- the authors recklessly elevate the role of rodent tests by asserting that "identifying chemical carcinogens in animal studies is currently the primary means of anticipating cancer effects in humans." If indeed that statement were true, we would be classifying a whole host of natural foods as "cancer risks" because they naturally contain chemicals that cause cancer in rodents -- including mushrooms (hydrazines), table pepper (safrole), and bread (ethyl carbamate)

Second, the authors brazenly conclude that, while they cannot state with confidence how many breast cancer cases annually are due to exposure to trace levels of "chemicals" (including pesticides, ingredients in cosmetics and other "environmental pollutants"), they feel the evidence (what evidence?) is strong enough to warrant "strategies" to reduce exposures in an effort to reduce breast cancer risk.

Further, it is clear from the affiliation of the senior author that this "study" was in no way neutrally conducted. In its own description, the Silent Spring Institute claims to be "a non-profit scientific research organization dedicated to identifying the links between the environment and women's health, especially breast cancer." The study was commissioned by the Susan G. Komen foundation's "environmental factors and breast cancer" project. Thus from the get-go the assumption is that breast cancer is causally linked to "environmental" factors -- specifically chemicals in the environment. This article is not science -- it is environmental advocacy.

Apparently, the peer reviewers of this paper were unfazed by the authors' conclusion that trace chemicals cause breast cancer, despite the fact that this idea is completely at variance with our understanding of the epidemiology of breast cancer. No serious cancer causation expert believes exposure to trace levels of environmental chemicals contributes to the toll of breast cancer.

In the latest edition of the "bible" of cancer epidemiology (Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, edited by Schottenfeld and Fraumeni), the authors reviewed the causation of breast cancer by assessing the role of "environmental factors" in the causation of breast cancer -- meaning factors other than heredity, age, gender, etc. They considered the influences of reproductive factors (for example, having a first child at an early age may offer protection), use of hormones, weight, and nutritional factors (obesity after middle age is a risk factor for breast cancer). They then evaluated the claim that "other environmental factors" contribute to breast cancer risk -- including exposure to trace levels of pesticides and industrial chemicals. They concluded that evidence from large pooled human studies found no association between exposure to trace chemicals like PCBs and DDT and breast cancer risk: "Overall, recent studies have not found evidence of increased risk of breast cancer, and [pollutants] appear unlikely to be major breast cancer risk factors."

A quick review of the Pub Med articles bank reveals numerous epidemiological articles looking for a possible link between breast cancer risk and PCBs, DDT, and other chemicals -- and they end with the conclusion that "the combined evidence does not support an association with breast cancer risk." ACS's own Detailed Guide: Breast Cancer What Are the Risk Factors for Breast Cancer? says "research does not show a clear link between breast cancer risk and exposure to environmental pollutants." Yet the Cancer article made little mention of the fact that human epidemiological studies contradict the conclusions that are based on lab-rat "evidence."

Media, interested in sensationalizing environmental health risks, used this story uncritically. The LA Times headline was "Common Chemicals Linked to Breast Cancer." Readers were led to believe that "overall exposure to mammary gland carcinogens is widespread" -- when there is no legitimate science to back up such a frightening claim. And of course, such reporting predictably sparked outrage: an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle blasted "cancerous chemicals" and went even further than the study authors did, asserting that these chemicals may be a more important factor in determining breast cancer risk than genetics. The editorial called for more laws, more regulations to protect women from "carcinogens."

The American Cancer Society has done the cause of breast cancer prevention a disservice by publishing this article. ACS has tarnished the much-touted image of the peer review process as something superior to the "science by press release" approach. The article diverted attention from scientifically-based ways of reducing breast cancer risks (including using FDA-approved medications as a means of chemo-prevention -- an approach that shows great promise).

Recent news documents that fewer women are getting mammograms over the past several years -- a decline that reversed the salutary trend of the past twenty years. This is important, and women need to be reminded to get their mammograms. Yet, instead of focusing women's attention on the critical importance of early detection -- and the good news about treatment and very low rates of recurrence -- the ACS has supported unfounded fears of inescapable, invisible, chemical agents causing cancer in helpless women.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

HAVING BABIES PROTECTS WOMEN FROM SKIN CANCER

So if you have the sort of "olive" skin that predisposes to melanoma, should you throw away your pills? Not really. The sampling below is impressive but the effects noted were small and melanoma has a very low incidence in most populations anyway (Estimated lifetime risk of 1 in 75 for American Caucasians). The word "parity" below is used in a peculiar medical way -- meaning the number of kids you have had. It's sort of fun that having kids seems to protect men too! Perhaps that's another reason not to take the findings too seriously. If families tend to go out in the sun less than singles, it would make sense, though. That big ball in the sky is the main cause of melanoma. It's nice to see "may be" used in the conclusion to an epidemiological article. We would have got a lot more definiteness if the article had been about "obesity"

Reproductive History and Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma: A Comparison between Women and Men

By Jeanette Kaae et al.

To evaluate whether previously observed associations between parity and cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) risk in women reflected a biologic mechanism or resulted from uncontrolled confounding by lifestyle factors associated with parity (e.g., patterns of sun exposure), the authors investigated the effect of reproductive history (parenthood) on CMM risk in both women and men. Using information from Danish national registers (1968-2003), the authors established a population-based cohort of more than 3,500,000 persons with information on parenthood and CMM. Relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression models. Overall, number of children was significantly associated with a woman's risk of CMM (p = 0.004), with the lowest risk being seen among women with many births. Women aged 25 years or older at their first birth had a 24% (95% confidence interval: 16, 33) higher risk of CMM than younger women. Ten or more years after the birth of her youngest child, a woman had a 15% (95% confidence interval: 5, 27) higher risk of CMM than she did in the first 10 years. Similar results were observed in men. The similarity of effects for men and women suggests that lifestyle factors, rather than exposure to pregnancy hormones, may be responsible for the observed associations between reproductive history and CMM risk in women

Source





Tall guys get more prostate cancer

More fun from The American Journal of Epidemiology. What would I do without it when I want a laugh? The findings below are quite a mixture but fatties come out pretty well. It is tall guys who had better watch out! The effect was small, however, and only found by looking at real shorties versus real tallies. Perhaps tall guys get more women and overwork their prostates that way. As is usual in epidemiology, nobody knows

Anthropometrics and Prostate Cancer Risk

By Alyson J. Littman et al.

Studies on obesity and prostate cancer risk are inconsistent, perhaps because of differential effects on aggressive and nonaggressive cancers. Participants included 34,754 men residing in Washington State (aged 50-76 years at baseline) in a prospective cohort study who were recruited between 2000 and 2002; 383 developed aggressive (regional/distant stage or Gleason sum 7-10) and 437 developed nonaggressive disease through December 2004. Compared with normal-weight men (body mass index (kg/m2) <25), obese men ~30 kg/m2) had a reduced risk of nonaggressive disease (hazard ratio = 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.52, 0.93; p for trend = 0.01). Overweight men (25-29.9 kg/m2) had an increased risk of aggressive disease (hazard ratio = 1.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 1.8), but there was no increased risk for obese men (p for trend = 0.69). Body mass index of >25 at age 18 years was associated with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer; obesity at ages 30 and 45, but not 18, years was associated with reduced risk of nonaggressive prostate cancer. Height (fourth vs. first quartile) was associated with an increased risk of total prostate cancer (hazard ratio = 1.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 1.6), which did not differ by aggressiveness. There were no associations of prostate cancer with age at which maximum height was reached. Results from this study demonstrate the complexity of prostate cancer epidemiology and the importance of examining risk factors by tumor characteristics.

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Sun tans are REALLY bad for you

Leave the brownness to people who are born that way. The differences noted below do seem to be unusually strong. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma is a type of cancer and no fun at all. The incidence of the disease concerned is however not high so may be of limited concern unless there is a family history of it. Note: "A person's risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma during their lifetime is about 1 in 50. The average age at diagnosis is 60 - the elderly have the highest risk of getting NHL". About 20,000 Americans die of it each year.

The study below does of course suffer from the usual epidemiological ambiguities. It could for instance be argued that tanning is just a proxy for a more outdoorsy lifestyle and that it is that lifestyle which conduces towards NHL rather than tanning as such. So you may be OK if you get your tan in a studio. If I were a frequent tanner, however, I would look into the matter in more depth. For instance, Californians and Australians are big on tanning. Do they therefore get more NHL? I have not had time to look.



Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure and Risk of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

By Yawei Zhang et al.

Sun exposure has been suggested to increase the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The authors analyzed data from a population-based, case-control study of Connecticut women between 1996 and 2000 to study the hypothesis. Women who reported having had a suntan experienced an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with increasing duration (ptrend = 0.0062) compared with women who reported never having had a suntan. An almost threefold increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was observed among women who reported having had a suntan for less than 3 months per year and a suntan history of more than 60 years (odds ratio = 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.6, 4.9) compared with those who reported never having had a suntan. For women who reported having spent time in strong sunlight between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. during the summer, a 70% increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was observed for the highest tertile of duration compared with the lowest (odds ratio = 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 2.4). The risk increased with increasing duration of time spent in strong sunlight in summer (ptrend = 0.0051). The risk appears to vary by non-Hodgkin's lymphoma subtypes. Further investigations of the role of ultraviolet radiation on the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are warranted





The easy way to get pregnant

I was unable to find the article referred to below in its alleged source but generalizing from people on a Chinese diet to Western women seems strange. I think the underlying message must be that all Western women get enough of the vitamin as it is. The last sentence would certainly indicate that

A bowl of cereal for breakfast or a baked potato for lunch could help a woman conceive. Research has found that eating foods rich in vitamin B6 can more than double the chances of becoming pregnant. Women who have plenty of the vitamin in their diet are also only half as likely to miscarry their baby in the critical first weeks of pregnancy. With millions of women already taking vitamin B6 supplements to combat premenstrual syndrome and alleviate morning sickness, the study adds to the evidence of the vitamin's role in reproductive health. It is thought that B6 - which is found in high levels in potatoes, fortified cereals, bananas, milk, eggs, and poultry - plays a key role in the development of the placenta.

The U.S. researchers looked at how levels of vitamin B6 affected the reproductive health of more than 300 healthy young women in south-western China who were trying for a baby. Scientists measured levels of vitamin in the women's blood and checked their hormone levels every day for a year. The results revealed a clear link between vitamin B6 and conception. Those with the highest levels of the vitamin were 2.2 times more likely to conceive than those with the lowest levels. The women were also half as likely to miscarry in the first six weeks of pregnancy, the American Journal of Epidemiology reported.

Earlier work by the same researchers showed that the vitamin appeared to ward off miscarriages later in pregnancy and halve the risk of premature birth. The University of Massachusetts researchers said: "Taken in their entirety, these observations suggest that maternal vitamin B6 status may influence reproductive events through the entire course of pregnancy, from conception through delivery."

The researchers did not recommend how much vitamin B6 prospective mothers-to-be should take. However, the Food Standard Agency advises women to take 1.2mg of the vitamin a day, and says this is possible with a balanced diet. It advises against taking daily supplements of more than 10mg, as high levels of the vitamin have been linked to loss of feeling in the arms and legs.

Other recent research has shown that a low-fat diet can dramatically cut the chances of pregnancy.

The study, carried out at the Harvard School of Public Health, showed that drinking a pint of semi-skimmed or skimmed milk or eating two pots of yoghurt a day almost doubles the risk of anovulatory infertility. Anovulatory infertility is an increasingly common condition in which women stop ovulating. Eating full-fat dairy products has the opposite effect. A bowl of ice cream a day was found to be enough to boost the chance of having a child.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Prostate test

A simple blood test for aggressive forms of prostate cancer has moved a step closer with the discovery that a genetic marker is linked to the most serious forms of the disease. The marker, called 8q24, lies on chromosome 8 and was originally discovered by deCODE, a genetics company that made a deal with the Government of Iceland to use health data from the closely knit Icelandic population to search for genes that cause common diseases.

Scientists from Northwestern University, in Chicago, reported yesterday at a meeting of the American Urological Association in Anaheim, California, that men who carry this marker have more aggressive tumours and are more likely to have had a close relative who will suffer prostate cancer.

Earlier work by deCODE and Northwestern has shown that about 15 per cent of Americans of European origin carry the marker, and 30 per cent of African-Americans. This work also showed that carrying the marker increased the risk of getting prostate cancer by 60 per cent.

The new research is important because tests for prostate cancer are poor. The PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test has its uses, but cannot reliably differentiate prostate cancers that need treatment from those that can simply be monitored.

Many men may be unaware they have prostate cancer and die of something else. Slow-developing cancer are best left, with treatments focused on more aggressive cancers. So a test that could reliably identify dangerous cancers at an early stage would be invaluable. The Northwestern study of 550 prostate cancer patients showed that those who carry the 8q24 marker have a 40 per cent chance of having a close family member with prostate cancer, whereas those who do not carry the marker have a 20 per cent chance. "These findings will help us to understand the mechanisms underlying prostate cancer," said Brian Helfand, assistant research professor of urology at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine and a co-principal investigator of the study. "They hold great promise for the development of new treatments and prevention. "We found that the carriers of these 8q24 markers had more aggressive tumors," he said. Patients who were carriers had cancers that were more likely to spread into the lymph nodes and were more difficult to remove surgically.

The patients in the study had been treated by Professor William Catalona. Professor Helfand said: "We have the best-detailed prostate cancer population to perform this study because Dr Catalona has a rich database and follow-up on all of his patients."

Since the discovery of the 8q24 marker was published last year by deCODE, Professor Catalona, and two other research groups, the research has been confirmed by a number of other groups. This is the first time that a genetic mutation associated with prostate cancer has been found in a large segment of the population.

Source





A drink a day may slow dementia

The findings below are fairly weak but add to the now considerable body of evidence that alcohol is one of the most widely useful drugs we have

In older people with mild cognitive impairment, having a drink now and then - up to an average of one drink of alcohol each day - may delay progression to dementia, new Italian research suggests. "While many studies have assessed alcohol consumption and cognitive function in the elderly, this is the first study to look at how alcohol consumption affects the rate of progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia," study authors Dr Vincenzo Solfrizzi and Dr Francesco Panza, from the University of Bari in Italy, said.

In the study, reported in the medical journal Neurology, the researchers assessed the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment in 1445 subjects and the progression to dementia in 121 patients with mild cognitive impairment. The participants were between 65 and 84 years of age at the start of the study, and they were followed for 3.5 years. Alcohol use was assessed starting the year before the survey.

Drinking was not associated the development of mild cognitive impairment, according to the report. However, once mild impairment occurred, subjects who had up to one drink per day of alcohol had an 85 per cent reduced risk of dementia compared with those who abstained. The benefit was seen with both alcohol in general and with wine in particular.

Having more than one drink a day, however, offered no protection against dementia compared with abstaining, the report indicates. "The mechanism responsible for why low alcohol consumption appears to protect against the progression to dementia isn't known. However, it is possible that the arrangement of blood vessels in the brain may play a role," Dr Solfrizzi and Dr Panza conclude.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Cold virus hits cancer cells for six

The potential of coxsackie viruses in this application has been known at least since 2004 so it is good to see clinical trials now getting underway

AUSTRALIAN researchers have found that a common cold virus can kill cancer cells in a test tube and in mice. Now the treatment will be tested on humans. The coxsackie virus, which can cause colds in healthy people, has shown it can infect and fight certain cancer cells, in particular melanoma, breast cancer and prostate cancer.

The clinical trials will be funded by publicly listed anti-cancer biotechnology company, Viralytics. Company board member and University of Newcastle Associate Professor Darren Shafren said the virus attacked particular cancer cells but largely left normal cells alone. "One of the nice things about these viruses is they're quite aggressive. They can actually kill cancer cells in a test tube within six to 12 hours of coming into contact with the virus," he said. "[The cancer cell] is a bit like a balloon. It swells up until there's so much virus inside it, it just bursts and then the virus that bursts out is free to start again in an adjacent type of cancer cell. It totally destroys the cancer cell."

Viralytics has completed one human clinical trial which involved injecting three late-stage melanoma patients, who had failed or refused conventional treatments, with a small dose of the virus. Associate Professor Shafren said the trial was mainly to test the safety of the virus, not to monitor whether it reduced the cancer. "We don't want to get people's hopes up but basically we found that these three patients tolerated the treatment quite well," he said. "We didn't get any serious adverse affects from the singular injection which we saw as quite a conservative dose."

In the next two trials due to start soon in separate major Australian teaching hospitals, the dosage will be upped. In one trial, nine late-stage melanoma patients will have the virus injected into the tumour. The second trial will have 26 patients with cancers including melanoma, breast cancer and prostate cancer, having the virus delivered intravenously.

Associate Professor Shafren said the key to the treatment would be finding the right delivery method. Patients will be monitored for a significant period of time to see if the virus reduces the spread of the cancer. "We're still looking for some signs of proof that we're actually killing cancer cells," Associate Professor Shafren said. "What we're hoping with this therapy is that you can actually kill cancer cells outside of the site of injection." Associate Professor Shafren said while the treatment had worked successfully in mice "a lot of things that work in mice don't translate into any clinical benefit for humans". However, he said the concept of treating cancer with viruses was gaining momentum as a potential combination with therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation.

Source




WiFi scare: Just another bureaucrat defending his patch and the media looking for scares

No evidence of safety will ever suffice for some in this area but we have of course noted the huge upsurge of brain cancer since a billion people got cellphones [/satire]

Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, has called for a review of the health risks of wireless technology after an investigation into its effects on children. The BBC’s investigative programme Panorama claims that wi-fi networks in schools can give off three times as much signal radiation as phone masts. Current government advice says that phone masts should not be sited near schools without consulting parents and teachers, because children are thought to be more vulnerable to radio-frequency radiation.

The programme-makers measured radiation levels from a wi-fi-enabled laptop in a classroom in Norwich. It found that the signal strength was three times higher than that of a typical phone mast. Wi-fi, or wireless fidelity, allows a computer user to connect to the internet at broadband speeds without cables. More than two thirds of secondary schools and nearly half of primary schools have wi-fi. Panoramaspoke to nearly 50 schools and only one had been alerted to possible health risks. Others had been told that there was no risk.The Government says that wi-fi poses no health risks, citing advice from the World Health Organisation.

In 2000 Sir William produced a report on the impact of mobile phone masts on health. He found that: “There may be changes, for example in cognitive function . . . There were some indications that there may be cancer inductions . . . There was some molecular biology changes within the cell. . . ”

The levels of radiation found in the Norwich classroom were 600 times lower than the levels deemed dangerous by the Government. It uses data from the International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection, which bases exposure limits on a thermal effect. In other words, the radiation has to be strong enough to cause a heat effect before it is restricted. Dr Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has carried out experiments on radiation similar to or lower than wi-fi and found biological implications. Asked if the commission was right to set limits based on thermal effect, he said: “That’s just rubbish. You cannot put emphasis on such guidelines.”

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

DOES MEAT GIVE YOU SKIN CANCER?

The study below is just another weak epidemiological one so cannot in any case be taken too seriously but note that the most common skin cancers -- BCCs -- were NOT shown to be affected by a meat diet and that the more serious cancers -- SCCs -- were shown as meat-related only on the very borderline of statistical significance. That the subgroup of the sample with a cancer history who then got more cancers were big meat-eaters could mean anything -- including a determination among them to enjoy life while they could. What it CERTAINLY shows is that the sample matters and since this sample had no known representativeness, no generalizations can be extracted from it

Dietary pattern in association with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin: a prospective study

By Torukiri I Ibiebele et al.

Background: The role of diet in the development of skin cancer is inconclusive, and the effect of the combined consumption of foods has never been reported.

Objective: We prospectively investigated the association between dietary patterns and cutaneous basal cell (BCC) and squamous cell (SCC) carcinoma.

Design: Principal components analysis of 38 food groups was used to identify dietary patterns in 1360 adults aged 25-75 y who participated in a community-based skin cancer study in Nambour, Australia, between 1992 and 2002. We obtained baseline information about diet, skin color, and sun exposure factors. Multivariate-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for BCC and SCC tumors were estimated by using negative binomial regression modeling.

Results: Two major dietary patterns were identified: a meat and fat pattern and a vegetable and fruit pattern. The meat and fat pattern was positively associated with development of SCC tumors (RR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.00, 3.37; P for trend = 0.05) after adjustment for confounders and even more strongly associated in participants with a skin cancer history (RR = 3.77; 95% CI: 1.65, 8.63; P for trend = 0.002) when the third and first tertiles were compared. A higher consumption of the vegetable and fruit dietary pattern appeared to decrease SCC tumor risk by 54% (P for trend = 0.02), but this protective effect was mostly explained by the association with green leafy vegetables. There was no association between the dietary patterns and BCC tumors.

Conclusion: A dietary pattern characterized by high meat and fat intakes increases SCC tumor risk, particularly in persons with a skin cancer history.





Diabetes breakthrough

QUEENSLAND scientists are developing a drug that could prevent people from becoming diabetics. Professor Ian Frazer said initial tests had been carried out and researchers were planning overseas clinical trials of the drug. If successful, it could be used to treat patients at risk of developing Type 1 diabetes, the former Australian of the Year said.

In Type 1 diabetes the body's immune system destroys the cells that make insulin, a hormone that controls sugar levels. The drug would work by changing the body's immune response and preventing it from attacking itself. Australia has one of the highest rates of Type 1 diabetes in the world with about 140,000 people affected. If not properly managed it can lead to blindness, kidney disease and heart disease.

Prof Frazer, who is famous for developing a cervical cancer vaccine, said Type 1 diabetes had reached epidemic proportions. "We can identify who is at risk from developing diabetes by doing blood tests or by knowing they have a family history of the disease, but we can't use that information to prevent them from getting it," he said. "But using a drug to change the body's immune response would stop the body attacking itself and prevent diabetes occurring. "This is part of a worldwide effort in this area and we like to think we are at the forefront of it."

The research, led by Professor Ranjeny Thomas, was carried out at the Diamantina Institute for Cancer, Immunology and Metabolic Medicine at Brisbane's Princess Alexandra Hospital. It has been welcomed by diabetics who endure daily insulin injections and a strict diet to control the illness. Dr Gary Deed, president of Diabetes Australia and a GP in Brisbane, was encouraged by Prof Thomas's research. "Something like this would be great because we could identify that diabetes was present in a family, say if a brother or sister had it, and then give the sibling a medication so they don't ever have to go through it," he said. "Diabetes is a chronic illness and you really wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's really sad when you diagnose young children with it. "I have a three-year-old patient and she can't inject herself so her parents have to. The burden it puts on families as well as the stress on individuals is really terrible to see."

Schoolgirl Amy Leverington, 13, was diagnosed with the disease in December 2004 and injects herself four times a day with insulin. She has a five-year-old brother and three-year-old sister who she hopes will never have the disease. "It would be excellent to be able to give them a drug and guarantee they will never have to go through what I do," she said. "Any step forward into finding a cure is a positive step."

Source





More on "The Secret"

Mentioned here yesterday

PUBLISHING phenomenon The Secret has been slammed by a health expert as ridiculous and unhelpful. The book, which has sold more than five million copies worldwide, could encourage readers to be self-obsessed, greedy and deluded, some experts say.

The Secret, by former Melbourne reality show producer Rhonda Byrne, says people can get whatever they want simply by thinking positively. It also suggests that people are poor, ill, overweight and disadvantaged by not thinking positively enough. The book and accompanying DVD became a publishing sensation after US TV tastemaker Oprah Winfrey devoted two shows to it.

More than 500,000 copies of the book will be printed for Australian readers by the end of next month, according to publisher Simon and Schuster. The Secret seems certain to eclipse other top-selling New Age phenomenons including Conversations With God, The Da Vinci Code and The Law of Attraction.

"But there's nothing new in Rhonda Byrne's book," said Melbourne psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg. "It's cognitive behaviour therapy taken to ludicrous extremes. "It's really not helpful."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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