SOME SOPHISTICATED EPIDEMIOLOGY AT LAST

Medical research normally ignores the role of social class -- even though it is known to have important and complex effects on health. In the case below, however, the original research appeared in a Sociology journal, and sociologists are acutely aware of the importance of social class. So if we read the original article (Abstract given) we find that an effect which could easily be attributed to social class was not wholly so caused. Women who have babies early tend to be of lower social class and so it could be class which predisposes them to illness in later life. The authors in this case, however controlled statistically for social class and found an effect that went beyond class. But the study is after all an epidemiological one so WHY women who have babies earlier tend to die young we simply do not know. Any number of possibilities spring to mind, however. That women who have babies young tend to be risk-takers and risk-taking has many hazards would be one possible explanation

Early childbirth risky for women

Women who have their first child before the age of 20 are at a higher risk of chronic diseases and death when they reach middle age, a new study shows. The study, which appears in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior , said that women who are single at the time they have their first baby could also be at risk of earlier death - an outcome that probably relates to socio-economic status later in life after having a child as a young, single woman. "Being unmarried at the time of first birth is associated with lower midlife income and a lower probability of being married in midlife," said study author John Henretta at the University of Florida. "It's not so much the characteristic of being unmarried at first birth that's important; it's what being unmarried at first birth tells us about the midlife status of these women."

Henretta evaluated data from the Health and Retirement Study, focusing on 4,335 women born in the United States between 1931 and 1941. These women were first interviewed in 1992 (at ages 51 to 61) and then followed until 2002. Interviewers were asked about their health, level of education, marital status, wealth, how many children they had and the age of each living child

Source

Journal Abstract:

Early Childbearing, Marital Status, and Women's Health and Mortality after Age 50

Author: Henretta, John C.

This article examines the relationship between a woman's childbearing history and her later health and mortality, with primary focus on whether the association between them is due to early and later socioeconomic status. Data are drawn from the Health and Retirement Study birth cohort of 1931-1941. Results indicate that, conditional on reaching midlife and controlling for early and later socioeconomic status, a first birth before age 20 is associated with a higher hazard of dying. In addition, having an early birth is associated with a higher prevalence of reported heart disease, lung disease, and cancer in 1994. Being unmarried at the time of the first birth is associated with earlier mortality, but this association disappears when midlife socioeconomic status is controlled. The number of children ever born does not significantly affect mortality but is associated with prevalence of diabetes.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Volume 48, Number 3, September 2007 , pp. 254-266(13)





Amusing: How is "junk food" defined?

Is salt better than sugar? Nonsensical though that enquiry is

A billion-dollar battle over selling sports drinks and "enhanced" water in public schools has spilled into Congress and threatens to derail a major attempt to cut back the sale of junk food from school vending machines and snack bars. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has introduced a bill that would have the government set new nutritional standards for the foods and drinks that schools sell to students outside cafeterias. But just what those standards should be is the issue, the Washington Post reports.

Public health advocates want the standards to ban the sale of Gatorade and Powerade, which typically contain as much as two-thirds the sugar of sodas and more sodium, as well as sweetened waters such as VitaminWater and SoBe Life Water. Excessive sodium intake by young people could fuel a surge in high blood pressure, which until recently was considered a health threat only in later life, they said, reports Post writer Jane Black.

The trade group representing Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other bottlers, whose annual sales of sports drinks reached $7.5 billion last year, counters that sports drinks and sweetened waters are lower in calories, "appropriate" for high school students and "essential" to young athletes. In 2006, sports drinks were the third fastest growing beverage category in the United States, after energy drinks, such as Red Bull, and bottled water, according to the trade journal Beverage Digest.

The current version of the legislation requires the Agriculture Department to begin developing the rules behind the standards, but industry and public health advocates both favor speeding things up by writing the standards into the legislation itself. Having agreed voluntarily to phase out full-calorie sodas from schools by 2009, bottlers are heavily promoting the sports drinks, and not just to athletes.

Harkin's bill, which he hopes to incorporate into this fall's farm bill, has been co-sponsored by 25 senators. More than 100 organizations, from the American Federation of Teachers to the Yale Prevention Research Center, support the plan. Eager to avoid bad publicity, even the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Beverage Association, which have historically resisted any regulation, say they are "open to discussing" federal standards to avoid a patchwork of state and county rules.

But the bottlers do not want the standards to prohibit sports drinks and enhanced waters. Without bottler support, it will be difficult to sign up members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which is chaired by Harkin but includes beverage industry supporters such as ranking Republican Saxby Chambliss, who represents Coke's home state of Georgia.

Nutrition experts contend that sports drinks are not as healthful as manufacturers claim. A 12-ounce bottle of Gatorade Rain contains 75 calories, 21 grams of sugar and 165 milligrams of sodium, compared with 150 calories, 40.5 grams of sugar and 52 milligrams of sodium in a can of Coke. [So it is saltier but less sweet]

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.

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

Stupid bird flu hype

Your "objective" BBC again

Somehow I missed it, but a BBC video from June of this year, now available on YouTube, is the most alarmist thing I have seen or read on pandemic avian flu. "If you were a terrorist wanting to design a biologic weapon, you couldn't do better than designing a virus like this," claims Dr. Gregory Poland of the Mayo Clinic within the first few seconds. "This is really nature's bio-terrorism." Later he informs us that, "The best scientific evidence is that one or two mutations will be enough to allow this virus to attach easily to human cells and thereby spread from one human to another."

We know now, from the research of David Finkelstein and his colleagues, it would actually take 11 or 12 mutations. Perhaps news of this research hadn't reached Poland in time, but his "best scientific evidence" is a pure fabrication.

Poland also informs us that what "really sent chills through the spines of virologists and vaccinologists, was the recognition that this virus [avian flu H5N1] had now jumped species from birds into mammals." Doubtful. Birds and non-human mammals (particularly swine, apparently) appear to play a vital role in each year's seasonal influenza. A team of researchers led by St. Jude's Robert Webster wrote in the journal Virology that, "most of the influenza virus genes that have appeared in mammalian gene pools over the past 30 years have been shown ultimately to have an avian origin."

Yes, some people will do or say anything to appear on the "telly."

Repeatedly the fear-umentary makes bizarre personifications of the virus, with the narrator more than once insisting the virus seeks "world domination." A Scots doctor tells us, "The human population has never been faced by a virus like this before. This is an utterly evil virus." Do these tiny pieces of protein come complete with Adolf Hitler mustaches?

The narrator also claims, "The virus has started to jump from birds to humans." Actually, the first reported bird-to-human cases were in 1997. It's said that Europeans have a longer view than Americans, but I suspect even Britons wouldn't consider events of a decade ago to be "just." The only "just" aspect of this video is that it's just plain awful.

Source





Fast food: Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Report from Australia



FAST-FOOD makers have made efforts to stop using unhealthy trans fats - but the replacement oils are usually just as bad, an industry meeting was told yesterday. While some fast-food outlets have trumpeted their moves to abandon trans fats, the meeting was told they often turned to equally undesirable oils high in saturated fat. The nation's major fast-food chains, including McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and KFC, held the roundtable meeting to discuss their progress in switching away from frying oils linked to increased risk of heart disease.

"What we have seen, unfortunately, is in reducing trans fats, some of the industry groups have introduced fats that are very high in saturated fat, like palm oil," said Heart Foundation food strategy director Susan Anderson, who addressed the meeting in Sydney. "The commitment from the group today was to address both the trans fats and the saturated fats." Ms Anderson did not identify which fast-food providers had made the error.

A low-grade oil known to contain trans fats is also made up of 48 per cent saturated fat. Palm oil contains no trans fats, but its saturated fat content is 55 per cent. The companies were urged yesterday to switch to oils such as canola or grapeseed oil, which have no trans fat and are less than 10 per cent saturated fat.

Other fast-food chains represented at the summit include Domino's Pizza, Eagle Boys Pizza, Jesters, La Porchetta, Oporto, Red Rooster and Subway. The roundtable was chaired by federal Liberal senator Brett Mason, who said the sector had moved "very quickly" to address trans fat concerns and their focus was now on reducing the saturated fat in their food production. "It would be a bad thing if trans fatty acids left the diet and saturated fats went up," Senator Mason said. "Industry accepts that they do have a social responsibility to look at this issue. Let's face it, it harms people's health and it costs the community a lot of money." The fast-food industry is under threat of regulatory intervention unless sufficient progress is made towards cutting trans fatty acids by 2009.

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.

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

A MOST interesting study of ill health among war veterans

Anti-malaria drug PREVENTS cancer. A fascinating finding. Australia had conscription during the Vietnam war so the sample is unusually representative. Dapsone is quite an old drug but is still not well understood. It is related to the Sulfonamides

Australia's Vietnam veterans were not harmed by taking the drug Dapsone to protect against malaria, a new study has found. The finding has eased veterans' concerns that Dapsone might have contributed to health problems they suffered in later life. Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson said the study showed the incidence of cancer among those who took Dapsone was actually 10 per cent lower than in a comparison group of veterans.

But, like earlier studies into the cancer and mortality of Vietnam veterans, the study confirmed that Vietnam war service had adverse effects on the health of many veterans, he said. "The overall incidence of cancer in both groups of veterans is significantly higher than in the Australian population," he said in a statement. "For those who took Dapsone it was seven per cent higher and 20 per cent for those who didn't." [In other words, dapsone eliminated two thirds of the bad effects. Most impressive. IT WOULD SEEM TO SUGGEST A PREDOMINANTLY BACTERIAL CAUSE IN THE GENESIS OF CANCER AMONG VETERANS]

Vietnam Veterans Association national president Ron Coxon said veterans had been concerned that they might have been used as guinea pigs to test a drug that had health risks. "We had serious concerns that the veterans on Dapsone might have had some serious side effects from that medication," he said. "But from the controlled studies that have been done it would appear that is not the case ... this would seem to allay that."

Dapsone is an anti-bacterial drug most commonly used in the treatment of leprosy. During the Vietnam war, some Australian troops took the drug Paludrine as an anti-malarial agent, while some took both Paludrine and Dapsone. A royal commission into the effects of the herbicide agent orange on Australian troops in Vietnam, established in 1983, reviewed the use of Dapsone and recommended there be further study into whether it caused cancer.

The report released on Wednesday is the fourth and final volume of The Australian Vietnam Veterans Mortality and Cancer Incidence Study. This study, produced by the Department of Veterans Affairs in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, examined all army veterans deaths identified from the end of Vietnam service to 2001, and all cancers diagnosed from 1982 to 2000. It compared death and cancer rates among those who consumed a combination of Dapsone and Paludrine with those who used Paludrine alone and concluded there was little evidence that Dapsone was associated with an increased cancer risk.

"There are case reports of cancers among persons who have taken Dapsone, but no specific or unusual site of cancer consistently appears in these reports," it said. "None of the reports gives a biological argument for an association of specific cancers with Dapsone use." It said most cases described in scientific literature as developing cancer had been taking Dapsone in high doses over long periods to treat leprosy. "The study revealed no definite evidence that Dapsone exposure (among Australian servicemen in Vietnam) was associated with an increase in total cancer incidence," it said.

Source





Men who smoke risk erectile dysfunction

The dose-response relationship and the normal sample makes this study fairly convincing

OTHERWISE healthy men who smoke risk developing erectile dysfunction - and the more cigarettes they smoke, the greater the risk of erectile dysfunction, according to a new study. Erectile dysfunction is the consistent inability to achieve or maintain an erection sufficient for satisfactory sexual performance.

In a study of 4763 Chinese men aged 35 to 74 years who were free of blood vessel disease and who reported that they had been sexually active within the last six months, the researchers found a significant statistical link between the number of cigarettes smoked and the likelihood of erectile dysfunction. "The association between cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction was found in earlier studies," said first author Jiang He of Tulane University School of Public Health, New Orleans. "However, most of those studies were conducted in patients with hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes and cardiovascular disease. What distinguishes this study is that it is the first to find this association among healthy men."

Overall, men who smoked had a 41 per cent greater risk of erectile dysfunction than men who did not, the team reports in the American Journal of Epidemiology. And there was a clear "dose-response" relationship, meaning that the more the men smoked, the higher was their risk of erectile dysfunction.

Compared with non-smokers, men who smoked up to 10 cigarettes per day had a 27 per cent greater likelihood of erectile dysfunction ; those who smoked 11 to 20 a day had a 45 per cent greater likelihood of erectile dysfunction; and those who smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily had a 65 per cent greater chance of suffering erectile dysfunction. The investigators estimate that 22.7 per cent of erectile all dysfunction cases among healthy Chinese men - or 11.8 million cases - might be caused by cigarette smoking.

And even when cigarette smokers quit, their risk of developing erectile dysfunction did not decrease. The risk of erectile dysfunction was statistically about the same for former cigarette smokers as for current cigarette smokers, the authors found. "This study really has a strong message for young men," He said. "It may get their attention if they know that smoking is associated with erectile dysfunction - even in the healthy population." "So the message is: Don't start."

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.

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

FISH DIET PREVENTS DIABETES?

Groan! Surely the defenders of the Omega 3 religion can come up with better than this! The study reports the usual crappy "association" (i.e. cause intrinsically unknown) and it not even based on actual Omega 3 intake -- only on REPORTED intake! I don't think I really need to say more but I could mention tiny study, weak effect, indirect criterion and non-normal "sample" etc.

There are many big studies showing Omega 3 to have no beneficial effects on cancer etc. but the belief in fish seems to be deep-seated so SOMETHING that it is good for must be found. Since most people enjoy eating fish, however, no harm is done

A diet rich in fish and other sources of omega-3 fatty acids helped cut the risk that children with a family history of diabetes would develop the disease, US researchers said. "It is a relatively large effect," said Jill Norris, whose study appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "It is exciting because it suggests we might be able to develop nutritional interventions to prevent diabetes."

Type 1 diabetes, formerly called juvenile diabetes, is the most common form of diabetes in children. It occurs when the immune system goes haywire and starts attacking insulin producing cells in the pancreas. No one knows exactly what triggers this process, but heredity and environmental factors such as diet are thought to play a role. Several studies in animals have suggested that omega-3 fatty acids - which are found in fish, flaxseed oil, walnuts, soybeans and other foods - may help.

To test whether omega-3 fatty acids offer a potential protective effect, Jill Norris and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver studied 1,770 children between 1994 and 2006 who were deemed at high risk for diabetes because of genetic tests or because they had a sibling or parent with type 1 diabetes.

Data about their dietary intake were collected in food frequency surveys. Fifty-eight children in the study developed antibodies for the disease. The researchers found at-risk children who ate a lot of foods rich in omega-3 were less likely to develop islet auto-immunity - antibodies against the cells in the pancreas that precede full-blown diabetes. "This is the first study to show this," Norris said in a telephone interview. "This is all omega-3 fatty acids, not just the kind that are found in fish. "It is certainly not time to make any recommendations until we can see this in other populations," she said, adding that it is a very promising result.

Omega-3 fatty acids interfere with enzymes that play a role in inflammation, a potential trigger for type 1 diabetes. Omega-3 fatty acids have been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, and researchers are studying whether they can slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, some cancers and macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness.

At least 194 million people in the world have diabetes, and the World Health Organisation expects that number to rise to more than 300 million by 2025. Most of these people have type 2 diabetes, which is linked with poor diet and lack of exercise. People with type 1 diabetes often must take insulin injections to control blood sugar levels.

Source

Abstract follows:

Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Intake and Islet Autoimmunity in Children at Increased Risk for Type 1 Diabetes

By Jill M. Norris et al.

Context Cod liver oil supplements in infancy have been associated with a decreased risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus in a retrospective study.

Objective To examine whether intakes of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are associated with the development of islet autoimmunity (IA) in children.

Design, Setting, and Participants A longitudinal, observational study, the Diabetes Autoimmunity Study in the Young (DAISY), conducted in Denver, Colorado, between January 1994 and November 2006, of 1770 children at increased risk for type 1 diabetes, defined as either possession of a high diabetes risk HLA genotype or having a sibling or parent with type 1 diabetes. The mean age at follow-up was 6.2 years. Islet autoimmunity was assessed in association with reported dietary intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids starting at age 1 year. A case-cohort study (N = 244) was also conducted in which risk of IA by polyunsaturated fatty acid content of erythrocyte membranes (as a percentage of total lipids) was examined.

Main Outcome Measure Risk of IA, defined as being positive for insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase, or insulinoma-associated antigen-2 autoantibodies on 2 consecutive visits and still autoantibody positive or having diabetes at last follow-up visit.

Results Fifty-eight children developed IA. Adjusting for HLA genotype, family history of type 1 diabetes, caloric intake, and omega-6 fatty acid intake, omega-3 fatty acid intake was inversely associated with risk of IA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.96; P = .04). The association was strengthened when the definition of the outcome was limited to those positive for 2 or more autoantibodies (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.58; P = .002). In the case-cohort study, omega-3 fatty acid content of erythrocyte membranes was also inversely associated with IA risk (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.96; P = .03).

Conclusion Dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids is associated with reduced risk of IA in children at increased genetic risk for type 1 diabetes.

JAMA. 2007;298:1420-1428.






Germs taken into space return more dangerous

Worrisome if replicated

It sounds like the plot for a scary B-movie: Germs go into space on a rocket and come back stronger and deadlier than ever. Except, it really happened. The germ: Salmonella, best known as a culprit of food poisoning. The trip: Space Shuttle STS-115, September 2006. The reason: Scientists wanted to see how space travel affects germs, so they took some along - carefully wrapped - for the ride. The result: Mice fed the space germs were three times more likely to get sick and died quicker than others fed identical germs that had remained behind on Earth.

"Wherever humans go, microbes go, you can't sterilize humans. Wherever we go, under the oceans or orbiting the earth, the microbes go with us, and it's important that we understand ... how they're going to change," explained Cheryl Nickerson, an associate professor at the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology at Arizona State University. Nickerson added, in a telephone interview, that learning more about changes in germs has the potential to lead to novel new countermeasures for infectious disease.

She reports the results of the salmonella study in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers placed identical strains of salmonella in containers and sent one into space aboard the shuttle, while the second was kept on Earth, under similar temperature conditions to the one in space.

After the shuttle returned, mice were given varying oral doses of the salmonella and then were watched. After 25 days, 40% of the mice given the Earth-bound salmonella were still alive, compared with just 10% of those dosed with the germs from space. And the researchers found it took about one-third as much of the space germs to kill half the mice, compared with the germs that had been on Earth. The researchers found 167 genes had changed in the salmonella that went to space.

Why? "That's the 64 million dollar question," Nickerson said. "We do not know with 100% certainty what the mechanism is of space flight that's inducing these changes." However, they think it's a force called fluid shear. "Being cultured in microgravity means the force of the liquid passing over the cells is low." The cells "are responding not to microgravity, but indirectly to microgravity in the low fluid shear effects." "There are areas in the body which are low shear, such as the gastrointestinal tract, where, obviously, salmonella finds itself," she went on. "So, it's clear this is an environment not just relevant to space flight, but to conditions here on Earth, including in the infected host."

She said it is an example of a response to a changed environment. "These bugs can sense where they are by changes in their environment. The minute they sense a different environment, they change their genetic machinery so they can survive," she said.

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.

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

Mobile phones are safe, but let's panic anyway

The experts' schizophrenic message about mobiles captures society's curious love/dread relationship with new technologies

What is it with the mobile phone scare? Study after study has failed to find any evidence that using a mobile phone causes brain cancer (or `fries our brains' as the tabloids like to put it). And yet the authors of all the studies still warn us to be super-careful when it comes to mobiles: to avoid using them too often, and to think twice about giving handsets to our children. You know, just in case these little electronic bundles of bleeps and radiation might cause some unknown harm now or in the future. Like something out of a dimestore horror novel, the scientists' and politicians' message to society seems to be: `Mobile phones are safe.or are they?' (Indeed, Stephen King, the master of horror-writing, depicted the mobile as an evil machine that turns people into flesh-eating zombies and telekinetic psychos in his novel Cell, brilliantly capturing contemporary society's curious love/dread relationship with new technologies.)

Now, just as spiked has launched a new debate on the `mobile footprint' in conjunction with the mobile service provider O2, another study finds, yet again, that mobile phone-use is safe - and it warns, yet again, that we should err on the side of caution anyway. The continuing failure to uncover evidence that mobiles are bad for our health, coupled with the continuous warnings that mobiles might be bad for our health, shows that the mobile phone panic has little to do with science. This is not an `evidence-based' scare, to use the buzzphrase of the moment. Instead, the mobile has become a metaphor for a generalised free-floating feeling of fear, and for today's widespread sentiment that everything should be treated as dangerous unless it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be 100 per cent impeccably safe.

The latest study, published yesterday by the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, is the work of 28 teams of experts. With a budget of 8.8million, they spent the past six years exploring possible health impacts of mobile phone-use. Their conclusion? That there's no evidence that mobiles cause cancer. The experts said their findings were `reassuring', showing no association between mobile phone-use and brain cancer and `no evidence' of immediate or short-term harms to health from mobile phones. The six-year study also `failed to substantiate' any of the wild claims that have been made about mobile phone masts causing increased cancer rates amongst the communities in which they are erected. As Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats' science spokesman, said: `This report is good news for the public, phone users and the industry. There is no basis on health grounds for any further tightening of regulations or advice on mobile phone masts or the use of handsets.'

Phew. Except.the authors of the study decided to flag up what they don't know as well as what they do. Professor Lawrie Challis, chairman of the research programme, said: `We cannot rule out the possibility that cancer could appear in a few years' time, both because the epidemiological evidence we have is not strong enough to rule it out and, secondly, because most cancers cannot be detected until 10 years after whatever caused them.' So while the report was `reassuring' on the safety of mobile phone-use now, `we can't reassure people about the long-term use', said Challis. Some of the researchers even pointed out that it took 10 years for anyone to realise there was a link between smoking and cancer. It is true, of course, that it's impossible to rule out some potential future harm from mobile phone-use; it is impossible to prove a negative: that mobiles will never pose any risk at all. But should we really worry that chatting to our mates on a mobile might be doing to our brain what sucking in smoke does to the lungs? Surely health advice should focus on warning people of proven dangers, rather than pushing us to fantasise about hypothetical worst-case scenarios?

As well as talking up future unknowns, the research coordinators threw into the debate what we might call `present unlikelies'. They said there was a `very slight hint' of increased incidences of brain tumours among long-term users of mobiles, which is at `the borderline of statistical significance'. That sounds to my admittedly unscientific mind like a roundabout way of saying there is possibly a statistically insignificant risk of harm to some users.

Consequently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, a study which found no association between mobile phone-use and cancer, and which was welcomed by sensible scientists as a green light for us to continue chatting and texting to our heart's content, has been transformed in some quarters into a document which foretells mankind's diseased doom. `Mobile phones could cause cancer to long-term users', said the London Evening Standard. `Mobile phones: they could cause major cancer explosion in years to come', bellowed an online alternative health magazine. It is a sad sign of the times when even a seemingly airtight scientific study which found no evidence that mobiles are bad for our health can generate handwringing headlines claiming that mobiles are.bad for our health!

A headline in The Times (London) captured the schizophrenic message sent out by this latest research project: `Mobile phones don't cause cancer in the short-term. Long-term, who knows?' This is not the first time that a study has found no evidence of harm yet posited the possibility of harm. `Who knows?' just about sums up officialdom's attitude to new mobile communications and their possible impact on our heads. In 2000, the report Mobile Phones and Health, generally known as the Stewart Report after Sir William Stewart, who chaired the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones that produced it, found that: `The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below [official] guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.' However, the report also said that `it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects'. So it recommended that `a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available'.

In January 2005, Sir William Stewart launched a report by the National Radiological Protection Board, the government's advisory board on radiological issues. That report simply restated existing knowledge on mobile phone-use (that there is no evidence of harm to human health), yet Stewart chose the occasion of the report's launch to `speak from the heart'. He said: `I don't think we can put our hands on our hearts and say that mobile phones are totally safe.' Therefore we shouldn't give them to children under eight, he advised. Needless to say, Stewart's heartfelt but non-scientific feeling that mobiles might be bad for little'uns - his elevation of the heart over the mind, one might say - stole headlines away from the fact that, yet again, a report had failed to uncover evidence of mobiles damaging health. Also in 2005, a study published in the British Journal of Cancer, which surveyed data from five European countries and the health of 4,000 people, found that using a mobile for up to 10 years poses no increased risk of acoustic neuroma (a rare tumour of the nerve connecting the ear to the brain). How did the Health Protection Agency in Britain respond to this study? By saying: `This is good news.but we still need to be a bit cautious.'

From Stewart in 2000 to the big new study this week, this is the precautionary principle in action. The fear of mobile communications demonstrates the extent to which super-precaution - the idea that everything should be treated as dangerous until it has been proven safe beyond all doubt - dominates public discussion today. The evidence to date suggests there is nothing inherently dangerous about mobile phones or masts - and yet, precisely because they are so commonplace and now so central to our everyday lives, they have become the focus of general fears about new technologies, invisible signals, radiation, environmental destruction, bullying and just about everything else. This has led to a schism: on one hand, studies suggest mobile phone-use is safe, and sales figures show that people find them extremely useful for both work and play; on the other hand, there is ongoing political and public trepidation about the spread of mobiles and masts and what impact they might have on The Future. Consequently, even as millions of people enjoy the liberating aspect of always being communicado, there is also a lurking sense of unease that contributes to a general anxiety about everyday life, and especially its impacts on our children.

The mobile is the ideal metaphor for today's culture of fear. Society's discomfort with breaking technological boundaries, because of the impact it might have on the environment or human health, is projected on to the mobile and mobile phone masts. So is officialdom's fear of potentially `toxic' human contact. Some seem uncomfortable with the idea of millions of people talking and texting anywhere and anytime they please; witness the numerous shock stories about mobiles being used to bully people, or even to lure them into being kidnapped. This fear of mobiles is likely to be doing more damage than mobiles themselves, certainly in the here and now. While we can be fairly sure that mobile phones are not damaging our health, the precautionary principle is harming society: it is slowing down new technological developments, stunting investment in newer and improved forms of communication, and spreading fear and queasiness amongst the population.

Source





Arrogant bastards now dictating to SENIORS what they can eat



It was just another morning at the senior center: Women were sewing, men were playing pool - and seven demonstrators, average age 76, were picketing outside, demanding doughnuts. They wore sandwich boards proclaiming, "Give Us Our Just Desserts" and "They're Carbs, Not Contraband." At issue is a decision to refuse free doughnuts, pies and breads that were being donated to senior centers around Putnam County, north of New York City. Officials were concerned that the county was setting a bad nutritional precedent by providing mounds of doughnuts and other sweets to seniors.

The picketers said they were objecting not to a lack of sweets but that they weren't consulted about the ban. "Lack of respect is what it's all about," said Joe Hajkowski, 75, a former labor union official who organized the demonstration. He said officials had implied that seniors were gorging themselves on jelly doughnuts and were too senile to make the choice for themselves. C. Michael Sibilia said, "I'm 86, not 8."

Inside, some seniors said they missed the doughnuts but others said they were glad to see them go. "It was disgusting the way people went after them," said 80-year-old Rita Jorgensen. "I think the senior center did them a favor by taking it away."

Stan Tuttle, coordinator of nutritional services for the county's Office for the Aging, said the program had gotten out of control. As many as 16 cases of breads, cakes and pastries were delivered, by various means, to the William Koehler Memorial Senior Center each day. Some were moldy and some had been stored overnight in the trunks of volunteers' cars, he said.

Caregivers there and elsewhere say the doughnut debate illustrates the difficulty of balancing nutrition and choice when providing meals to the elderly. "Senior citizens can walk down to the store and buy doughnuts. Nobody's stopping them," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. But he notes that older people have high rates of heart disease and high blood pressure and says senior citizen centers, nursing homes and assisted-living centers should not be worsening the health problems of seniors.

At the North East Bronx Senior Citizen Center, lunch is served five times a week (suggested contribution $1.50). "We don't tell them what to do, we don't force them to eat what's good for them. But we certainly don't give them anything that's bad for them," said center director Silvia Ponce. The church-basement senior center, one of 325 under the New York City Department for the Aging, has a mostly Italian-American clientele, a Naples-born cook and a menu that includes eggplant parmigiana, linguini with clams and manicotti. "We try to give them what they like," said the cook, Stella Bruno.

The lunches have to supply one-third of the federal minimum daily requirements in such categories as calories, protein, vitamin C and vitamin A, said Chris Miller, spokesman for the department. The Bronx center offers coffee, tea, bagels and rolls in the morning, but nothing in the doughnut family. "The sweetest thing here is the raisin in the raisin bagel," said Nicholas Volpicella, 87.

Maureen Janowski, director of nutrition resources for Morrison Senior Dining in Atlanta, which provides meals at more than 370 senior living communities, says residents' food preferences depend somewhat on their age. Those born between 1901 and 1925 generally prefer meat and potatoes, and those born between 1925 and 1942 are "a little more trendy, a little more adventurous, a lot more nutrition-savvy," she said. "They have choices, and we show them how to make good choices," she said.

At the Bronx center, Bruno said she tries to help the seniors avoid the bad buffet choices when they take a trip to Atlantic City. As a group was departing, she handed them bag lunches - with a roast beef sandwich, cranberry juice and carrot sticks. "Protein, vitamin C, vitamin A," she said.

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.

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

CLASS BIAS AND THE WAR ON FAT

Professors Brownell and Campos discuss how culture and class affect the debate over obesity. Note that Brownell simply assumes that fatness is a serious health problem and offers "solutions" that are completely empty-headed -- such as "safer neighborhoods". Safer neighborhoods are desirable on all sorts of grounds but how do you achieve that? If Brownell represents the conventional wisdom -- and he does -- it shows how empty that wisdom is. Amusing that it is lawyer Campos who looks at the obesity crusade as a psychological phenomenon, not psychologist Brownell. A psychologist who ignores the psychology of the matter is a rather good advertisement for how assumption-laden the whole obesity crusade is

Why poverty leads to obesity

By Kelly D. Brownell

It is a mistake to think that obesity is a problem only in certain social or racial groups. It is rampant in all races, in both genders, and across all ages. It would be mistake as well to believe that race and social class do not matter. The prevalence of significant obesity (body mass index over 30) in the U.S. population is 29% for Caucasians, 34% for Hispanics and 40% for African Americans. Fully 78% of African American females are overweight or obese.

Social class is also a big deal. The likelihood of being overweight in the poorest 25% of the population is twice that of people in the highest quarter of economic class. With obesity comes a wide array of serious diseases, including some, such as hypertension, that strike particularly hard at some ethnic groups. Children born into poverty will have illnesses far in excess of what confronts others, both in their childhood and later in life.

These stark effects of race and poverty on diet, activity and obesity might seem counterintuitive -- poverty should lead to food deprivation, plus poorer people are more likely to be engaged in hard physical labor. Toss away intuition. People living in poverty find it hard to be physically active. Leisure time is rare and concerns with neighborhood safety keep both children and adults indoors. Poor individuals are less likely to work for companies with fitness facilities, and there is no discretionary income to join health clubs, have personal trainers, etc. Poor schools have worse facilities and fewer organized sports, and safety issues prevent children from walking or biking to school.

Food is a major issue as well. Studies have shown that poor individuals have limited access to healthy foods and considerable exposure to high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods. Declining numbers of supermarkets in inner cities is part of the reason. In 1963, there were 34 full-service supermarkets in inner-city Los Angeles; that number had dropped to 14 in 1991. By 2002, there were only 5. If one does not own a car, a trip to a supermarket might require several transfers on a bus and then the task of carrying groceries on the return trip.

Poverty not only complicates access to stores with healthier foods, but drives people toward cheap foods. This encourages purchase of packaged snack foods, sugared drinks and fast foods, and discourages purchase of the more expensive fruits and vegetables. The reality stares us in the face - poverty discourages physical activity and encourages excess calorie consumption. Anything but sky-high rates of obesity, diabetes and other diseases would be surprising. So what does one do with this information? Blaming the victims for making bad choices is common, but more helpful would be an honest assessment of the conditions that create the problems, and solutions based on the causes.

Zoning laws and tax-incentive programs can encourage supermarkets to open in poor neighborhoods. Food stamps might be changed to allow bonus money for the purchase of fruits and vegetables. Safer neighborhoods would help encourage activity. Better funding of schools makes them less susceptible to deals with soft-drink and snack-food companies. Another step would be to reduce advertising for calorie-dense, low-nutrition foods, shown in studies to be directed disproportionately at minority populations. Bold action is necessary. The nation will make progress only by recognizing that real change requires real change.

Inflicting white neuroses on nonwhite women

By Paul F. Campos

Americans are obsessed with fat because fatness has become a symbol for poverty, downward mobility, nonwhiteness and socially marginal status in general. Fear and hatred of fat has very little to do with the health risks associated with being "overweight" and "obese" (which are wholly imaginary and highly exaggerated, respectively), and everything to do with the symbolic meanings that thin and fat bodies have in this culture.

The fundamental strategy of the war on fat is to universalize the attitudes of middle- and upper-class white American women toward weight, food, dieting and exercise. Such women are taught from a very early age to hate their bodies, to be terrified of fat and to turn eating into an endless moralistic struggle between the imperative to eat appropriately petite portions of supposedly "good" foods while avoiding the quasi-erotic seductions of "bad" foods.

This, of course, is a recipe for producing an epidemic of eating disorders, which is precisely what we've managed to do. Indeed, the current panic over "obesity" resembles nothing so much as the projection of a classically eating-disordered world view onto an entire society.

And, increasingly, we're successfully exporting this worldview. For example, until a few years ago, anorexia and bulimia were unknown in the western Pacific. But with the advent of cable television and programs such as "Baywatch," adolescent girls in these cultures have begun to act like so many of their American counterparts as they learn that they have the "wrong" kinds of bodies.

Recognizing a golden marketing opportunity, companies such as Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig have begun to target their advertising at African American and Latina women because, as Laura Fraser points out in her book "Losing It," most white women already "can't make it through a day without getting disgusted with themselves for not having a better -- meaning thinner -- body."

You claim that nearly four out of every five black American women are "overweight" or "obese," yet studies generally find that African American girls and women have much more positive views of their own bodies than white girls and women do. Is it a coincidence that studies also record no increased mortality risk associated with even very high levels of body mass among black women?

Needless to say, both diet companies and obesity researchers are doing their best to change this unacceptable situation. Thus we have researchers advocating "the development of culturally sensitive public health intervention programs ... to encourage black youth to achieve a healthy and reasonable (sic) body size." Translation: Let's make black and brown girls feel as bad about their bodies as we've managed to make the average white girl feel about hers.

Indeed, as long as they're fat, it's possible for even a double-plus good-thinking liberal in a magazine like Harper's to express the kind of horror and disgust at the sight of nonwhite poor people that would be considered somewhat problematic in any other context. Thus, after a stroll through downtown Pasadena, during which he encounters the horrifying and disgusting spectacle of fat black and Latino working-class people, Greg Critser asks, "For what do the fat, darker, exploited poor, with their unbridled primal appetites, have to offer us but a chance for we diet- and shape-conscious folk to live vicariously? Call it boundary envy. Or, rather, boundary-free envy."

Perhaps all we "diet- and shape-conscious folk" ought to put down the white man's (or more precisely, the white woman's) burden and stop inflicting our neuroses on everyone else. At the least -- to echo another narrator who traveled into the heart of darkness -- we ought to consider the possibility that, like Mr. Kurtz, our "methods have become unsound."

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.

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

Imaginary allergies and illnesses

Report from Australia below. I am myself aware of certain women whose health problems vanished when their relationships improved

MORE than five million Australians are suffering "imaginary" food allergies and intolerances, health experts say. Research shows food allergies have become society's new "'fad", with people suffering the symptoms - including rashes, breathing difficulties and stomach cramps - simply because they want to. "The brain is very powerful and can make people react because they think they are going to react," said Jack Bell, a specialist allergy dietitian at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and clinical lecturer in nutrition and dietetics at Queensland University of Technology.

His opinion is backed by research by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Another study carried out in Britain reached similar conclusions.

Figures show up to six million Australians claim to be allergic to foods ranging from milk to mustard - but only one in eight has had the condition medically diagnosed. Mr Bell warned people against diagnosing themselves with an allergy, saying it could lead to eating disorders, vitamin deficiences, unnecessary use of medication and costly medical bills. "It's not uncommon to see people on highly restricted diets that they don't need to be on because they don't actually have an allergy," he said.

Researchers said the latest food allergy to become "popularised" was an intolerance to monosodium glutamate (MSG). Others include milk, eggs, soya beans, wheat, fish, and even an intolerance to fruit and vegetables.

A food allergy is an immune system response to a food that the body mistakenly believes is harmful, and an intolerance occurs when the body finds it hard to digest a particular type of food. An intolerance is harder than an allergy to diagnose because it can take varying amounts to achieve a reaction and it is affected by other factors such as stress and hormones. With an allergy, only a small amount of food is needed for a reaction.

Brisbane nutritionist Anthony Power urged people to seek a medical diagnosis. "There is also a tendency for people to panic unnecessarily and think they have one when really it's just a bit of bloating after a meal," he said. People are advised to see an immunologist or accredited practising dietitian.

Source

A further comment on the above from an upper-class British lady. Excerpt:

Millions of people have imaginary allergies and food intolerances, according to a survey last week. Many of them have diagnosed themselves online; one in 50 says they only noticed their "problem" when a friend had similar symptoms; and 39% of people questioned think it is "trendy" to claim a food allergy. Twelve million people claim to suffer from allergy or intolerance, of which less than a quarter are medically diagnosed.

Is this not completely hilarious? There are more than 3m people walking around droning on about "lactose intolerance" this and "issues with wheat" that, and they're complete fantasists as well as the most tiresome and bad-mannered dinner party guests.

I understand that allergies (where the reaction is dramatic and occasionally life-threatening) and intolerances (where the reaction is unpleasant but less extreme) do actually exist; I have a small nephew whose medically diagnosed intolerances are so severe that he is under the care of St Thomas' hospital in London. His parents carry an EpiPen. So I'm not one of those people who think the very idea of allergies is nonsense.

But I do loathe the way in which people - usually women on a diet - turn something commonplace and understandable, such as not eating bread because it makes them fat, into a look-at-me-I'm-special, cod medical issue.

Source





`Quickie' breast surgery on way

WOMEN undergoing a new type of breast enlargement will be able to go out to dinner on the evening of their operation, British plastic surgeons will be told this week. John Tebbetts, a Texan plastic surgeon, will tell the annual meeting of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons the augmentation can be carried out in 30 minutes and will greatly reduce the damage to skin and breast tissue. Tebbetts, based in Dallas, said: "After the surgery we tell the women to go home, have a little nap then get up after two hours, wash their hair, which helps them stretch their muscles, then to go out to dinner. Between 80 and 85% of our patients go out on the evening of their surgery."

The operation, marketed as the "out to dinner" breast augmentation, involves carrying out exact measurements of the breast skin and tissue in advance so that exactly the right size of implant is inserted. Completing the operation in between 30 to 40 minutes means the woman requires low levels of anaesthetic drugs. Tebbetts avoids bleeding by using an extremely precise cutting device. His patients are promised no tubes, no visible bruising and no need for special bras. They can drive on the day of surgery and resume normal activities the next day.

But Tebbetts says women need to be educated out of thinking they require a period of convalescence. "Women have got to get out of the mindset that they are going to be ill after this operation."

Patrick Mallucci, a British consultant plastic surgeon, will this week unveil his formula for the perfectly proportioned breast to an augmentation symposium at the Royal College of Surgeons. Mallucci said the ideal breast has the nipple sitting about 45% from the top, pointing slightly skyward. "An attractive breast has a balanced proportion between the upper half and lower half. All the models I looked at conformed to those parameters."

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.

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

ANOTHER DANGEROUS ANTIOXIDANT

Popular summary below followed by abstract. The very popular antioxidant fad is beginning to show signs of being an iatrogenic disaster

BODY-BUILDING and nutritional supplements containing an antioxidant called N-acetylcysteine (NAC) may not be as safe as once thought. In the Journal of Clinical Investigation this week, scientists have reported that taking NAC can cause blood vessels to sense that they are not getting enough oxygen. This can lead to dangerously high blood pressure in the arteries that carry blood to the lungs -- a condition known as pulmonary arterial hypertension -- and cause swelling of the right side of the heart. The research team gave NAC to mice in their drinking water for three weeks, and compared their blood pressure and heart function to that of mice that did not receive NAC. The next step, say the authors, is to work out whether the levels of NAC found in supplements may be harmful to humans.

Source

Abstract:

S-Nitrosothiols signal hypoxia-mimetic vascular pathology

By Lisa A. Palmer et al.

NO transfer reactions between protein and peptide cysteines have been proposed to represent regulated signaling processes. We used the pharmaceutical antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as a bait reactant to measure NO transfer reactions in blood and to study the vascular effects of these reactions in vivo. NAC was converted to S-nitroso-N-acetylcysteine (SNOAC), decreasing erythrocytic S-nitrosothiol content, both during whole-blood deoxygenation ex vivo and during a 3-week protocol in which mice received high-dose NAC in vivo. Strikingly, the NAC-treated mice developed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) that mimicked the effects of chronic hypoxia. Moreover, systemic SNOAC administration recapitulated effects of both NAC and hypoxia. eNOS-deficient mice were protected from the effects of NAC but not SNOAC, suggesting that conversion of NAC to SNOAC was necessary for the development of PAH. These data reveal an unanticipated adverse effect of chronic NAC administration and introduce a new animal model of PAH. Moreover, evidence that conversion of NAC to SNOAC during blood deoxygenation is necessary for the development of PAH in this model challenges conventional views of oxygen sensing and of NO signaling.




Hormone link to cancers

This sounds reasonable but is not conclusive

HUMAN growth hormone could be responsible for several types of cancer, including breast cancer, a University of Queensland researcher has found. Mike Waters, from UQ's Institute for Molecular Bioscience, said the hormone was needed for normal human growth and it worked by using a messenger protein called IGF1 (insulin-like growth factor). "There's quite a bit of work that implicates IGF1 in promoting cancers so this is an important way that growth hormone could be promoting cancers," Professor Waters said.

Growth hormone is produced by the pituitary gland and stimulates even growth in the body after birth. It also plays a significant role in metabolism, minimising the amount of fat in the body and stimulating glucose production. Professor Waters said studies on people whose pituitary glands failed to produce growth hormone showed they remained cancer free. "In the absence of growth hormone the cancer rate is markedly lower and there's a worldwide survey that's just been done of 220-odd people that didn't find a single malignancy in people who had deficient growth hormone action," he said. "That also correlates with animal studies in rats and mice where without growth hormone you treat them with cancer-causing chemicals and they don't get tumours."

The research could have major implications for the global pharmaceutical industry where the sale of human growth hormone is worth more than $2 billion a year. Human growth hormone is often used by bodybuilders. Professor Waters said "knocking down" the hormone or blocking its action could inhibit cancer and stop tumour growth.

So far his research has only been able to partially disable the hormone. "We need to get the knock down more effective - if we can really knock it down we should be able to stop a hell of a lot of cancers," Professor Waters said. In a second-pronged attack on cancer, the professor has found that the target for growth hormone, its receptor, is within the cell nucleus. "So we've sent the receptor to the cell's nucleus using a special means and that's caused the cell to become cancerous," he said of the research that has been published by the National Academy of Sciences in the US.

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.

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

THE WONDERS OF AVOCADOS

You haven't heard of avocado eaters not getting cancer? Nor have I but the test tube and white rat studies below tell us that it must be happening. Where are the epidemiologists when you need them? Popular summary below followed by journal abstract

AVOCADOS should be included on the list of cancer-fighting fruits and vegetables, according to a new study in Seminars in Cancer Biology this week. Avocados are rich in vitamin C, folate, vitamin E, fibre and unsaturated fats. By studying oral cancer cells in the laboratory, scientists have found that the active plant chemicals (phytochemicals) in avocados can kill these cells while leaving normal cells untouched. Avocado extract can also stop pre-cancerous cells from becoming full-blown cancer. The authors claim that avocado could help to treat or even prevent cancer of the mouth, and the same may hold true for other types of cancer. One of the phytochemicals in avocado known as quercetin is able to stop the growth of prostate tumours in mice and decrease the severity of colon cancer in rats.

Source

Chemopreventive characteristics of avocado fruit

By Haiming Ding et al.

Abstract

Phytochemicals are recognized as playing an important role in cancer prevention by fruits and vegetables. The avocado is a widely grown and consumed fruit that is high in nutrients and low in calories, sodium, and fats. Studies have shown that phytochemicals extracted from the avocado fruit selectively induce cell cycle arrest, inhibit growth, and induce apoptosis in precancerous and cancer cell lines. Our recent studies indicate that phytochemicals extracted with chloroform from avocado fruits target multiple signaling pathways and increase intracellular reactive oxygen leading to apoptosis. This review summarizes the reported phytochemicals in avocado fruit and discusses their molecular mechanisms and targets. These studies suggest that individual and combinations of phytochemicals from the avocado fruit may offer an advantageous dietary strategy in cancer prevention.

Source




Chocoholics not addicts, researcher says

A British psychologist says the 'naughty but nice' image is behind our love of chocolate. Resistance is futile. The more we try to fight off a craving for chocolate, the more our desire for it grows, a British researcher has said.

But chocoholics can take heart that such sweets are not addictive despite the fact many people consider themselves as having no control over their urges to eat them, said Peter Rogers, a psychologist at the University of Bristol. "Food behaviour can look like addictive behaviour in extreme situations but chocolate does not fit these criteria," Dr Rogers told a meeting sponsored by the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

Many people point to certain compounds found in chocolate - such as phenylethylamine - that produce a buzz when they reach the brain as evidence chocolate is addictive, Dr Rogers said. But many of these compounds also exist in higher concentrations in other foods with less appeal, such as avocados or cheese, and do not cause addiction despite what many chocoholics believe, he said. Instead, a social attitude that chocolate is "naughty but nice" may actually drive people to see chocolate as a forbidden pleasure and desire it even more, Dr Rogers said. "In other words, chocolate is a highly desirable food, but which according to social norms should be eaten with restraint," he said. "However, attempting to resist the desire to eat chocolate only causes thoughts about chocolate to become more prominent, consequently heightening the desire."

Other studies have suggested that dark chocolate contains more of the beneficial compounds linked with heart health, though experts note that the high sugar and fat content of most chocolate candy might cancel out some of the benefits.

But even health benefits do not make dark chocolate as popular as milk chocolate and chocolate covered confectionery, Dr Rogers said further research has shown. And the fact these favoured choices contain lower amounts of the so-called psychoactive compounds found in dark chocolate provides more evidence chocolate is not addictive, he said. "It is therefore far more plausible to suggest that a liking for chocolate, and its effects on mood, are due mainly to its principal constituents, sugar and fat, and their related orosensory and nutritional effects," he said in a statement.

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.

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

Laughing gas not a big laugh at all

PARALYSIS can be caused by nagging, but not the type many husbands complain about. The term "nagging" is also used to describe the dangerous recreational use of laughing gas, or nitrous oxide. Brisbane doctors have warned the practice can trigger paralysis, reporting the case of a woman in her 20s who presented herself to the Princess Alexandra Hospital's emergency department after inhaling laughing gas.

Writing in the latest Medical Journal of Australia, they said the woman had been abusing nitrous oxide – used as a propellant in whipped cream dispensers – to mask the pain caused by a sprained ankle. "She was in big trouble," said neurologist Peter Silburn, who consulted on the case. "Her arms were weak. Her bowel and bladder had stopped working and she had lower limb paralysis."

Professor Silburn said nitrous oxide – also commonly used as an anesthetic – interfered with vitamin B12 activity in the body and could cause nerve and spinal cord damage, when abused. "It can have serious consequences," he said. "I think the message is worthwhile getting out there because apparently nagging is on the rise. People take it to parties. "This is potentially very serious. Patients don't always recover. If we can alert the community to that, that's a service."

The woman "nagger" who developed paralysis spent two days in intensive care and was only discharged after seven months of rehabilitation. When she left hospital, she was only able to walk short distances with the aid of a walking frame. Professor Silburn, who divides his time between the PA and St Andrew's War Memorial hospitals, said the case was not unique.

Source





Lazy lizard source of diabetes drug

THE peculiar eating habits of a North American lizard have led to a new drug designed to help people suffering with Type 2 diabetes. Since the lazy lizard, known as the Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum), spends most of its time doing very little in an underground burrow, it developed a biochemical system for controlling the storage and release of energy. The key to the system is a compound called exendin-4, a hormone found in the lizard's saliva. It slows the the creature's digestion, enabling it to get by on just 3 or 4 meals a year.

The international drug giant Eli Lilly and California-based Amylin Pharmaceuticals have exploited exendin-4 in an injectible drug, exenatide, now available in Australia under the trade name Byetta.

Noel Field, aged 55, has injected Byetta twice daily for three years as part of phase 3 clinical trials of the drug in Australia. He has had Type 1 (adult onset) diabetes for 12 years, a condition which reduces the ability of his body to automatically regulate blood-sugar levels. "It's a bit of a mystery how they got it from the saliva of the lizard," he joked.

According to Gregory Fulcher - head of the Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney - Byetta "mimic" a human version of exendin-4, a hormone known as GLP-1. It was designed for people like Mr Field whose Type 2 diabetes is not properly controlled by existing oral medications like metformin or sulphonylurea, drugs which increase the ability of insulin to control blood sugar levels. Dr Fulcher - who led one of the Australia clinical trails - said the compound does not work for people suffering from Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes because they have too few insulin-producing beta cells.

Type 2 sufferers, though, still have enough beta cells in their pancereas to produce at least some insulin. Drugs like Byetta work along with the remaining cells, controlling blood sugars follwing a meal, reducing the amount of sugar released by the liver, slowing the emptying of the stomach and enhancing insulin production. "It's not yet proven but there are hints (Byetta) will maintain the insulin-secreting function of beta cells," said Dr Fulcher. If so, that would mean people would not need to inject insulin, doses of which must be adjusted by patients after monitoring their own blood-sugar levels.

While Byetta is the first drug of its class to be available in Australia under private prescription ($99 per month), other classes of diabetes are being developed to compliment drugs like metaformin and insulin. Byetta was listed by the federal regulator , the Therapeutic Goods Administration, last June.

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.

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