The original version of this blog is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites (viewable in China): Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Recipes, Gun Watch and Socialized Medicine. The archives for this site are here or here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing)
****************************************************************************************



31 December, 2006

One flu over the cuckoo's nest

Flu fearmongers must be quite depressed these days. Seasonal flu is late. Bird flu - despite all the headlines - hasn't gained much traction among humans. And we haven't had pandemic flu in 36 years. The good news is so good (for the rest of us, that is) that the flu lobby seems to be resorting to manufacturing fantasy flu statistics.

A new study published this week in the medical journal The Lancet (Dec. 23/30) estimates that a global pandemic flu could result in 62 million deaths worldwide, mostly in poor nations. The researchers naturally conclude that "prudence" requires "focusing on practical and affordable strategies for low-income countries where the pandemic will have the biggest effect." But the study is yet another example of how out-of-touch with the real world some public health researchers can be.

First, the researchers' estimate of 62 million deaths has far more shock-value than credibility. It's guesswork derived from other (cherry-picked) guesswork. The 62 million-death sound-bite is the product of statistical modeling that uses worst-case death rate estimates from the 1918-1920 pandemic influenza - an epidemic that medical historians believe killed somewhere between 20 million to 100 million people. In addition to the obvious uncertainty surrounding the actual death toll from the 1918 flu pandemic, the researchers ignored several key (not to mention glaring) differences between 1918 and 2006.

First, while there's no sure-fire cure or preventative measure for the flu, modern medical care and public health practices have dramatically improved since 1918. So any flu epidemic is likely to be far less severe - a point we'll come back to in a moment. Next, a great proportion of the deaths in 1918 was probably due to secondary bacterial infections that followed the initial viral infections. Today, antibiotics would be used to treat bacterial infections. And let's not forget that during 1918-1920, much of the world was still recovering from the strains of World War I. Poverty, hunger, unsanitary living conditions and stress likely made much of the global population ripe for a killer flu pandemic. None of these considerations were factored into the researchers' estimate of 62 million deaths.

But perhaps the researchers' choice that most reveals their apparent desire to come up with a scary - rather than a realistic - death toll from pandemic flu is their decision to use the 1918 pandemic flu data in the first place. There were, after all, two other more recent and, in all likelihood, more relevant pandemic flu outbreaks in the 20th century. There was the 1957-58 Asian flu pandemic that killed somewhere between 1 million to 4 million people. The 1968-1969 Hong Kong flu killed an estimated 750,000 people.

Now if one wanted to estimate a death toll from a hypothetical pandemic flu in today's world, it seems as though data from the Asian and Hong Kong flu pandemics would be much better starting points than the far more uncertain data from a chaotic period almost 90 years ago. That presumes, of course, that one is interested in more realistic (albeit smaller) estimates that better reflect modern conditions as opposed to overblown numbers aimed at producing scary headlines.

What this sort of study reveals is how public health researchers can put more stock in frightening the public than informing it. It's as though they assume that we're too stupid to work with facts and must be terrified into action.

And then, what is the action that the researchers desire? In this case, they want more money allocated to pandemic flu preparedness. While this may sound reasonable at face value, let's consider several key realities. First, pandemic flu is quite rare and we ought to be cautious not to over-allocate scarce public resources to events that seldom happen and that seem to be getting less severe when they do occur. Next, millions of people in the developing world die every year from preventable diseases, such as mosquito-borne malaria and diarrheal diseases caused by unsafe food and water. Why not spend available resources on saving people from those deadly diseases that are taking lives right now rather than on over-preparation for a hypothetical epidemic that is highly uncertain. Moreover, by tackling these other ongoing diseases, populations will be made less vulnerable to pandemic flu should it occur.

Finally, pandemic flu frenzy is also a problem in the U.S. The federal government has already spent $600 million in local and state government preparedness planning for a pandemic flu that may or may not happen any time soon, according to a report this week in the Chicago Tribune. That "preparedness" includes stockpiling vaccines - a stockpile that could very well prove entirely useless since no one can be certain that the vaccines will be effective against a specific strain of flu virus from which pandemic flu might actually develop. Useless preparation may be worse than no preparation because it means that precious public health resources, efforts and time have been wasted.

If we can't expect truthfulness and clear-thinking from public health researchers and officials in a time of relative calm, how much confidence can we have in them should a public health emergency develop?

Source



Super vaccine for flu

SCIENTISTS are on the verge of producing a revolutionary flu vaccine that protects against all major strains of the disease. Described as the "holy grail" of flu protection, it would fight off all 24 types of influenza A, including the deadly bird flu and nasty winter outbreaks. Two injections could give long-lasting immunity, unlike current vaccines that must be administered every year.

After years of research, UK and Belgian researchers say the breakthrough vaccine is now one step closer to public release. Scientists from British biotech firm Acambis and Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology in Belgium will test the super vaccine on humans for the first time in the next few months.

Australian influenza experts welcomed news of the long-awaited super vaccine. CSIRO virologist Jenny McKimm-Breschkin said the one-size-fits-all vaccine could come in handy while the public waits for researchers to produce specific vaccines against each individual flu strain. "Essentially what it could do is provide a stop-gap vaccine until clearly matched vaccines are invented," Dr McKimm-Breschkin said. "It all depends on the results of the clinical trial." ...

Researchers around the world, including Australian scientists at Melbourne-based biotech company CSL, have been working on a universal flu vaccine for years. But constant mutations of the virus have made it impossible to create a single effective vaccine. Scientists must reformulate the vaccine every year to keep up with the changes in the virus. The new version would be grown in huge vats of bacterial mixture, with just one litre of liquid providing 10,000 doses of vaccine.

Flu vaccines have focused on two proteins on the surface of the virus, but these proteins continue to mutate. The advantage of the super vaccine is that it focuses on a protein called M2, which is found in the cell membrane of the virus. The M2 protein is found in all types of influenza A and it has barely changed over the past 100 years. Using the M2 protein, the vaccine triggers antibodies that attack the virus as it emerges from the cell. The vaccine does not stop people being infected with the flu, but aims to prevent it from spreading, and to reduce the severity of symptoms.

Although it is too early to say what the effect of the universal jab would be in humans, Acambis director of viral immunology Dr Ashley Birkett said an initial course of two or three shots could provide long-lasting immunity, topped up with booster shots every five to 10 years. "It wouldn't be that one shot protects for life but you would need fewer doses over your lifetime," he 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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



30 December, 2006

Bug counters to infest kitchens

British food frenzy

What do you look for in a restaurant to celebrate the new year? Good food, wine and atmosphere? No, the authorities are sure that what diners really want to know is how many bacteria are in the kitchen, and how much saturated fat is on the menu. Yummy.

The Times reported this week that the Food Standards Agency is to give every restaurant a cleanliness rating, with orders to post their “scores on the doors”. Eateries will then be graded on the “nutritional value” of their food. Perhaps we should also be told whether they kill vermin humanely, what their policy is on workplace bullying by chefs, and the immigration status of their washers-up.

Anybody would think we were in the middle of a food poisoning epidemic. In fact, Britain’s eateries are not only better but also cleaner and more inspected than ever before, and have mostly stopped putting strychnine or lead in food, like their Victorian forebears did.

It may make the grease police and droppings inspectors of the FSA choke on their low-fat diet, but most of us do not eat out in search of hygiene or “nutritional values”. If we did, we would never eat burgers or foie gras. If we wanted to dine in a clinical environment, we could eat straight from the fridge wearing latex gloves.

Even in these “transparent” times there are some things better done behind closed doors. As Fergus Henderson, chef at the immaculate St John restaurant in Smithfield, says “a scoring system on the doors suggests there is something tainted about eating out”, and risks bringing “magic” restaurants down to earth by “showing their dirty laundry on the door when it’s not dirty”.

It turns out that half of Britain’s remaining cases of food poisoning are not in restaurants at all, but in hospitals, schools and care homes where the food is often unsavoury in every sense. If the authorities want something for their prodnoses and peckstaffs to do, they might start by putting their own kitchens in order.

Source



Potential cure for alcoholics is hailed

Australian scientists say they have found a way of eliminating alcoholic cravings using a drug that blocks the euphoric "high" associated with getting drunk. The research focused on cells in the hypothalamus region of the brain that produce orexin, a chemical linked to drink or drug-induced euphoria. Scientists at Melbourne's Howard Florey Institute made a compound that blocked orexin's effects, and gave it to rats that had already been turned into alcoholics.

The head of the team, Dr Andrew Lawrence, said the results were remarkable. "In one experiment, rats that had alcohol freely available stopped drinking it after receiving the orexin blocker," he said. Dr Lawrence said alcoholics could also be prevented from relapsing. Rats that had gone through a detox programme and were then given the blocking drug did not resume their addiction when "reintroduced to an environment which they had been conditioned to associate with alcohol use". He said: "Orexin reinforces the euphoria felt when drinking alcohol so, if a drug can be developed to block the orexin system in humans, we should be able to stop an alcoholic's craving for alcohol."

The reseach could also be used to treat eating disorders, he said, since it appeared that alcoholic addiction and eating disorders set off common triggers in the brain. The scientists are now conducting further experiments to find out the precise circumstances that activate the orexin system, which will help them to develop a drug.

Source



ALCOHOL ABUSE: UNDERSTANDING, NOT BLAME, NEEDED



On Sunday night, 2006 will be farewelled with bells, whistles and more than a few drinks. It's what we do. The inclusion of a chosen tipple or two in our festive and year's end celebrations is the norm; to not down a few yourself or offer a drink to a guest on New Year's Eve is still considered unusual, even in this era of health concerns.

Alcohol has always been a part of our culture. We use it to celebrate achievements, mark milestones and when we are enjoying the company of friends. Our high-quality alcoholic products [wine, beer and rum] are world renowned. Alcohol adds to our economy and culture.

Why then are we so shocked when teenagers drink? For generations, sneaking and sipping has been the way of youth. For generations it was snickered about and older people shared a wink and a nod when a young one nicked a mouthful and got caught. But the red flag had been raised on teen drinking, as well it should.

Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey 2005 data released this month showed that while tobacco and cannabis usage were down on similar surveys on 2002 and 1999, anti-drinking ad campaigns had done nought. Teens' drinking behaviour in Australia has remained relatively unchanged since the 1990s. Almost all 16- and 17-year-olds have tried alcohol, with more than half of those surveyed describing themselves as current drinkers and revealing they had consumed alcohol in the week before the survey. Commonwealth Government statistics show one in 10 teens drink at harmful levels in Australia. About seven in 10 boys and girls aged 14 to 17 drink alcohol and a third engage in high-risk behaviour at least once a month after binge drinking. Oh, yes. Teenagers are certainly drinking.

According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, underage drinking accounts for 20 per cent of all alcohol consumption in the US. It's hard to imagine the consumption would be very different here in the land of beer and booze-ups.

How to address this issue is complex and thorny, but what is startling in recent times is the propensity to see it as linear: blame the parents and blame the teens. Alcohol consumption by 17-year-olds during the Schoolies celebrations this year was blamed squarely on parents for providing their children with booze. Forget about context, or that most parents realised their teens would obtain alcohol and wanted to have a say in what was consumed; forget that most parents agonise over the drinking dilemma; or that by-and-large this generation of mums and dads have swung away from the autocratic approach of their parents and try to listen and be fair: Critics are quick to judge the parents of teens as bad, bad, bad.

It is clear drinking excessively is unhealthy and dangerous. The National Health and Medical Research Council says male teenagers should have no more than six standard alcoholic drinks on any one occasion and teenage girls should have no more than four. Go beyond these limits and the chances of being involved in drink driving, unwanted sexual advances and physical and verbal abuse increase. Their bodies suffer, too.

The solution to teenagers binge drinking or drinking alcohol at an age that is dangerous to their development and safety will not be found in blaming parents, or the teens themselves. The solution can only lie in making the whole of society take an interest. It is our social behaviour that feeds the problem, our embracing of getting "sloshed", our rules governing the promotion and advertising of alcohol, our inclusion of alcohol in everything special and important. We all must bear the consequences of our choices and we must share the load of responsibility for this problem.

Most of those who bellow loudest about the culture of underage drinking must not have adolescents themselves, as this is a group like none that has gone before. They are savvy, aware, bold and stressed: the way in which alcohol is pitched and presented could be just for them. The fact is that most teens, even if they do drink, are heeding the warnings. Most consume moderately and deliberately. Still, urban myths grow and one-off tales of alcohol abuse and teenage misbehaviour are expanded on to create the impression of a damned and dark generation.

In June, the Government launched its National Alcohol Strategy for the next three years. It said it was developed as a response to the prevalent high-risk alcohol consumption in the nation. Each year, about 3000 people die as a result of binge drinking and about 65,000 people are admitted to hospital. The annual cost to the Australian community of alcohol-related social problems was estimated to be $7.6 billion. All this and more could be waiting for some of our teens unless we take collective responsibility and get real about expectations. We need to get serious about offering real help instead just extending real judgment and real criticism.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



29 December, 2006

DOES THE USA HAVE A LOW LIFE-EXPECTANCY

The article excerpted below says that it does. I will leave it to demographers to comment more fully on it as I could not with a quick search find the figures upon which it is supposedly based. The article says that it is based on this report and that report says in turn that it is based on this report but I cannot find national life expectancy tables in either. This table, however, may be the one referred to.

There are well-known flaws in studies of this kind, however. For instance, pre-term babies are often delivered live in the USA and some die subsequently. Those deaths feed into the figures and so lower overall life-expectancy. In many other countries, however, such babies would die very soon after birth and would not be recorded as live births -- thus removing the effect of preterm births on their figures. See here.

Other factors to bear in mind are that some countries (such as Communist Cuba) probably "massage" their figures to make themselves look good and that the U.S. population is not homogeneous. Blacks die younger, for instance. So overall figures again tell us little. And American mothers often delay childbearing into their 30s, which unfortunately is associated with higher risk to the babies born (more mongolism, for instance, and mongols die young).

Additionally, trust in United Nations figures is laughably gullible. Anybody who thinks that the U.N. does not have political agendas (almost invariably of a Leftist and anti-American kind) does not know much.

If you had a choice between two countries, one with a few thousand dollars more annual income and the other with a longer life expectancy, which would you go for? The most common way for countries to be ranked is by gross domestic product per person - a measure of economic output. On this gauge, the mighty US tops the list, apart from a few super-rich aberrations such as the tiny state of Luxembourg.

But the relative performance of countries according to life expectancy tells another story. Being born in the richest country doesn't mean you can expect to have the longest life. There are nine countries with a life expectancy at birth of more than 80, but the world's richest and most powerful nation, the US, is not one of them. Life expectancy there is 77.5 years, more than 4.5 years shorter than Japan, which tops the longevity list on 82.2 years (followed by Hong Kong, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, Sweden, Canada, Italy and Israel).

In 1950 America ranked near the top 10 for life expectancy but figures published last month in the UN's Human Development Report 2006 show it has fallen to 30th. One outcome of this relative decline is that citizens in some countries much poorer than the US - such as Chile, Costa Rica and even Cuba - have longer life expectancy than the average American. On average, Chileans can expect to live longer than the average American, even though GDP per person is about a quarter of America's. A Cuban male has a better chance of surviving until 65 than an American male, even though GDP per capita in the US is about eight times Cuba's. The figures suggest Americans have, on average, traded longevity for higher incomes over the past 50 years.

Many factors contribute to a nation's life expectancy, including education, environmental conditions, working conditions and access to new medical treatments and technologies. Our lifestyles and social structures also affect our health. Research by an expatriate Australian professor, Michael Marmot, from University College, London, has shown greater control over life circumstances, especially at work, reduces chronic stress and has positive health effects.

What makes America's place in global longevity rankings all the more surprising is how much of its national resources are devoted to health. The US allocates about 15 per cent of GDP to health expenditure, far more than any other advanced country. By comparison, Australia spends about 9.5 per cent and Britain 8 per cent. One of the reasons for this is the very high cost of American health services. The ratio of doctors' incomes to the average employee is 5.5 in the US compared with 2.2 in Australia and 1.4 in in Britain. US health expenditure averages $US5711 ($7268) a person a year compared with Cuba's $US623 (adjusted for purchasing power) but Americans still have a lower life expectancy at birth. (Cuba has the world's highest proportion of doctors, with 449 per 100,000 people, but they put up with much lower wages than their US counterparts.)

More here



Indigestion remedies linked to fractures?

Taking potent drugs to combat indigestion can increase the risk of breaking hip and other bones, researchers say. Drugs that restrict the production of acid in the stomach are among the most effective and best-selling treatments in the world, with sales worth more than £7 billion a year. But a study of nearly 150,000 British patients by American researchers found that they increased the risk of hip fracture by as much as 44 per cent.

The study, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggests that taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may decrease cal-cium absorption or bone dens- ity in certain patients, leading to increased risk of fractures.

Many of the one in twenty people who visit doctors in Britain each year complaining of heartburn are prescribed acid-suppressive drugs — or PPIs — to alleviate their problems. Prescriptions for PPIs such as omeprazole — sold under the brand names Losec, Prilosec and Zegerid — rose by more than 5,000 per cent during the 1990s.

A team from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, analysed data from the UK General Practice Research Database, which contains information on millions of British patients.

Limiting the study to people aged over 50, the researchers examined 13,556 hip fracture cases and 135,386 control patients. After screening for other factors that might lead to a fall or brittle bones, they found that more than one year of PPI therapy was associated with a 44 per cent increased risk of hip fracture.

They suggest that elderly patients taking high doses of PPIs for long periods should boost their calcium intake.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



28 December, 2006

WHAT A RIDICULOUS "STUDY"!

It reproduces only a tiny part of the human experience of long-haul flight. And elderly humans DON'T die from jet-lag -- or we would all have heard of it years ago

A study that exposed elderly mice to the ravages of regular long-haul flights found most of them died. The University of Virginia study showed a majority of older mice died while being subjected to the equivalent of a Washington to Paris flight once a week for eight weeks, The Washington Post reported today. More intense forms of jet lag sped up the death rate in the elderly rodents, the study found.

Experts say the study is one of the first hard scientific looks into the health effects of jet lag. Younger mice seemed to rebound more quickly and were not immediately harmed by the jet lag. Simulated jet lag conditions were created by advancing and delaying the rodent's exposure to light. But researchers aren't sure what conclusions to draw from the results, the newspaper said.

Gene Block, the report's co-author, said older mice might be more susceptible to sudden light changes than younger mice. Or, he said, jet lag might be a health problem that builds up in younger subjects, causing future maladies. To further explore the issue, his researchers have launched another set of tests to determine whether jet lag causes long-term health consequences in younger and middle-age rodents, Mr Block said. Mr Block's study also hinted at what flyers have been saying for years - it's more difficult to adjust to time zone changes when flying east. The researchers found 53 per cent of elderly mice died when they were subjected to a simulated weekly flight from Washington to Paris over the eight-week study. The death rate dropped to 32 per cent of elderly mice on a simulated Paris to Washington route, according to the study, which was published last month in the journal Current Biology. Seventeen per cent of the mice in a control group died in the eight-week study.

Source



Benefits of brittle bone drug 'last five years'

Millions of people who suffer from osteoporosis may be able to stop taking their medication and still feel the benefits, a long-term study suggests. The effects of the drug alendronate may last up to five years after a patient stops taking it, significantly boosting its cost-effectiveness, researchers say. According to a study published today, most post-menopausal women who took alendronate for five years and then stopped had no increased risk for non-vertebral fractures during the next five years.

Alendronate is part of the class of drugs known as bisphosphonates, which stop further loss of bone mass. Treatment for osteoporosis often continues indefinitely, but few studies have examined the long-term effects of using bisphosphonates — at a cost of about 80p a day — or stopping treatment after a certain period. The Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (Flex) study examined alendronate’s effect on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk in 1,099 post-menopausal women with low BMD.

Dennis Black, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues found that, compared with continuing alendronate, switching to a placebo for five years appeared to result in slight declines in BMD at the hip (-2.4 per cent) and spine (-3.7 per cent), but average levels were the same or above those ten years earlier, before treatment.

After five years, there was no significant difference in the cumulative risk of non-spinal fractures between those continuing to take the drug and those who had stopped. However, among those who continued to take the drug, there was a 55 per cent lower risk of clinically recognised spinal fractures, the authors report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“The BMD and bone marker changes suggest some residual effect from five years of alen- dronate treatment that is evident for at least five years after discontinuation,” the authors write. “We conclude that continuation of alendronate for ten years maintains bone mass and reduces bone remodelling [continuous turnover of bone mineral] compared with discontinuation after five years.

“The results confirm the safety of alendronate for up to ten years and suggest that, for many women, discontinuation of alendronate after five years for up to five more years does not significantly increase fracture risk, but women at high risk of clinical vertebral fractures, such as those with vertebral fracture or very low BMD, may benefit by continuing beyond five years.”

In an accompanying editorial, Cathleen Colon-Emeric, of Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, North Carolina, writes: “Women who have a good response to five years of bisphosphonate therapy and are not otherwise at increased risk of vertebral fracture can consider a ‘holiday’ of up to five years without therapy. This strategy would clearly improve the reported cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates. Now . . . physicians may be able to begin telling women when they have had enough of a good thing.”

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



27 December, 2006

THE ASBESTOS SCARE

I am repeating below an article that I ran some days ago on "Greenie Watch". I commented at the time that naturally-occurring asbestos has been around in the soil of large parts of Southern California ever since the area was settled in the 1780s -- so we should be seeing lots of asbestos-related disease in the area by now. But there has not been a single report of that! So we have in Southern California a most interesting natural experiment in showing how asbestos is not remotely the threat to health that has been proclaimed.

In response to that posting, I received a couple of emails from an anti-asbestos organization (significantly funded by trial lawyers, I would imagine) disputing what I had said. They implicitly admitted that SoCal did not have an unusually high incidence of asbestos-related disease but tried to explain that away. Their explanation, in my summary, is that there is both "good" and "bad" asbestos (I wonder why we don't usually hear THAT?) and that the bad asbestos has until recently obligingly confined itself to virgin territory undisturbed by man.

If you believe that, you would believe anything, it seems to me. For a start, virgin territory must be as rare in SoCal as are are other sorts of virginity. But I will leave it to unaffilated experts in California soil types to map those types against areas and dates of settlement.

The interest of the article below is to show that in at least some areas the naturally occurring asbestos is of a type that two arms of government consider dangerous and that quite minor human activity -- such as kids playing -- can kick up asbestos-containing dust which can then be breathed in. As much of SoCal is a desert climate made usable by irrigation only, there is a lot of dust there to be kicked up. So even if an area is not quite "virgin", almost any usage that has been made of it should have kicked up lots of asbestos. And all the farming in SoCal using those horrific PLOWS must be saturating the area in asbestos!

I am not of course disputing that heavy industrial and mining exposure to some types of asbestos can cause disease. Toxicologists however have a saying that "The toxicity is in the dose". In other words, scientific caution would dictate that we ask if sub-industrial levels (lower levels) of exposure to asbestos are also harmful. The California example would seem to show that such levels are NOT harmful and that the danger from asbestos has been vastly over-hyped

The U.S. Geological Survey on Tuesday confirmed a federal environmental agency's findings of a particularly dangerous kind of asbestos on playgrounds in El Dorado Hills. USGS experts in mineral identification reached the conclusion after closely examining the playgrounds' study samples of tiny particles that the mining industry asserted were not asbestos.

The investigation found that most of those particles did not conform to the traditional commercial definition of asbestos, as the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association had argued. The microscopic bits of minerals nonetheless were within scientists' widely accepted range of sizes, shapes and chemical compositions counted as "asbestos" for health studies, USGS scientists said. "We don't equate the commercial definition of asbestos with toxicity," said Gregory Meeker, a mineralogist with the USGS Denver office who led the investigation. "It has not been health based. It's been for the guy who wants to mine a deposit and make a profit at it."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials who conducted the October 2004 study of El Dorado Hills' Community Park and nearby schoolyards said the Geological Survey's findings affirmed its pioneering exposure studies of naturally occurring asbestos in El Dorado Hills and elsewhere in the country. "The survey's study refutes assertions made by the R.J. Lee report and supports our findings and conclusions," said Dan Meer, who supervised the playgrounds' sampling by the EPA's San Francisco regional office.

Spokesman for the industry lobby could not be reached for comment late Tuesday. But the consultant who conducted the review of the EPA sampling had maintained that the environmental agency did not follow proper standards for identifying asbestos particles in air samples. "It is too bad that they chose to ignore a very detailed analysis that we had provided to EPA and USGS," Rich Lee, president of R.J. Lee Group of Pittsburgh, said in July. The EPA study found that children and adults in El Dorado Hills can significantly raise their exposure to breathable asbestos particles simply from the dust kicked up riding a bicycle or playing basketball on outdoor courts.

The main public health concern related to such exposures is mesothelioma, an inoperable and almost always fatal cancer of the membranes lining the chest and other body cavities, asbestos health experts say. Short exposure -- months, not years -- can be enough to instigate the disease, though it typically takes 30 or more years to take hold.

The EPA strapped personal air monitors on agency technicians who mimicked children's activities at the park and on sports fields at Silva Valley Elementary, Jackson Elementary and Rolling Hills Middle schools.

About 1,000 of the El Dorado Hills' 31,000 residents packed the Community Park's gymnasium to learn more from federal scientists. Findings prompted the Community Services District to blacktop the New York Creek trail running through the park and increase irrigation on sports fields to cut dust. The schools also adopted dust controls. At the same, the superintendent of El Dorado County schools was widely circulating copies of the Stone, Sand & Gravel Association's critique discrediting the EPA study. Superintendent Vicki Barber stopped short of endorsing the industry view. But she said it reinforced doubts that she and other local officials harbored over the reliability of EPA asbestos testing. Barber declined to comment Tuesday, saying she had not yet read the full USGS report.

County Supervisor Helen Baumann, who represents El Dorado Hills, called the Geological Survey's study a "a fair analysis" and left her confident that the county is "doing everything we need to do to protect public health." The USGS, the scientific arm of the Interior Department, launched the $100,000 investigation at the request of the EPA, which wanted an independent examination of the industry critique. Last April, the USGS team collected dozens of samples of rock, soil and settled dust in the areas where the environmental agency had conducted its asbestos exposure assessment. USGS mineralogists also analyzed samples the EPA had collected using a number of sophisticated tests to determine the chemistry, mineral composition and form of the asbestos structures detected. The USGS investigators said asbestos health experts, not the mining industry or mineralogists, need to take the lead in redefining asbestos from a health perspective. "Ultimately, it is the health community that must determine what particle types are significant with respect to asbestos-related diseases," the report said

Source



How to live to a ripe old age without losing your marbles

A gene variant that is linked to long life also helps to preserve mental lucidity in old age, scientists have discovered. An Israeli study involving 158 people who lived to 95 or beyond has found that those who inherit a particular version of the gene CETP are twice as likely to have a sharp and alert brain when they are elderly. They are also five times less likely than people with a different version of CETP to develop Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, according to the study by a team at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University.

The insights into how ageing affects the brain could lead to ways of protecting cognitive function in old age. If drugs could be developed which mimic the protective function of the CETP VV variant they could transform the quality of life of the ageing population.

“Without good brain function, living to age 100 is not an attractive proposition,” said Nir Barzilai, director of the college’s Institute for Ageing Research. “We’ve shown that the same gene variant that helps people live to exceptional ages has the added benefit of helping them think clearly.

“It’s possible that CETP VV’s cognitive effect is to protect against Alzheimer’s disease. In studying these centenarians, we hope to learn why they’re able to resist diseases that affect the general population at a much younger age. This knowledge should greatly aid our efforts to prevent or delay the onset of age-related diseases.”

In the study, Dr Barzilai’s team tested people aged 95 or more to see which version of the CETP gene they had. Ashkenazi Jews, who are of Eastern European origin, are often used as the subjects for genetic research because their restrictive marriage practices mean that their genes vary less than other populations.

CETP is a gene that makes the cholesterol ester protein, which in turn influences the size of the particles in which both “good” (high-density lipoprotein) and “bad” (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol appear in the blood. Larger particles are thought to be beneficial because they are less likely to become wedged into the linings of the blood vessels, where they can clog the arteries causing coronary heart disease, stroke and some forms of dementia and cognitive decline. People who have the CETP VV variant have larger cholesterol particles in their blood, and previous research has shown that they are more likely to live longer than people with other versions of the gene.

About 8 per cent of people aged 70 have the CETP variant, but this rises to 25 per cent among centenarians. This is thought to play a key role in explaining why some people live to very old ages — in developed countries, about 1 in 10,000 people lives to 100.

The research, published in the journal Neurology, found that those with CETP VV were twice as likely as the others to have good brain function. A separate investigation of 124 Ashkenazi Jews aged between 75 and 85 found that CETP VV appeared to protect against dementia: those with the variant were five times less likely to suffer from it.

“It’s possible that this gene variant also protects against the development of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr Barzilai 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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



26 December, 2006

Eat, drink and be merry

By Australian columnist Christopher Pearson

Health ministers, state and federal, are of one mind on the question of obesity. Lack of exercise and poor diet (known in the trade as the Big Two) are to blame. Recent articles in the International Journal of Obesity tell a different story.

Pathways, an obesity prevention program associated with the Johns Hopkins school of public health, ran a three-year study on Native American children. Improved diet and more exercise did not lead to any significant difference in body mass index between the youngsters who participated in the program and the control group. As well, there's a marked paucity of experimental evidence to support the proposition that lack of exercise and too much junk food cause obesity. Not for the first time, medical science has been artlessly assuming that which had to be proved.

The trailblazing IJO article (by S. W. Keith, D. T. Redden et al) concludes that: "Undue attention has been devoted to reduced physical activity and food marketing practices as postulated causes for increases in the prevalence of obesity, leading to neglect of other plausible mechanisms and well-intentioned, but potentially ill-founded, proposals for reducing obesity rates." They suggest no fewer than 10 other possible causes.

Given that being overweight is usually attributed to the sins of gluttony and sloth, these are tidings of comfort and joy just when we needed them, on the eve of a protracted period of feasting. If you've been feeling guilty in advance about all that succulent ham on the bone, roast pork with extra crackling and Christmas pudding with brandy butter, forget it and let your joy be unconfined. Thanks to the IJO, those of a fuller figure can confidently tell the Fat Police to mind their own business and eat to their heart's content. I've been doing so for years now, on the grounds that it's not what you eat or the exercise you miss out on for the festive season but year-round habits that make the difference. But this Christmas there'll be 10 more strings to my bow.

The first blameless cause of obesity is lack of sleep. The evidence from the First World is that since 1960 the average amount of sleep we get has declined by about 90 minutes The researchers say unhealthy sleeping habits potentially have as much effect on our body weight as junk food. There's solid evidence to demonstrate the connection between lack of sleep and BMI, not only in rats but in human beings. Levels of leptin, the hormone that tells the brain that the stomach is full, decrease in the sleep-deprived, and ghrelin, the hormone that prompts hunger, increases. If you want to lose weight, the trick might be not to engage in strenuous exercise but make sure you get a good eight hours of shut-eye.

Another blameless and well-established cause of obesity is man-made poisons that have found their way into the food chain. One indicator the research identifies is polybrominated diphenyl ether. Apparently it almost doubled every five years in Swedish mothers' breast milk between 1972 and 1998. DDT, which is known to increase the fatty tissue in laboratory rats, is also a contender, known to affect human hormone systems.

Natural hormonal changes are responsible for puppy fat in young children and for post-menopausal women's weight gains. There are also various medications that can drastically affect fluid retention and BMI. If you've put on weight recently, it may well have been because of new drugs for diabetes, blood pressure, depression, allergies or oral contraceptives. If, like a good many middle-aged people, you suffer from more than one of those afflictions, it's quite likely they compound the weight problem. Beta-blockers induce a mean weight gain of approximately 1.2kg. One study of oral contraception estimated a mean weight gain of 5kg after two years.

If taking medications is an example of blameless weight gain, then giving up smoking must surely count as conspicuous virtue. Yet there is no surer way to put on weight. Nicotine is a powerful appetite depressant. The best estimate on offer is that between 1978 and 1990, stopping smoking was responsible for about a quarter of the increase in the prevalence of overweight in men and about one-sixth of the increase in women.

Another factor contributing to obesity, in which none of us has any say, is the age at which our mothers bore us. A study of 10-year-old girls found that the odds of obesity increased by more than 14 per cent for every five-year increment in maternal age. Sociological factors such as the propensity to spoil late-arriving children may play a part but there's a biological correlation in sheep between maternal age and fat deposition related to uncoupling protein levels. The mean age of mothers at birth has been inexorably increasing globally since 1960. Another cause for increased obesity levels in the US lies in changes in the distribution of ethnicity and age. "Compared with young European Americans, middle-aged adults, African-Americans (when comparing women only) and Hispanic Americans have a markedly higher obesity prevalence." The increase of Hispanic American adults as a proportion of the population from 5 per cent in 1970 to about 13 per cent in 2000, and a 43 per cent increase in adults aged between 35 and 44 over the same period, argue for a small but statistically significant factor.

Air-conditioning is one explanation for the obesity epidemic, which is very much a late 20th-century First World phenomenon. Exposure to ambient temperatures either above or below the comfort zone "increases energy expenditure, which, all other things being equal, decreases energy stores that is, fat". If you've ever felt that extremes of hot or cold were enervating and left you hungry, that's why.

The most obvious of the blameless components to stoutness is heredity. The heritable component "is well supported by animal breeding studies and human twins, family and adoption studies with an estimated heritability of approximately 65 per cent". There is also a compounding factor over the generations. There's evidence that fatness is associated with greater reproductive fitness, which leads to natural selection of obesity-disposed genotypes.

Last but not least, Father Ephraem Chifley, sometime food reviewer at The Adelaide Review, has drawn my attention to another IJO article (S. D. Vangipuram, M. Yu et al). The human adenovirus Ad-36 causes obesity by reducing leptin expression and secretion and increasing glucose uptake by fat cells. As Chifley remarked: "The moral vanity of the authoritarian and lean is far from being the answer to obesity. It is gratifying for some to think that the fat problem can be solved by boot camps and by the stigmatisation of the overweight. The idea that you might be able to catch obesity as easily as you can the common cold should give us all pause for thought."

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



25 December, 2006

New drugs 'could halve treatment'

A new generation of antibiotics could halve the length of time people need to take medication, scientists say. London researchers are developing what they hope will be the first of these - a compound to treat the hospital superbug MRSA in the nose. It tackles bacteria currently "left behind" because they are resistant to standard antibiotics. The anti-MRSA drug will be tested in humans next year and may be available in five years.

It is hoped similar compounds being examined by the team will also prove effective against Staphylococcus bacteria, which cause sore throats and tuberculosis. Developing a way of tackling antibiotic resistance is important because it could mean the antibiotics which already exist could be given a longer life. At the moment, years of work can be put into developing a conventional antibiotic but it may be possible to use it for around only 18 months before resistance develops.

HT61 is being developed as a cream to tackle persistent MRSA bacteria in the nose, the most important part of the body where it is carried. Many hospitals already test people before they come in for operations to see if they are carriers of MRSA. But, like all bacterial infections, it is made up of two forms of bacteria - the fast-dividing sort targeted by existing antibiotics - and non-multiplying, or persistent, bacteria. It is this latter form that lurks in the body and causes repeat infection, and can lead to resistance if it is exposed to medication. HT61, which has been tested in the lab and in "very successful" animal trials, is effective against persistent MRSA bacteria. It will be tested on around 60 people next year.

The team may later seek to tackle MRSA once it has got inside the body. Sir Anthony Coates, professor of medical microbiology at St George's Medical School, who is leading the research, said research so far showed it was "potent against MRSA". Clive Page, professor of pharmacology at King's College London, who is also working on the study, said the work opened up the possibility of a whole family of drugs which could treat persistent bacteria in a range of conditions. He said: "It may lead to us providing a combination of drugs - one to target the dividing bacteria and one to target the persistent form. "If you take something like penicillin, and put this with it, you might be able to get a treatment course which lasts one or two days, rather than the current five to seven."

Source



There’s more to childhood than counting calories

The obsession with expanding waistlines is narrowing horizons for children - and replacing adult guidance with health tips.

Last week, in Britain, Sainsbury’s announced that it was financing a £3million programme to help 5,000 obese children and their families. In addition, ‘nutrition nannies’ will be treading the aisles to advise families on healthy eating and staying active. This week, the Chicago mayor asked restaurants with over $10million in annual sales to post calorie counts on their menus, so that kids can moderate their intake. This comes a year after Democratic and Republican heavyweights joined forces to announce a 10-year programme combating childhood obesity.

Increasingly everything that children do is assessed with reference to body mass index (BMI). Indeed, the obesity issue seems to be one of the few areas where adults feel they can give some moral guidance. Adults today have a hard time telling kids what is right and wrong, how they should develop themselves, or why they should exercise self-control. Good now equals active, low fat, and smaller waistline; bad equals inactive, full-fat and bulging belly.

Childhood obesity has become the bottom line justification for children’s activity. A few weeks ago, the government proposed that kids should go on school trips to help combat childhood obesity (see Who killed the school trip?, by Josie Appleton). The same justification is given for why children should also play sport, play outside with their friends, and walk to school on their own. The need to combat obesity apparently also means that they should eat good food, and eat with their family at mealtimes.

Conversely, it is said that children shouldn’t play video games too much, sit at home not doing anything, or eat on their own whenever they like, because that will make them fat.

This signifies a profound narrowing of vision. Questions of self-development and self-restraint are posed in one-dimensional terms of weights and measures. Children’s activity is judged in terms of narrow goals and ends, the numbers of calories that it burns, rather than being seen as simply a normal party of everyday life, or as useful as an end in itself. So long as their arms and legs are moving, it seems, that is okay.

Increasingly children are encouraged to engage in ‘active lifestyle programmes’. The Department of Heath gave some children pedometers to measure the numbers of steps that they take in a day. Schoolchildren in Denver received similar pedometers back in 2002, and have been counting their steps ever since. Experts try to work out what is an acceptable pedometer reading: ‘How many steps per day do children need?’, asks one article, plumping for 12,000 steps for girls and 15,000 for boys.

In Minnesota, an obesity researcher designed a classroom that encouraged children to fidget. An article reports: ‘all of the desks have been replaced with adjustable podiums. Instead of chairs, children stand, kneel or sit on big exercise balls while they work and they are actively encouraged to move about the space.’ The children are adorned with sensors to measure their every movement. Another US company designed a toy known as ‘Fizzees’ (Physical Electronic Energisers), digital pets that children care for by moving around. Lots of jumping makes for a happy Fizzee.

Here, the authorities are trying to attach meaning to children’s everyday mundane activities; government targets are being pursued through activities such as children walking to school or running down to the park, or even just fidgeting. Video games are okay, apparently, so long as they involve activity. Groby Community College in Leicestershire introduced the game Dance Dance Revolution to encourage reluctant girls to exercise. The Nintendo game Wii received cheers from some quarters because it increased kids’ activity levels. Meanwhile, McDonald’s is considering replacing play areas in some of its US restaurants with kiddie gyms, to help them burn off the calories.

Even the question of obesity itself is seen in very flat moral terms. Gluttony was a sin because it meant gorging the self at the expense of higher spiritual goals, such as praying and doing good works. The problem was not so much the kind or quantity of food that sinners ingested, but their motivation for doing so. It was a question of character and inner life, not just of digestion.

Although obesity is now the number one sin with which to scare children, it’s seen in peculiarly pragmatic terms. There is an obsession with measurement. The UK Department of Health released cutting edge advice on how to measure child obesity levels, and called on headteachers to carry out these measurements in primary schools. The problem with obesity reduced to bald statistics: it causes X amount of damage to children’s health, and costs the NHS Y million pounds per year and the economy as a whole Z.

Researchers are busily working out all the various ‘factors’ that influence childhood obesity. One Bristol researcher found that it was influenced by lack of sleep, while another academic found that it was caused by watching more than eight hours of TV a week at the age of three. There are lots of complicated programmes to encourage families to create a new environment for children, with all the correct factors in place. The question is not just that Johnny is greedy and needs to eat less. Instead, there is expert advice on micromanaging families’ every lifestyle choice, from food to mealtimes to weekend routines.

MEND - the charity financed by Sainsbury’s - aims at ‘involving the entire family in healthy eating and an active lifestyle programme’, including everything from ‘changing family attitudes towards healthy eating and physical activity’, recommending ‘practical ways to remove unhealthy food triggers’, and ‘learning to be a healthy role model’. All this is apparently about ‘empowering them with the knowledge and skills to overcome obesity’. This interfering jargon almost makes you miss the Ten Commandments.

These policies are in danger of breeding a new nation of self-obsessed gym goers, who are forever counting their steps and calorie intake. Kids shouldn’t be thinking about their weight, even - or perhaps especially - if they are fat. They should be thinking about winning a game of football, improving their tennis serve, playing games with their friends. They should be having fun, chilling out.

There is more to childhood than not being fat. School trips broaden the mind, sport is fun, walking to school teaches you independence, eating good food with your family is more satisfying and sociable than eating alone. Adults need to work out how to give kids more substantial guidance - on what it means to be a good person, how to develop yourself and exercise self-control - beyond waving your arms and legs around to reduce your BMI.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



24 December, 2006

Friendly microbes could make you fat

Outlaw them!

New science shows that there's a reason you can pack on a pound or two if you nibble a few holiday cookies while your skinny friend can snarf a whole plate and not gain an ounce. Part of the reason is friendly bacteria in your gut. Some of these bacteria are too friendly, acting like over-indulgent grandparents who show their love with food. "Forever people have wondered what it is that's different between people who have a proclivity toward obesity and those who don't," said Margaret McFall-Ngai, a professor of medical microbiology and immunology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

A team of scientists led by Dr. Jeffrey I. Gordon at Washington University has discovered that obese people may get more calories from food than lean people do because they have a different mix of those friendly bacteria. In two studies appearing today in the journal Nature, the researchers show that obesity is linked to the makeup of bacterial communities inside our intestines.

It's impossible to overstate how important this contribution is, McFall-Ngai said. The study of the relationship between people and their microbes is a breakthrough field of science that is opening up entirely new ways of looking at and treating obesity and other diseases. For example, genetic surveys of the bacteria from more than a dozen unrelated people show that more than 4,000 types of bacteria can live in the human intestine. Each person seems to have a signature mix of species that stays constant over time, Ruth E. Ley, a post-doctoral researcher in Gordon's lab found.

Those surveys are only a first estimate of the number and complexity of the organisms living within us, said Dr. Martin J. Blaser, chairman of medicine at New York University. "The diversity in the human colon is unfathomable," Blaser said. Our relationship with bacteria has evolved over a billion years, and it is no accident that we carry the organisms we do, he said. The new research reinforces one of Blaser's ideas, he said. He thinks that the obesity epidemic may be because of shifts in the types of microbes that live inside us. "I think they are changing as a result of modern life, especially antibiotics," Blaser said. [So it's not our fault after all!]

About 90 percent of the bacteria in the colon fall into two major groups, or divisions, called the Bacteroidetes and the Firmicutes. The Firmicutes extract more calories from food than the Bacteroidetes do. Gordon and his colleagues found that obese mice and people had 50 percent fewer of the inefficient Bacteroidetes group than their lean counterparts. The researchers tested the idea that bacteria are responsible for weight gain by taking bacteria from either lean or obese mice and transplanting them into mice raised to have no bacteria in their intestines. The so-called germ-free mice who got bacteria from obese mice gained twice as much fat as those who were recipients of bacteria from lean animals even though they ate the same amount of food.

Researcher Peter J. Turnbaugh had the unenviable job of examining the mice's droppings to find out how many calories each group had used from their food. He discovered that the mice with the obese mix of bacteria extracted about 2 percent more calories from their food than those who were colonized with the lean mixture. That may seem like a small difference, but the extra calories add up over time, Gordon said. Dieters typically consume 1,200 calories per day. If humans have a similar difference in calorie extraction, an obese person may get 24 more calories each day than a trim person who eats the same number of calories. Over the course of a year, 24 extra calories per day adds up to a pound of weight gained - the average for people over age 25, Gordon said. And most people in the United States consume far more calories than that.

The researchers also studied 12 obese people who went to a weight-loss clinic at Washington University. They measured the proportion of the two groups of bacteria in the people's guts as they followed either a low-fat or low-carb diet. As the people lost weight, the proportion of inefficient Bacteroidetes bacteria increased, suggesting that the amount of fat the host carries also influences which microbes prosper in the colon. "This could be a vicious cycle," Gordon said. As people get fatter, their intestinal bacteria change and pull more calories out of food causing further weight gain.

The "pioneering" and "cutting-edge" studies demonstrate that humans are ecosystems unto themselves, McFall-Ngai said. A delicate balance exists between humans and our microbes and helps determine how healthy we are, she said. "It's still early days to know what it all means," McFall-Ngai said. For instance, the scientists don't know yet whether people prone to obesity start out with a different mix of bacteria, what causes the shift in the balance between lean and obese, or how bacteria measure the amount of fat their host carries. And they don't know if giving more of the Bacteroidetes to people might act as a weight-loss treatment, or how to manipulate bacterial populations to control weight. "It's too premature to recommend any course of action yet," Gordon said. [Rare wisdom]

Source



THE LATEST "BEAUTY" CRAP

I guess desperate women WANT to believe that massaging yourself with grape residue makes you look younger. It mainly seems to be a pseudo-scientific racket for getting tourists into Italian hotels. I can find no research that even attempts to support it

ISHI VinoTherapy introduces an innovative, delicious way to enjoy the benefits of lush, organic Mediterranean grapes - the Tono di Vino Body Treatment. Grapes, rich in antioxidants, vitamins and essential fatty acids, fight free radicals to nourish tone and invigorate the skin. This new Italian salon and spa treatment is the ultimate way to feed the skin with fruits of the Mediterranean.

The 2 hour sensory massage therapy begins with a herbal tea infused with dried red grapevine leaves. The antioxidant-rich drink purifies and cleanses the body from within. After the relaxing, healing tea, the body is gently massaged with Grape Must and Lavender Honey Exfoliating Scrub. The Scrub, rich in natural fruit acids as well as alpha and beta hydroxyl-acids, delicately exfoliates and tones the skin.

Another more invigorating massage follows by massaging Nettare di Vino Tonic, a rich concentrate of red Salento grapes, virgin wood strawberry juice and edelweiss extract, to encourage lymphatic drainage. A sumptuous Thermal Peat and Moscato Grape Mud Mask then infuses the skin with antioxidants while intensely combating cellulite.

Distilled Aromatic Water is then used to immediately detoxify, stimulate and energise the body and mind. Yet another pampering massage follows the full body cleansing - Grapeseed Massage Oil with rosemary, rich in essential fatty acids, visibly firms the skin. For dessert, an invigorating body rub with Pinot Noir Body Toning Cream firms and moisturises skin while increasing natural drainage.

Treat your body and your senses to a gourmet Mediterranean delight with a firming ISHI Tono di Vino Body Treatment. An ISHI Tono di Vino Treatment Box Set contains all five products necessary for eight indulgent treatments.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



23 December, 2006

SOME NEWS IN BRIEF

Spray away obesity?: "Dieters may find some welcome assistance from a new nasal spray that could help resist the appetizing aromas of cinnamon bun stands, pizza parlors or tempting bakeries. Compellis Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Massachusetts said it will begin human trials next year of a nasal spray designed to fight obesity by blocking the senses of smell and taste. It won a patent for the product this month. 'The pleasurable effect of eating is all stimulated by smell and taste,' Christopher Adams, the company's founder and chief executive, told Reuters Tuesday. 'The premise is that olfactory activity that controls both smell and taste is a trigger and a feedback mechanism to eat. If you have some kind of reduced sense of smell or taste, you tend to eat less,' he said. The product, known as CP404, is among the latest devices and treatments under development in the multibillion-dollar fight against obesity." [How absurd can the obesity war get?]



CT, MA may join NY in trans fat idiocy: "Artery-clogging artificial trans fats could soon be banned in Connecticut. Two weeks after the New York City Board of Health voted to make the Big Apple the first city in the nation to ban artificial trans fats in restaurant food, two Republican state senators in Connecticut proposed similar legislation Wednesday. ... Connecticut politicians are not the first to consider a trans fat ban in the wake of New York City's action. A Massachusetts lawmaker proposed a similar bill this week. Bans are being considered in Philadelphia and Cleveland as well."



Magic mushrooms appear to relieve OCD: "A preliminary study of the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms has found it is effective in relieving the symptoms of people suffering from severe obsessive compulsive disorder, a University of Arizona psychiatrist reports. Dr. Francisco A. Moreno led the first FDA-approved clinical study of psilocybin since it was outlawed in 1970. The results of the small-scale study are published in the latest edition of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Moreno said the study's intent was only to test the safety of administering psilocybin to patients, and its effectiveness is still in doubt until a larger controlled study can be conducted. But in each of the nine patients in the study, psilocybin completely removed symptoms of the disorder for a period of about four to 24 hours, with some remaining symptom-free for days."



22 December, 2006

THE WONDERS OF OLIVE OIL AGAIN



Long known as part of the "Mediterranean diet" mythology

People who use plenty of olive oil in their diets may be helping to prevent damage to body cells that can eventually lead to cancer, new research suggests. In a study of 182 European men, researchers found evidence that olive oil can reduce oxidative damage to cells' genetic material, a process that can initiate cancer development. They say the findings may help explain why rates of several cancers are higher in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe, where olive oil is a dietary staple.

They also support advice to replace saturated fats from foods like meat and butter with vegetable fats, particularly olive oil, said study co-author Dr. Henrik E. Poulsen, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. He and his colleagues report the findings in The FASEB Journal, a publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

The study included healthy men between the ages of 20 and 60 from five European countries. For two weeks [The wonders of long-term research!], the men consumed a quarter cup of olive oil throughout each day. At the end of the study, they showed an average 13 percent reduction in a substance called 8oxodG, which is a marker of oxidative damage to cells' DNA. Such damage occurs when byproducts of metabolism called reactive oxygen species overwhelm the body's antioxidant defenses. Olive oil contains a number of compounds, called phenols, believed to act as powerful antioxidants. However, those compounds didn't seem to account for the drop in DNA oxidative damage, according to Poulsen's team. The men in the study used three different olive oils with varying levels of antioxidant phenols, and oxidative damage declined regardless of the phenol content.

Instead, the researchers suspect that the monounsaturated fats in olive oil are behind the effect. The findings, they say, suggest that olive oil may be part of the reason that certain cancers, including breast, colon, ovarian and prostate cancers, are less common in Mediterranean countries than in Northern Europe. At the beginning of the study, men from Northern Europe had higher levels of 8oxodG than those from Southern Europe. This is consistent, according to Poulsen's team, with the expected effects of the olive-oil-rich "Mediterranean diet."

However, Poulsen told Reuters Health, the diet is more than just olive oil. Ideally, it's also rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fish. Moreover, regardless of its benefits, he added, olive oil is no substitute for calorie control and regular exercise. [He got that right]

Source

The journal abstract is as under:

Effect of olive oils on biomarkers of oxidative DNA stress in Northern and Southern Europeans

Anja Machowetz, Henrik E. Poulsen et al.

High consumption of olive oil in the Mediterranean diet has been suggested to protect DNA against oxidative damage and to reduce cancer incidence. We investigated the impact of the phenolic compounds in olive oil, and the oil proper, on DNA and RNA oxidation in North, Central, and South European populations. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled crossover intervention trial, the effect of olive oil phenolic content on urinary oxidation products of guanine (8-oxo-guanine, 8-oxo-guanosine and 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine) was investigated. Twenty-five mililiters of three olive oils with low, medium, and high phenolic content were administered to healthy males (n=182) daily for 2 wk. At study baseline the urinary excretion of 8-oxo-guanosine (RNA oxidation) and 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine (DNA oxidation) was higher in the Northern regions of Europe compared with Central and Southern European regions (P=0.035). Urinary excretion of the 8 hydroxylated forms of guanine, guanosine, deoxyguanosine and their nonoxidized forms were not different when comparing olive oils with low, medium, and high phenolic content given for 2 wk. Testing the effect of oil from urinary 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine changes from baseline to post-treatment showed a reduction of DNA oxidation by 13% (P=0.008). These findings support the idea that ingestion of olive oil is beneficial and can reduce the rate of oxidation of DNA. This effect is not due to the phenolic content in the olive oil. The higher DNA and RNA oxidation in Northern European regions compared with that in Central and Southern regions supports the contention that olive oil consumption may explain some of the North-South differences in cancer incidences in Europe.

Maybe I am missing something here but it seems to me that the different physiological response to olive oil observed in Northern and Southern Europeans indicates relevant genetic differences between the two populations and it may be the genetic differences that account for the different disease patterns in Northern and Southern Europe



TRACING THE SOURCES OF TEENAGE MOODINESS

They may be as much neurological as psychological

Scientists at the Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre studying the development of the teenage brain have learned that the frontal lobe gradually matures during adolescence until the age of 25, when it reaches maturity. Over those years, the frontal lobe is "pruned" of excess nerve cells to create more efficient information processing that is useful to adulthood. This "pruning" results in a temporary loss of grey matter. The findings help provide a scientific explanation for the difficult teenage years, when the combination of hormones and brain "pruning" causes adolescents to make reckless decisions and suffer emotional problems. And when parents scream at their teenagers to "start acting like an adult" they are asking for the impossible.

Steve Rankin, 16, of St Andrews in outer Sydney, "stupidly" dropped out of school three months ago. He is yet to find a job and has been fined for drinking on a train. His relationship with his parents is strained. The result of the study "totally makes sense to me", Steve said. "When I was younger I was the golden child and then when I was 15 I felt like a neglected child. Then, not long ago, I just started hating my parents and started getting kind of emo-ish," he says, using teen slang for emotional. "I was like a little kid and then I turned 15 and my parents expected me to be like Albert Einstein or something."

In the past five years, the teenage brain has become the focus of intense scientific study throughout the world. The current issue of the American Journal of Physiology carries a report by University of California psychiatrists who also found that the "pruning" removed useless "white noise" from the brain.

The University of Melbourne's Christos Pantelis began making neuropsychological assessments of teenagers in 2002. His team is brain-scanning 200 10-year-olds to get a closer look at how the brain works. Funding permitting, he will brain-scan the children routinely until they reach full maturity at 25. "The frontal lobes are responsible for the higher-level mental abilities," Professor Pantelis said. "These abilities include problem solving, planning, thinking flexibly. Working memory and the frontal lobes are also important in terms of behavioural and mental control - that is, the ability to stop yourself doing anything inappropriate." Professor Pantelis said the new information might provide useful insights for parents, teachers and legislators. "It is very helpful when you think of some of the problems adolescents are having, either in terms of their behaviour, control of their emotions and their interaction skills. "If we understand that their brains are still maturing in particular ways then it might lead us to teach them in different ways too. "There has also been interest in our studies from the legal world, because you have to ask whether it is OK to put an adolescent or young adult into the same prison as a hardened criminal," he 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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



21 December, 2006

Cervical vaccine may help boys!

The benefits of Australian of the Year Ian Frazer's cervical cancer vaccine may extend far further than previously thought, research has found. A study of cancer incidence in kidney transplant patients suggests the vaccine, marketed in Australia as Gardasil, should be considered for boys as well as girls, Sydney researcher Claire Vajdic said. Dr Vajdic, of the University of NSW, and colleagues found kidney transplant recipients were three times more likely to develop cancer than the general population.

She said many of the cancers were known to be caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV), the target of Professor Frazer's vaccine. "Of the 18 specific cancers with greater than threefold increase in risk, five were at sites that are known to be caused by human papilloma virus (tongue, mouth, vulva, vagina, penis)," the researchers wrote in the latest edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "An additional four were at sites for which the evidence for human papilloma virus is limited or inconclusive (eye, salivary gland, oesophagus, nasal cavity)."

The researchers studied almost 29,000 Australians who had a kidney transplant between 1982 and 2003. Dr Vajdic said 1236 cancers were picked up during an average 8½ years of follow-up after transplantation. The risk of lip cancer was 47 times higher than in the general population. "For lip cancer, exposure to UV radiation and tobacco products are thought to be important causal factors but the role of human papilloma virus is under study," the researchers wrote.

Dr Vajdic said scientists believed the increase in cancer risk among transplant patients was associated with having to take drugs to suppress the immune system, thereby avoiding organ rejection. Although she believes the research suggests a much broader role for Professor Frazer's vaccine, the benefits may not be felt for decades even if universal immunisation were achieved. Professor Frazer said the prerequisite for immunising boys with the vaccine was the need for proof that the vaccine was effective in males. [Got that right!]

Source



Trans fat worries irrelevant to Australia anyhow

Some small amounts of trans fat occur naturally in red meat and dairy products, but it's the artificially concocted version that has health officials worrying most. Formed by bubbling hydrogen through polyunsaturated vegetable oil, trans fat is a more solid, stable fat than a regular oil. It has a longer shelf life, can be reused and reheated without spoiling, is ideal for deep frying and gives food a crunchy, crispy texture. Those are also the same characteristics that make trans fat particularly dangerous. The stiffer a fat is, the more likely it is to stick inside your artery walls and stay there. A review of trans fat published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April found that a 2 per cent increase in trans fat increased the risk of coronary heart disease by 23 per cent (2006;354:1601-1613).

New York's ban was the latest action in response to a wave of concern over the negative health effects over the fat. Earlier this year the US Food and Drug Administration began enforcing a requirement that food manufacturers include information about trans fat on labels there - a step other countries such as the UK are also considering.

Australia is also looking into ways to lower the amount of trans fat people are consuming - a joint effort by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, the Dietitians Association of Australia, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. These groups will meet early next year to discuss issues and make recommendations to the government.

Whether trans fat should be labelled is among the issues that will be discussed. Currently manufacturers only have to list trans fatty acids if they're making a health claim about the product, such as "no cholesterol'' or "low in saturated fat''. Also on the agenda of next year's meeting will be possible healthy replacements for the partially hydrogenated vegetable oils that are the main source of trans fats.

In the meantime, an increasing number of companies and food manufacturers are reformulating their products to remove trans fat in the face of mounting public concern. In November McDonald's announced it would reduce the trans fat found in the food in all 740 of its Australian franchises, by about 85 per cent, by switching to a healthier canola sunflower blend that has less than 1 per cent trans fat and is high in monounsaturated fat (a good fat).

Brands such as Nestle, Woolworth's Home Brand, Arnott's and others have made similar decisions to reformulate their products to reduce trans fat, or get rid of it completely where they can. But some people are pushing for a ban like that in New York. Last week the Greens announced they would be drafting a bill with a similar objective to put before the Senate, but it's a plan that has received little support from the groups on the collaborative, or from the Government itself.

For one thing, there's just not the same scale of problem here, says Lydia Buchtmann of Food Standards Australia New Zealand. "There's not a huge percentage of trans fat in the Australian diet. We've been carrying out a formal review with dietary modelling, and the preliminary findings have been that 0.6 per cent of our total kilojoules come from trans fat, which is well below the World Health Organisation's maximum limit of 1 per cent,'' she says. By contrast, Americans are consuming 2 to 3 per cent of their daily kilojoules from trans fat. One likely reason is that Australian manufacturers tend to use canola blends, which are more readily available here than the partially hydrogenated soy bean oil so prevalent in America, says Dave Roberts, technical director of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

Experts say that focusing too much on trans fat could blow things out of proportion and misdirect our attention from saturated fat, which is actually the bigger culprit of heart disease in Australia because we consume so much more of it. "It's an issue if you're a fast food consumer and you're eating at one of the fast food establishments that still uses oil with trans fat in it - but there's not much of it is any more,'' says Peter Clifton, director of CSIRO's Nutrition Clinic which conducts nutritional research and trials on cholesterol, oils, fats and other topics. "Saturated fat is more of an issue. The average consumer would have 20g to 30g of saturated fat a day, compared with two to three grams of trans fat.''

It's a point echoed by the Heart Foundation, among others. "Trans fat is as harmful, if not more so, than other types of fat. However, Australians consume considerably more saturated fat,'' says the foundation's national nutrition program manager Barbara Eden. More than 13 per cent of our daily kilojoules are currently coming from saturated fat while the Heart Foundation recommends that no more than 8 per cent of our total kilojoules come from unhealthy fat - saturated and trans fat combined. "If the focus is on lowering trans fat, what could happen is companies will just swap to an oil that has no or very little trans fat - but could still be very high in saturated fat,'' Eden says.

Take KFC for example. The chain has been vocal about its use of a trans fat-free oil, but that turns out to be palm oil - which contains more than 50 per cent saturated fat. Foodwatch.com.au nutritionist Catherine Saxelby says there's one other problem with focusing too much on removing trans fat from food: "They occur in foods that we don't want people to eat too much of anyway,'' she says. "If people just ate basic staple foods they wouldn't have a problem.''

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



20 December, 2006

A PRIME EXAMPLE OF USELESS "MEDICAL" RESEARCH

But the subtext of it is to demonize McDonalds. It took four medical researchers writing in a prestigious medical journal to establish such amazing facts as the fact that people eat more McDonalds in places that have a McDonalds restaurant! But such "authoritative" findings will be quoted in campaigns to get McDonalds out of hospitals, of course. The fact that for many people the McDonalds is the most comforting and reassuring part of a hospital does not matter, of course. The do-gooders must have a demon to attack. Journal abstract below:

Marketing Fast Food: Impact of Fast Food Restaurants in Children's Hospitals

By Hannah B. Sahud, Helen J. Binns, William L. Meadow and Robert R. Tanz.

OBJECTIVES. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine fast food restaurant prevalence in hospitals with pediatric residencies and (2) to evaluate how hospital environment affects purchase and perception of fast food.

METHODS. We first surveyed pediatric residency programs regarding fast food restaurants in their hospitals to determine the prevalence of fast food restaurants in these hospitals. We then surveyed adults with children after pediatric outpatient visits at 3 hospitals: hospital M with an on-site McDonald's restaurant, hospital R without McDonald's on site but with McDonald's branding, and hospital X with neither on-site McDonald's nor branding. We sought to determine attitudes toward, consumption of, and influences on purchase of fast food and McDonald's food.

RESULTS. Fifty-nine of 200 hospitals with pediatric residencies had fast food restaurants. A total of 386 outpatient surveys were analyzed. Fast food consumption on the survey day was most common among hospital M respondents (56%; hospital R: 29%; hospital X: 33%), as was the purchase of McDonald's food (hospital M: 53%; hospital R: 14%; hospital X: 22%). McDonald's accounted for 95% of fast food consumed by hospital M respondents, and 83% of them bought their food at the on-site McDonald's. Using logistic regression analysis, hospital M respondents were 4 times more likely than respondents at the other hospitals to have purchased McDonald's food on the survey day. Visitors to hospitals M and R were more likely than those at hospital X to believe that McDonald's supported the hospital financially. Respondents at hospital M rated McDonald's food healthier than did respondents at the other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS. Fast food restaurants are fairly common in hospitals that sponsor pediatric residency programs. A McDonald's restaurant in a children's hospital was associated with significantly increased purchase of McDonald's food by outpatients, belief that the McDonald's Corporation supported the hospital financially, and higher rating of the healthiness of McDonald's food.

Source



'Dark chocolate eases ME symptoms'

I won't criticize this one!



Eating small amounts of dark chocolate every day can help combat a chronic illness, it emerged today. The specially-formulated chocolate helps reduce the symptoms of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), a study by researchers at England's Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust found.

People who took part in the study reported feeling significantly less fatigue after eating 1.5oz (45g) of the chocolate every day for eight weeks. They also reported feeling more fatigue when they stopped eating the chocolate and were receiving a placebo instead, researchers said.

Symptoms of ME, which is also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), include exhaustion, general pain and mental fogginess. But its causes are not fully understood and diagnosing the condition is difficult because many of the flu-like symptoms are similar to other illnesses.

Professor Steve Atkin, who conducted the study, said: "No one has examined the effects of chocolate on CFS before and so this is a very exciting and interesting result for us. "The participants in this study were taking 45g of specially formulated chocolate for eight weeks then having a two-week period of rest before then taking a simulated dark chocolate, low in polyphenols, for another eight weeks. "In the test period they reported feeling less fatigue and once they moved on to the placebo chocolate they began feeling more fatigue again. Interestingly they didn't experience any significant weight gain either, which is an extra positive."

The formulated chocolate contained 85% cocoa solids and was rich in polyphenol flavonoids, which have been reported to reduce the risk of death from coronary heart disease, cancer and strokes. Chocolate is also known to increase neurotransmitters like serotonin, which is associated with regulating mood and sleep.

There is currently no cure for ME and treatment concentrates mainly on managing symptoms, such as headaches, sore throats, sleep disorder and abnormal temperatures. Although the cause of the illness is not yet known, scientists are looking at the possibilities of viruses, environmental toxins and genetic predisposition.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



19 December, 2006

Trans fats: The evidence

It is easy to see why the medical profession is generally critical of dietary trans fats. The medical gurus are nearly as critical of trans fats as they once were of dietary cholesterol. If you give people a heap of trans fats to eat in some form and then check their blood chemistry a couple of hours later, the changes observed are indeed in the direction associated with heart disease. For many in the medical profession, that is all the evidence you need to condemn trans fats in the diet. Old hands however are aware that there is no end of medical studies based on short term observations of some factor in isolation (also usually associated with atypically high doses of something) which generate either panics or enthusiasms but which later find no support when one looks at long term or overall effects in epidemiology or in better conducted studies.

And intellectual fashions have an alarming tendency to be self-reinforcing. The only kind of study which could settle the question of long term overall ill-effects from trans fats is of course a double-blind prospective study -- where normal, average healthy people are divided into two groups and over a long period fed diets that differ only in trans fat content. You then see how many die in each group in the given period. Drug evaluation research routinely uses such studies but in the case of trans fats, such research has recently been declared "unethical" (See D. Mozaffarian, M. B. Katan, A. Ascherio, M. J. Stampfer, and W. C. Willett. "Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease" N.Engl.J.Med., 2006, 354:1601-1613) and nobody seems to be doing it. It must be comforting to rule out in advance research that could prove you wrong. It is at least dogmatic and arrogant (though parading as compassionate, of course).

It is perhaps because of the lack of proper prospective studies and the need for the prevailing religion to be reinforced that the medical literature is replete with review articles that stress the evils of trans fats. And each new review quotes a lot from previous reviews. The image it all calls to my mind is of one turtle clinging to the back of another turtle who is clinging to the back of another turtle who is clinging to the back of another turtle. One can only hope that the bottom turtles (research reports) are standing on something solid. Knowing how often medical journal articles overlook important confounding variables like social class I doubt it of course. As a humble retired psychologist who comes to this field out of an interest in the sociology of knowledge, I have neither the time nor the ease of access to look at the multitude of bottom turtles concerned but I do notice something about the reviews: It is notable that the most recent reviews are the most definite and mention fewer "non-conforming" research results.

I thought it might be interesting therefore to reproduce below the epidemiology section of an older (1999) review so that readers can see that there are many studies which do not show ill effects of such fats and which mention many doubts about those studies which do show ill effects (Quote: "Interpretation of comparisons among populations with widely different lifestyles is hazardous"). The authors still come to the conclusion that theory and short-term observations would suggest but it is of course the long-term and overall effect of trans fat ingestion that is the issue -- hence the interest of epidemiological studies. The source article for the excerpt below is: Ascherio A, Katan MB, Zock PL, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. "Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease". N Engl J Med 1999;340:1994-1998. It is from a prestigious journal and has often been cited

"Epidemiologic Studies

The strong correlation between the level of intake of saturated fatty acids and the rates of coronary heart disease among the 16 populations examined in the Seven Countries Study¹⁹ is often quoted as evidence that the consumption of saturated fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease. A subsequent biochemical analysis of food composites representing the average intake of each cohort at base line²⁰ not only confirmed that the intake of saturated fatty acids was strongly correlated with the risk of death from coronary heart disease (r=0.88, P<0.001) but also showed that the intake of trans fatty acids was correlated with the risk of death from coronary heart disease (r=0.78, P<0.001). Interpretation of comparisons among populations with widely different lifestyles is hazardous, but these data leave room for a potentially substantial effect of trans fatty acids on the risk of coronary heart disease.

Several case–control or cross-sectional studies have also been conducted. In a case–control study of subjects in the Boston area, we found a strong and significant positive association between the intake of trans fatty acids, assessed with the use of dietary questionnaires, and the risk of acute myocardial infarction.²¹ The relative risk of acute myocardial infarction for the quintile with the highest intake of trans fatty acids as compared with the quintile with the lowest intake was 2.4 (P for trend <0.001); this association was entirely explained by the intake of these fats from hydrogenated vegetable oil. Bolton-Smith et al. performed a cross-sectional analysis of the association between the intake of trans fatty acids and the presence of previously undiagnosed coronary heart disease among participants in the Scottish Heart Study.²² The intake of trans fatty acids was positively correlated with the ratio of LDL plus very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to HDL cholesterol. The odds ratios for coronary heart disease in the quintile with the highest intake as compared with the quintile with the lowest intake were elevated but not significantly so (1.26 in women and 1.08 in men).

Studies in which the composition of fatty acids in tissue or plasma was used as a marker of trans-fatty-acid intake have yielded conflicting results. With one exception, however, these studies have been too small to detect an association reliably. The results of the only large study,²³ which included 671 men with acute myocardial infarction from eight European countries, were inconclusive. The overall analyses revealed no association between the intake of trans fatty acids and the risk of myocardial infarction. However, in contrast to the centers studied in other countries, the two centers studied in Spain, where the rates of coronary heart disease are very low, reported extremely low levels of trans-fatty-acid intake and little variation between subjects and thus provided little information. After the exclusion of these data, the odds ratios for the third and fourth quartiles of intake, as compared with the lowest, were 1.53 and 1.44, respectively. The interpretation of the results of this study has caused controversy,²⁴ but in any case they do not provide strong evidence against the hypothesis that the consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease.

The strongest epidemiologic evidence relating dietary factors to the risk of coronary heart disease has been provided by three large prospective studies: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study,²⁵ the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study,²⁶ and the Nurses' Health Study.²⁷ Those studies assessed the intake of trans fatty acids using detailed food-frequency questionnaires whose results were validated by comparison with the composition of adipose tissue or food diaries. Each of these studies reported an adverse effect of trans fatty acids. The relative risk of coronary heart disease associated with an absolute increase of 2 percent in the intake of trans fatty acids was 1.36 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.81) in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, 1.14 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.35) in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study, and 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61) in the Nurses' Health Study. The higher relative risk in the Nurses' Health Study may have resulted from the fact that there were four dietary measurements during the follow-up period, thereby reducing the degree of error in assessing trans-fatty-acid consumption. In these three cohorts, the relative risks were higher than those for saturated-fat consumption. For example, in the Nurses' Health Study, replacing 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat with unsaturated fat was associated with a 42 percent decrease in the risk of coronary heart disease, whereas replacing 2 percent of energy intake from trans fatty acids with cis fatty acids was associated with a 53 percent decrease in the risk.

These studies have been criticized on the grounds that measurements of the intake of trans fatty acids were unreliable⁴; however, random errors in measuring the intake would only have led to an underestimation of the association with the risk of coronary heart disease. It has also been suggested that the observed associations resulted from a shift from the use of butter to the use of margarine among high-risk subjects. If so, the association between the intake of trans fatty acids and the risk of coronary heart disease should have been weaker among subjects with stable margarine consumption and stronger during the first few years of follow-up. However, in the Nurses' Health Study,²⁸ the exclusion of women who changed their diet before the beginning of the study strengthened the association. Moreover, consumption of foods high in trans fatty acids such as cookies, which are hardly perceived as healthy, was also positively associated with the risk of coronary heart disease.

Confounding as a result of unmeasured or poorly measured risk factors is a potential problem in any observational study, but these associations were adjusted for many risk factors related to diet and lifestyle, and no credible confounding factor has been identified. Adjustment for the intake of dietary fiber attenuated the relation of trans-fatty-acid intake to the risk of coronary heart disease in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study,²⁵ but not in the other two studies²⁶ (and Hu FB: personal communication). Thus, prospective studies provide consistent evidence that the consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease. The observed relative risks of coronary heart disease were larger than one might predict from the effects of trans fatty acids on LDL and HDL cholesterol levels alone. The increases in triglyceride and Lp(a) lipoprotein levels account for only a small increase in risk; therefore, other mechanisms may be involved."

Note also that the most recent review article reports only two studies of sudden death from heart disease (which is what most people would be worried about) in which trans fats were examined. In one there was no effect and in the other a weak effect was found only by examining extreme groups. See the excerpt below from D. Mozaffarian, M. B. Katan, A. Ascherio, M. J. Stampfer, and W. C. Willett. "Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease" N.Engl.J.Med., 2006, 354:1601-1613:

"Sudden Death from Cardiac Causes

Some data suggest that trans fatty acids may increase the risk of sudden death from cardiac causes. In a study that compared adipose tissue obtained at autopsy from 66 patients with sudden death from cardiac causes with that obtained from 286 healthy age- and sex-matched controls, levels of trans fat were not found to be associated with sudden death from cardiac causes. In contrast, in a larger, community-based case-control study (179 cases), levels of trans fatty acids in erythrocyte membranes were associated with an increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death (odds ratio for interquintile range, 1.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 2.13), after adjustment for other risk factors."

Note also the general comments at the foot of today's posts



Gene therapy for impotence

Doctors have developed a gene therapy treatment that could cure millions of men who suffer from impotence. This comes after researchers were able to identify a gene that is responsible for the condition that affects as many as 60 per cent of men over the age of 55 and around three million men in total in the UK. Tests of the therapy have already started in humans, and the first small trial using the gene has proved that it is safe and works. Men suffering from impotence would need just two injections a year to be able to enjoy a normal sex life.

Although drugs like Viagra have revolutionised the treatment of men with erectile dysfunction, many still claim there is a lack of spontaneity, as love-making has to be planned in advance by taking a pill.

Doctors who discovered the gene say that - for the first time - it will give men with impotence problems total control over their love lives. Around 30 per cent of impotence cases have psychological reasons, but the remaining 70 per cent are physical. Heart disease and diabetes are two of the biggest causes in the middle-aged and elderly.

The gene breakthrough has been made by a team at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who say the treatment could become available in less than five years. Lead researcher Professor Arnold Melman says: "Our initial research proves that this is a safe method of treatment for male impotence that works very effectively. "The initial trial was in 11 impotent men - two of whom were able to have intercourse for six months after having their gene therapy jab. "It would have worked for all 11 patients, but initially we had to give a combination of low doses and high doses because this was a phase one safety trial, principally looking at the safety of the therapy. "The two men for whom it worked had the highest doses of the drug. "One of the attractions of the drug is that men have just two injections a year and do not have to worry about taking pills - they can just forget they have a problem. The existing impotence drugs can have side effects, such as making men feel dizzy, but so far we have found none with gene therapy." Professor Melman - a urologist - and fellow researcher Dr George Christ will now give high doses of the jab, called Maxi K, to almost 200 men in a trial starting in the New Year.

The gene used in the treatment has been artificially created in the laboratory and is an exact copy of a gene found in human "smooth muscle" tissue, the type of muscle found in the penis. Dr Melman points out that the gene is entirely safe and has been developed without having to use a human virus - such as the common cold virus -to "carry it" to the part of the body where it is needed. "One of the concerns with gene therapy has been the use of viruses and how they can affect the immune system," he says. "We have got round that by developing a gene that does the job without needing assistance."

The gene works in a similar way to impotence drugs like Viagra - except it lasts longer because it stays in the body for months, rather than just a few hours. The gene jab enables extra potassium to be produced, which acts to relax the smooth muscle in the penis, allowing an increased flow of blood into the blood vessels. For it to work properly, it has to be injected into the penis, but Dr Melman says modern techniques mean this is relatively painless. He says: "For many men, the mind might be willing -they desire their partner - but the chemical and mechanical reaction to make things happen is not strong enough. What this gene does is to boost the existing cells so love-making becomes possible."

Dr Richard Petty, medical director of the London Wellman Clinic, approves of the gene breakthrough. "This is fantastic news, because impotence pills like Viagra work for only about 60 per cent of men, and there are many who can't take these pills because of conditions such as heart disease. "Men don't like being reminded they have a problem, but that's what happens every time they pop a pill. The fact they can have a jab that restores their sexuality for six months will be a big boost for men."

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it 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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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



18 December, 2006

Now for the GOOD trans fats!

Well, as with so much in science, there are caveats. And there's a big one with the trans fats. Although the vast majority of these fats are unhealthy, there is a minority that are fine to eat and may even prove beneficial.

Known as conjugated linoleic acids (CLAs), some of these trans fats occur naturally in dairy products and meat, especially milk and butter. Others form as a result of chemical processing or cooking. A growing number of studies have demonstrated that, at least in animals, these unusual fats fight a host of chronic health conditions from heart disease to diabetes to cancer. Most recently, several CLAs have shown promise in moderating the runaway inflammation that underlies arthritis, asthma, and even lupus.

A new line of research now aims at naturally increasing the concentrations of these unusual trans fats in foods such as milk and cheeses. Michael W. Pariza of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who discovered the beneficial alter ego of CLA trans fats more than 2 decades ago, suspects that one day they may even be added to foods to fortify their healthiness. At present, however, most people take in minimal amounts of CLAs.

Nevertheless, data on the potential benefits of these unusual trans fats have been so compelling that the Food and Drug Administration exempted them from the new trans-fat labeling law that went into effect this year. That law had been intended to steer people away from bad fats...

There is one more important caveat about CLAs: As fats, they're high in calories. That means that, as with all energy-dense foods, consumption of their food sources should be kept within moderation.

Source

This reminds me of the old cholesterol scare. Once all cholesterol in your diet was bad and then it was decided that there is good and bad cholesterol. Then later again it was decided that dietary cholesterol was largely irrelevant to the amount of cholesterol in your blood (the body makes its own cholesterol). As one large study concluded "There was no association between intakes of saturated or c/s-monounsaturated fatty acids, linoleic or linolenic acid, or dietary cholesterol and the risk of coronary deaths". So cholesterol in your food was not really much of a problem after all. Most dietary cholesterol in Western countries comes from eggs so do big egg-eaters die younger? There is no clear evidence that they do. Amusing how the trans fats scare is following the same trajectory. It will take a few years, though



How green is your organic lettuce?

Even an apparently obvious claim-that organic food is better for the environment than the conventionally farmed kind-turns out to be controversial. There are many different definitions of the term "organic", but it generally involves severe restrictions on the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers and a ban on genetically modified organisms. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, Britain's leading organic lobby group, says that environmental concerns, rather than health benefits, are now cited by British consumers as their main justification for buying organic food. (There is no clear evidence that conventional food is harmful or that organic food is nutritionally superior.)

But not everyone agrees that organic farming is better for the environment. Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution", winner of the Nobel peace prize and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is "ridiculous" because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

What of the claim that organic farming is more energy-efficient? Lord Melchett points out for example that the artificial fertiliser used in conventional farming is made using natural gas, which is "completely unsustainable". But Anthony Trewavas, a biochemist at the University of Edinburgh, counters that organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing. And Mr Pollan notes that only one-fifth of the energy associated with food production across the whole food chain is consumed on the farm: the rest goes on transport and processing.

The most environmentally benign form of agriculture appears to be "no till" farming, which involves little or no ploughing and relies on cover crops and carefully applied herbicides to control weeds. This makes it hard to combine with organic methods (though some researchers are trying). Too rigid an insistence on organic farming's somewhat arbitrary rules, then-copper, a heavy metal, can be used as an organic fungicide because it is traditional-can actually hinder the adoption of greener agricultural techniques. Alas, shoppers look in vain for "no till" labels on their food-at least so far.

What about Fairtrade? Its aim is to address "the injustice of low prices" by guaranteeing that producers receive a fair price "however unfair the conventional market is", according to FLO International's website. In essence, it means paying producers an above-market "Fairtrade" price for their produce, provided they meet particular labour and production standards. In the case of coffee, for example, Fairtrade farmers receive a minimum of $1.26 per pound for their coffee, or $0.05 above the market price if it exceeds that floor. This premium is passed back to the producers to spend on development programmes. The market for Fairtrade products is much smaller than that for organic products, but is growing much faster: it increased by 37% to reach _1.1 billion ($1.4 billion) in 2005. Who could object to that?

Economists, for a start. The standard economic argument against Fairtrade goes like this: the low price of commodities such as coffee is due to overproduction, and ought to be a signal to producers to switch to growing other crops. Paying a guaranteed Fairtrade premium-in effect, a subsidy-both prevents this signal from getting through and, by raising the average price paid for coffee, encourages more producers to enter the market. This then drives down the price of non-Fairtrade coffee even further, making non-Fairtrade farmers poorer. Fairtrade does not address the basic problem, argues Tim Harford, author of "The Undercover Economist" (2005), which is that too much coffee is being produced in the first place. Instead, it could even encourage more production.

Mr Bretman of FLO International disagrees. In practice, he says, farmers cannot afford to diversify out of coffee when the price falls. Fairtrade producers can use the premiums they receive to make the necessary investments to diversify into other crops. But surely the price guarantee actually reduces the incentive to diversify?

Another objection to Fairtrade is that certification is predicated on political assumptions about the best way to organise labour. In particular, for some commodities (including coffee) certification is available only to co-operatives of small producers, who are deemed to be most likely to give workers a fair deal when deciding how to spend the Fairtrade premium. Coffee plantations or large family firms cannot be certified. Mr Bretman says the rules vary from commodity to commodity, but are intended to ensure that the Fairtrade system helps those most in need. Yet limiting certification to co-ops means "missing out on helping the vast majority of farm workers, who work on plantations," says Mr Wille of the Rainforest Alliance, which certifies producers of all kinds.

Guaranteeing a minimum price also means there is no incentive to improve quality, grumble coffee-drinkers, who find that the quality of Fairtrade brews varies widely. Again, the Rainforest Alliance does things differently. It does not guarantee a minimum price or offer a premium but provides training, advice and better access to credit. That consumers are often willing to pay more for a product with the RA logo on it is an added bonus, not the result of a formal subsidy scheme; such products must still fend for themselves in the marketplace. "We want farmers to have control of their own destinies, to learn to market their products in these competitive globalised markets, so they are not dependent on some NGO," says Mr Wille.

But perhaps the most cogent objection to Fairtrade is that it is an inefficient way to get money to poor producers. Retailers add their own enormous mark-ups to Fairtrade products and mislead consumers into thinking that all of the premium they are paying is passed on. Mr Harford calculates that only 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee in a coffee bar trickles down to the producer. Fairtrade coffee, like the organic produce sold in supermarkets, is used by retailers as a means of identifying price-insensitive consumers who will pay more, he says.

As with organic food, the Fairtrade movement is under attack both from outsiders who think it is misguided and from insiders who think it has sold its soul. In particular, the launch by Nestle, a food giant, of Partners' Blend, a Fairtrade coffee, has convinced activists that the Fairtrade movement is caving in to big business. Nestle sells over 8,000 non-Fairtrade products and is accused of exploiting the Fairtrade brand to gain favourable publicity while continuing to do business as usual. Mr Bretman disagrees. "We felt it would not be responsible to turn down an opportunity to do something that would practically help hundreds or thousands of farmers," he says. "You are winning the battle if you get corporate acceptance that these ideas are important." He concedes that the Fairtrade movement's supporters are "a very broad church" which includes anti-globalisation and anti-corporate types. But they can simply avoid Nestle's Fairtrade coffee and buy from smaller Fairtrade producers instead, he suggests.

Besides, this is how change usually comes about, notes Mr Pollan. The mainstream co-opts the fringe and shifts its position in the process; "but then you need people to stake out the fringe again." That is what has happened with organic food in America, and is starting to happen with Fairtrade food too. "People are looking for the next frontier," says Mr Pollan, and it already seems clear what that is: local food.

"Local is the new organic" has become the unofficial slogan of the local-food movement in the past couple of years. The rise of "Big Organic", the large-scale production of organic food to meet growing demand, has produced a backlash and claims that the organic movement has sold its soul. Purists worry that the organic movement's original ideals have been forgotten as large companies that produce and sell organic food on an industrial scale have muscled in.

This partly explains why food bought from local producers either directly or at farmers' markets is growing in popularity, and why local-food advocates are now the keepers of the flame of the food-activism movement. Local food need not be organic, but buying direct from small farmers short-circuits industrial production and distribution systems in the same way that buying organic used to. As a result, local food appears to be immune to being industrialised or corporatised. Organic food used to offer people a way to make a "corporate protest", says Mr Pollan, and now "local offers an alternative to that."

Buying direct means producers get a fair price, with no middlemen adding big margins along the distribution chain. Nor has local food been shipped in from the other side of the country or the other side of the world, so the smaller number of "food miles" makes local food greener, too. Local food thus appeals in different ways to environmentalists, national farm lobbies and anti-corporate activists, as well as consumers who want to know more about where their food comes from.

Obviously it makes sense to choose a product that has been grown locally over an identical product shipped in from afar. But such direct comparisons are rare. And it turns out that the apparently straightforward approach of minimising the "food miles" associated with your weekly groceries does not, in fact, always result in the smallest possible environmental impact.

The term "food mile" is itself misleading, as a report published by DEFRA, Britain's environment and farming ministry, pointed out last year. A mile travelled by a large truck full of groceries is not the same as a mile travelled by a sport-utility vehicle carrying a bag of salad. Instead, says Paul Watkiss, one of the authors of the DEFRA report, it is more helpful to think about food-vehicle miles (ie, the number of miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) and food-tonne miles (which take the tonnage being carried into account).

The DEFRA report, which analysed the supply of food in Britain, contained several counterintuitive findings. It turns out to be better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain. And it transpires that half the food-vehicle miles associated with British food are travelled by cars driving to and from the shops. Each trip is short, but there are millions of them every day. Another surprising finding was that a shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system, with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles.

Research carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand found that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in that country and shipping them to Britain used less energy overall than producing them in Britain. (Farming and processing in New Zealand is much less energy intensive.) And even if flying food in from the developing world produces more emissions, that needs to be weighed against the boost to trade and development.

There is a strand of protectionism and anti-globalisation in much local-food advocacy, says Gareth Edwards-Jones of the University of Wales. Local food lets farming lobbies campaign against imports under the guise of environmentalism. A common argument is that local food is fresher, but that is not always true: green beans, for example, are picked and flown to Britain from Kenya overnight, he says. People clearly want to think that they are making environmentally or socially optimal food choices, he says, but "we don't have enough evidence" to do so.

What should a shopper do? All food choices involve trade-offs. Even if organic farming does consume a little less energy and produce a little less pollution, that must be offset against lower yields and greater land use. Fairtrade food may help some poor farmers, but may also harm others; and even if local food reduces transport emissions, it also reduces potential for economic development. Buying all three types of food can be seen as an anti-corporate protest, yet big companies already sell organic and Fairtrade food, and local sourcing coupled with supermarkets' efficient logistics may yet prove to be the greenest way to move food around.

Food is central to the debates on the environment, development, trade and globalisation-but the potential for food choices to change the world should not be overestimated. The idea of saving the world by shopping is appealing; but tackling climate change, boosting development and reforming the global trade system will require difficult political choices. "We have to vote with our votes as well as our food dollars," says Mr Pollan. Conventional political activity may not be as enjoyable as shopping, but it is far more likely to make a difference.

Source



Cure closer for diabetes

A Canadian-led research team has uncovered the trigger for Type 1 diabetes, a "breakthrough" that allowed them to cure the disease in mice. Researchers at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, University of Calgary and the Jackson Laboratory in Maine published the findings in the December 15 issue of the journal Cell.

Type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune disorder that affects millions of people worldwide -- about 10 per cent of diabetes cases. It arises when certain cells responsible for insulin production become inflamed and are ultimately destroyed, making it impossible for the body to produce insulin.

Most studies on Type 1 diabetes had focused on the immune system, but the Canadian-led team found a link between the disease and the nervous system. The group discovered that abnormal nerve endings in insulin-producing pancreas islet cells sparked a chain of events that caused Type 1 diabetes in mice. When they removed the sensory neurons, it prevented inflammation of the cells and the mice did not develop the disorder. "We have created a better understanding of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, with new therapeutic targets and approaches derived for both diseases," study collaborator Pere Santamaria, of the University of Calgary, said.

The researchers said treatment was now being tested for Type 2, or obesity-related diabetes, in which insulin resistance was even more severe, with "strong evidence" so far it would work.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For a 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.

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



17 December, 2006

Britain: The "One size fits all" battle of the lunchbox

Parents are quite capable of feeding their children - despite what the government's School Food Trust would have us believe.

It’s bad enough having Jamie Oliver telling us how to feed our children without another celebrity chef joining in. But in January, Prue Leith, cookery writer and restaurateur, takes up her position as chair of the School Food Trust. ‘This is the most important job I have ever had,’ she said on her appointment. ‘I believe we can really change attitudes through the trust’s mission to help schools teach every pupil about food and nutrition and to give them cooking lessons.

The School Food Trust is yet another government-knows-best initiative set up to propagate myths about diet and intervene into areas where government should fear to tread. It’s website states as fact the horrors of the epidemic of obese children. In fact, the level of obesity is generally overstated (see Fattened statistics, by Peter Marsh) and the solutions are generally worse than the ‘problem’ (see Stop bullying fat kids, by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick).

The one thing we do know is that people are living longer and healthier than ever before. The mortality rate for five year olds fell by 98 per cent from 1901 to 2001. In 1901, the UK average life expectancy was 46 years for men, and 50 years for women. In 2001 this had risen to 76 years for men and 81 years for women. Hardly doomsday scenarios.

As a parent who is the intended recipient of such initiatives, what makes my blood boil is they reveal exactly what the government thinks of me. Here is what actually happens. Parents want their children to be happy and healthy. They want their children to eat food that will make them strong and grow. Parents are also pragmatic with their children. They would rather their children ate something rather than nothing (an admirable idea, I hope you’ll agree) and so work out what that means. This might mean a whole host of different things, from mini pizzas to sweet potatoes, because children all have their individual tastes and quirks.

The School Food Trust site however assumes that parents are complete idiots and then goes from there. For example, one of the factsheets for parents is on the sticky subject of the humble packed lunch. The factsheet tells us ignorant parents that ‘packing a lunch can be done in five minutes before school. Or, if you’re usually pushed for time, pack it the night before and put it in the fridge.’ Thanks for that because we’d obviously never be able to manage without such words of advice. With that sort of view of how impotent we are, it is amazing that the children in question have lived long enough to go to school to have a packed lunch. How did we know not to immerse our children in boiling hot water when bathing them as infants? However did we manage to heat up their baby food?

After assuming we have so little intelligence, the site then continues in a patronising vein to advise us not to put the same thing in our children’s lunchbox every day. ‘Try to have a different type of fruit every day - don’t always pick an orange and an apple, why not try kiwi, mango, grapes, pear, chunks of melon or small packets of dried fruit.’

So, we’re apparently so useless we can’t even work out when and how to make our kids’ lunches but somehow we have the time to wander around sourcing a variety of fruits. Nor does it stop at fruit. There are all sorts of interesting breads we should search for, too. Examples given to put in our children’s lunchboxes are pittas, bagels, baguettes, ciabatta, rice crackers, rolls, wraps - anything but the humble white loaf which somehow has assumed the moral status of heroin.

To be fair, the School Food Trust is not alone in deciding they know better than parents. That other great government-funded institution, the BBC, has decided that mother does not know best. The BBC’s ‘Big Challenge’ is to transform the state of the lunchbox as we know it. As with the School Food Trust, bog standard white sliced bread is the loaf that dare not speak its name. Any old pitta, bagel or wrap will do in place of Sunblest or Mothers Pride. Once again, parents are meant to be sourcing a whole range of products from pasta-based salads to small packs of nuts and seeds.

At one point, it occurs to the author of this advice, nutritionist Lyndel Costain, that children may not rejoice when being offered a bit of pasta and a few nuts to sustain them through the school day. But never fear! There is more sound advice to dole out to us stupid parents. ‘Involve them in lunchbox planning’ or ‘give them a star’ if they try a ‘new, healthier lunchbox food’. After five stars ‘give them a small reward, such as… [wait for it] ... a family walk’!

Please! My 4 year old and 7 year old are involved in lunchbox planning in that they are very sure of what they like and don’t like and a packet of seeds, however much planned, will not be eaten. And a family walk, for my kids at least, is not an incentive to look with delight on a vegetable stick with a dip but an onerous activity they are dragged on under great duress.

If it sounds like I have a personal axe to grind, I do. In my children’s primary school they have embraced the healthy eating agenda with a vengeance. This includes inspecting the children’s lunchboxes and giving awards to the child who brings the ‘healthiest’ lunch to school, while telling those who have biscuits in their box to bring an apple instead.

Perhaps I should think myself lucky compared to the parents of little Ryan Stupples, who was excluded from the school dining hall and made to eat in the headmaster’s office for having - shock, horror - two snack items in his lunchbox. The headmaster told the Daily Telegraph: ‘We take healthy eating very seriously and everyone is aware of our new policies.’ The thought of a 10 year old boy being told by their school that they’ve done something naughty because of what mum and dad put in their lunchbox sends shivers down the spine.

If the lunchbox inspections are bad, the battle for young hearts, minds and stomachs is even worse. When I went to see an assembly that my daughter’s class staged for parents, the tour de force was six year old girls reading their poems about healthy eating. I found myself feeling queasy as they told us about how you must not eat fatty things, because it is important to be thin! The following week there was yet another healthy eating day which involved trying ‘healthy’ foods. Discussing this with friends in the parents forum that I run, it was clear that everyone had their own little horror story to tell of their child’s school cracking down on contraband lunchbox items or brainwashing them about the dangers of their food.

Call me old fashioned but shouldn’t school be trying to develop knowledge and imagination, whether through fantastic literary tales or inspiring science? Why instead are we infecting such young children with an obsession with their bodies?

Parents will remain pragmatic and keep focused on doing what is best for their children, giving them what they will eat, and sometimes getting them to stretch the boundaries of what that means. But at the same time, parents shouldn’t be complacent about the patronising messages coming from something like the School Food Trust. These messages show that the government holds us in high contempt and doesn’t like it when we don’t bow before their codes and guidelines, that we can work out for ourselves what is best for our children. It has imbued food stuffs with moral characteristics - sliced white bread bad, ciabatta good - and it wants to ensure that morality is enforced.

Parents: you can expect plenty of arguments with schools over how to feed your children in the coming months. Stand by what is right for your child. Hold onto your children’s lunchboxes and let the battle commence!

Source



IT IS GOVERNMENT THAT IS FAT

So people dining out in New York City will be protected from unwittingly -- or even wittingly -- consuming foods containing trans fats. Trans fats are what you get with partially hydrogenated oils and shortenings, which keep foods like French fries from getting soggy and margarine solid at room temperature.

Trans fats will be banned in the city's restaurants and undoubtedly before long in Chicago and other places because health authorities say they raise cholesterol and cause heart disease.

Ironically, trans fats became popular in food preparation as people were being scared away from the saturated fats in butter and lard. I'm beginning to think the diet authorities, who unfortunately are close to government power, aren't as sure about things as they claim. (This is worth reading.) They told us (on the basis of evidence that has been questioned in many quarters) that saturated fats are bad for our health. So we turned to polyunsaturated and trans fats, only to be told later that they aren't so great either. This sounds familiar. Oh yes. Heroin was developed to help people break their morphine habits. Then methadone had to be invented to break the heroin habit. Now I read that kids are using methadone for kicks. We'd probably prefer they consumed trans fat.

I don't know what, if anything, trans fats will do to you. I am not a physician or a nutritionist. Maybe they are as bad as the most vocal health "experts" say. But I want to point out two things before moving on to the political implications. First, there is some reason for skepticism about the indictment of saturated fat. (This article is illuminating about the political roots of government diet recommendations.) And second, former Cato analyst Radley Balko points out that as consumption of trans fats has increased over the last two decades, heart disease has decreased and life-expectancy has lengthened. What are we to make of that?

Why a Ban?

Whatever the truth is, this is shouldn't be a political issue. People are perfectly capable of keeping up with the latest dizzying news on what's good for you and what's not without the government banning things. Earlier generations of Americans would have been appalled by New York City's action. But now many people think nothing of demanding prohibition of anything they dislike. And most of the others accept it.

It's as though the process of prohibition meant nothing. But it means a great deal. Let's assume we won't miss trans fats and that healthy substitutes will be easily found and cheap to use. So what? Prohibition is objectionable in itself. If government has the power to ban trans fats in the name of health (an example of what Thomas Szasz calls the Therapeutic State), it will necessarily have the power to prohibit -- or, yes, require -- other things in the name of health. Power won't be contained, and sooner or later it will wash over something the trans-fat opponents don't like.

Why is government looking after our health? To keep the price of medical care down, perhaps. But that's only a concern of government because it pays for a lot medical care (using our money of course). And many people want it (that is, the taxpayers) to pay for it all. When government first intervened in medical matters, we were assured it would not interfere with our lives. Many people believed that story. Now we know better. With the government's medical budgets running wild and its programs facing bankruptcy, control of our decisions has become a matter of fiscal conservatism. The scary thing is that people seem willing to give up freedom to preserve and extend the subsidies. The choice is between government responsibility for medical services or freedom to make decisions. In the long run we can't have both.

We have to drop the idea that if government doesn't protect us from things like trans fats, we are defenseless. Have you read a food label lately? Virtually every product boasts it has no trans fats. Private activities are educating the public (assuming the science is right), and profit-seeking food companies are responding. A margarine company, Smart Balance, has been touting its trans-fat-free product for years. Restaurants would do the same. In the meantime, concerned customers can ask questions or avoid situations of uncertainty.

Yes, that means some inconvenience. But it'll be a lot less inconvenient than the impositions of the Therapeutic State.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



16 December, 2006

Vegetarians are more intelligent, says study

Another rubbishy finding that ignores social class

Frequently dismissed as cranks, their fussy eating habits tend to make them unpopular with dinner party hosts and guests alike. But now it seems they may have the last laugh, with research showing vegetarians are more intelligent than their meat-eating friends. A study of thousands of men and women revealed that those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher than those who regularly eat meat. Writing in the British Medical Journal, the researchers say it isn't clear why veggies are brainier - but admit the fruit and veg-rich vegetarian diet could somehow boost brain power.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton, tracked the fortunes of more than 8,000 volunteers for 20 years. At the age of ten, the boys and girls sat a series of tests designed to determine their IQ. When they reached the age of 30, they were asked whether they were vegetarian and their answers compared to their childhood IQ score. Around four and a half per cent of the adults were vegetarian - a figure that is broadly in line with that found in the general population.

However, further analysis of the results showed those who were brainiest as children were more likely to have become vegetarian as adults, shunning both meat and fish. The typical adult veggie had a childhood IQ of around 105 - around five points higher than those who continued to eat meat as they grew up. The vegetarians were also more likely to have gained degrees and hold down high-powered jobs. There was no difference in IQ between strict vegetarians and those who classed themselves as veggie but still ate fish or chicken. However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10.

Researcher Dr Catharine Gale said there could be several explanations for the findings, including intelligent people being more likely to consider both animal welfare issues and the possible health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Previous work has shown that vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, cutting their risk of heart attacks. They are also less likely to be obese. Alternatively, a diet which is rich in fruit, vegetables and wholegrains may somehow boost brain power. Dr Gale said: 'Although our results suggest that children who are more intelligent may be more likely to become vegetarian as adolescents or young adults, it does not rule out the possibility that such a diet might have some beneficial effect on subsequent cognitive performance. 'Might the nature of the vegetarians' diet have enhanced their apparently superior brain power? Was this the mechanism that helped them achieve the disproportionate nature of degrees?'

High-profile vegetarians include singers Paul McCartney and Morrissey and actress Jenny Seagrove. Past exponents of a meat-free lifestyle include George Bernard Shaw and Benjamin Franklin. Promoting the cause, Shaw said, 'A mind of the calibre of mine cannot drive its nutriment from cows', while Franklin stated that a vegetarian diet resulted in 'greater clearness of head and quicker comprehension'. Liz O'Neill, of the Vegetarian Society, said: 'We've always known that vegetarianism is an intelligent, compassionate choice benefiting animals, people and the environment. Now, we've got the scientific evidence to prove it. 'Maybe that explains why many meat-reducers are keen to call themselves vegetarians when even they must know that vegetarians don't eat chicken, turkey or fish!'

Source

Vegetarianism is almost solely a bourgeois preoccupation and, as Murray and Herrnstein showed long ago, the middle and upper classes have an IQ advantage. They also, however, tend to overestimate their own wisdom and go off chasing all sorts of rainbows -- in the belief that they can see truth and virtue where most people cannot



ARROGANT B*STARDS

Clothes made in larger sizes should carry a tag with an obesity helpline number, health specialists have suggested. Sweets and snacks should not be permitted near checkouts, new roads should not be built unless they include cycle lanes and food likely to make people fat should be taxed, they say in a checklist of what we might "reasonably do" to deal with obesity.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the team says that "pull yourself together, eat less and exercise more" is an inadequate response to obesity, voiced only by "less perceptive health professionals" and the media. What fat people need is help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food, says the group of public health professionals, which includes Sir George Alberti, the Government's national director for emergency care. Their checklist of possible actions includes:

* Printing a helpline numbers for advice with all clothes sold with a waist of more than 40in for men and 37in for boys, women's garments with a waist of more than 35in or size 16 or above, and more than 31in for girls

* Banning the placement of sweets and fatty snacks at or near shop tills and at children's eye level

* Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat

* Introducing health checks for all school leavers, both primary and secondary

* Allowing new urban roads only if they have cycle lanes

* Establishing a dedicated central agency responsible for all aspects of obesity

The report was put together by Laurence Gruer, director of public health science at NHS Health Scotland, and Sir George, who is emeritus professor of medicine at Newcastle University. The Glasgow University professors Naveed Sattar and Mike Lean also contributed to the report, which calls for wider acceptance of drugs and surgery as ways of cutting the health risks that stem from obesity.

The report concludes: "Medical practice must adapt to the current epidemic of obesity and nutrition-related diseases. The profession must unite the forces of public health and acute services to generate sustainable changes in food and lifestyles: matters at the heart of our cultural identities. "Furthermore, training in public health medicine should urge all doctors to contribute towards bringing changes in the food industry and in the environment that will lead to a more physically active, healthier and happier population. "As the prevalence and costs of obesity escalate, the economic argument for giving high priority to obesity and weight management through a designated co-ordinating agency will ultimately become overwhelming. The only question is, will action be taken before it is too late?"

Source



The feminizing effects of soy

Some interesting claims by Jim Rutz

There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular. Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food. The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens. Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen. If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today? Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic. Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults - especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy. In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

Source

There is no doubt that soy products do contain phytoestrogens and that such hormones do have roughly the effects described above. See also here. Whether the quantities ingested are large enough to have any given effect is the crucial question

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

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



15 December, 2006

Maccas puts gyms on children's menu

Good capitalism: Anything to keep the customers happy



US fast-food giant McDonald's, often accused of catering to expanding waistlines, has a new item on its menu for kids - gyms. The company is testing R Gyms - in-restaurant mini-gyms with stationary bicycles hooked to video games, obstacle courses and aerobics exercises - in seven of its restaurants to help customers age 4 to 12 fight flab as they ingest calories. The latest R Gym, named for the restaurant's advertising mascot Ronald McDonald, opened in California earlier this month and the company is hoping to spread the concept across the United States and possibly overseas.

But critics say the mini-gyms are merely an attempt by the burger giant to polish its image at a time when people are increasingly aware of the health hazards linked to obesity. "What we've been able to do with the R Gym is to provide our youngest customers with a more relevant contemporary experience, including games and activities that are more suitable to children's lifestyles today and of course tomorrow," Danya Proud, a spokeswoman for McDonald's said.

The experts are skeptical. "The number of calories that a child is likely to burn in one of those gyms is quite small compared to what they can eat, even in a small meal," said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Centre for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. It would take a child, for example, more than three hours of exercise to burn off a 200-calorie milkshake.

The new gyms would eventually replace play areas currently available in some 5500 McDonald's outlets throughout the country. McDonald's is also considering R Gyms for its restaurants overseas.

But specialists like Prof Brownell warn the gyms could have an adverse effect in that they could lull people into believing they can eat more since they're exercising. "One risk is that the children or parents overestimate how much benefit they are getting from the exercise and feel licensed to eat more - a larger order of French fries or an ice cream cone," he said.

Ms Proud answers such criticism by saying that McDonald's has "always been concerned about health". "McDonald's has been providing nutritious menu options to all of our customers for 52-plus years," she said.

According to health experts, about one-third of children in the United States are either overweight or obese and trends are showing the numbers increasing. Studies have also said one in five Australian children is overweight or obese, with the figure set to expand to one in two by 2020, according to some predictions. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently identified fast food as a significant factor in that country's obesity epidemic. According to the CDC, nearly 19 per cent of American children between the ages of 6 and 11 are overweight and some 14 per cent are in that category before the age of 5.

Prof Brownell said with that in mind, McDonald's R Gyms could be an attempt by the company to ward off class-action lawsuits from public-health advocates who see fast food as their new target after tobacco. "McDonald's is not in the business of getting the population more physically active but if they appear to be on the right side of the issue, they may be able to forestall litigation, legislation that hurts them and just bad public opinion in general," he said.

Source



Stent problems

In medicine, yesterday's breakthrough technology is today's safety worry. Case in point: the drug coated stents that will be examined at a potentially contentious and controversial session convened today by the Food and Drug Administration. Comprised of many of America's top heart doctors, the group will consider the quandary that has emerged around these tiny tubes of metal mesh, used in a non-invasive alternative to open-heart surgery: Do they help more patients then they hurt?

It's a crucial question. Since Merck pulled its painkiller Vioxx from the two years ago, the drug business has been beset by controversies about the safety of the medicines it makes. The device industry has not been hit as hard by safety concerns--until now. A new focus on the risks of devices, as well as their benefits, could be a big change for companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and Medtronic.

What the panel will decide after the two-day session in Gaithersburg, Md., is anyone's guess, but it is likely the stents, which generate $5 billion a year in annual sales, will remain on the market with at least some new restrictions on their use. "I don't think it's in the cards that they're going to take them off the market," says Deepak Bhatt, a researcher at the Cleveland Clinic. "They've been studied, and they work very well. But there may be some specific guidance given as to which patients should receive the drug-coated stents."

What could result are new limits on when the devices should be used. Right now, drug-coated stents still account for the vast majority of the market. But some doctors say it may be possible to screen out a third of the patients who receive the newer stents for whom the benefits really don't outweigh the risk, denting sales. Also, the panel could instruct physicians to make sure patients take blood-thinners like Plavix, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, for years after the operation if the drug-coated stents are used. A large number of patients don't continue to take their medicine, putting themselves at risk; doctors might want to avoid giving drug-coated stents to people who won't take their pills.

Stents are used to open blockages in coronary arteries caused by the buildup of plaque, which can block blood flow, causing heart attacks and chest pain. The devices have been around for a decade, but these new versions, from Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific, are coated with medicines intended to cut down the number of repeat procedures and return trips to the hospital.

The drug-coated stents have been implanted in 4 million patients since Johnson & Johnson launched the first one in 2003. But now it is becoming clear that people who get the devices are more likely to have dangerous blood clots form in the stent, causing the very heart attacks the stents are designed to prevent. Using conservative estimates, the devices might cause 4,000 heart attacks a year.

Defenders say they actually prevent as many heart attacks and deaths as they cause, because all those return trips to the hospital, and the chance of reclosed arteries expose patients to risk. And the risk, they point out, is small for any individual patient. A recent Cleveland Clinic paper put it at one clot per 250 patients each year; analyses of the companies' own clinical trials show a risk of about one in 500 patients per year. The biggest challenge for the experts: There really isn't enough data to draw a conclusion. They are likely to focus on two main questions: who should get the drug-coated devices, as opposed to the older bare-metal stents, and how long do these patients need to take the blood thinner Plavix, which seems to reduce the risk of the dangerous clots.

There may also be controversy about who was included in the expert panel. Bruce Nudell, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, said that some panelists, notably Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic and Eric Topol of Scripps Clinic, the cardiologists who initially drew attention to the dangers of Vioxx, might create "a bit of a hostile air." But Nudell thinks the FDA will not, at the end of the day, aggressively limit the use of either stent. Still, the inclusion of Nissen and Topol has made some Wall Street analysts nervous.

Right now, says Sanjay Kaul of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, about 60% of use of drug-coated stents does not match up with the clinical studies of the drugs that have been evaluated by the FDA. Speaking conservatively, he says, one would limit the use of the devices to those patients in whom they had been studied. He also says that new trials should be conducted to find out how long patients need to take Plavix and exactly which patients should get the drug-coated stents.

There are also larger questions. Stents are used in a medical procedure called angioplasty, in which a balloon is used to prop open a clogged artery. Sometimes this is done during a heart attack, and at these times the procedure has been shown to save lives. But most angioplasties are done to reduce symptoms of chest pain that come from clogged arteries. Some doctors say many of these patients should be treated with medicine, not surgery.

Source



ARE YOU FAT ON THE INSIDE?

Will thin people soon be in trouble too?

It used to be said that inside every fat person was a thin person trying to get out. Now it seems it could be other way around. A scanning technique pioneered by British doctors has found that many slim people are storing up dangerous levels of fat in their bodies. Jimmy Bell, head of the molecular imaging group at the Medical Research Council's centre at Imperial College, London, said this hidden fat could trigger heart conditions and diabetes.

"The important message is people shouldn't be happy just because they look thin . You can look healthy but have a lot of fat internally, which can have a detrimental effect on your health."

Professor Bell and his team began using a magnetic resonance imaging scanner to seek internal fat while researching type 2 diabetes - the version of the disease that develops later in life and is normally associated with obesity. His suspicions arose when several slim people in the study were found to have the medical markers for type 2 diabetes.

The findings raise questions about the body mass index, the indicator of obesity used by most doctors and public health campaigners. The index is a relatively crude measure in which a person's weight in kilograms is divided by the square of their height in metres. Some doctors believe the index is flawed because it pays no attention to the nature of the weight. A rugby player, for instance, with heavier than usual muscles, will come out with a high score on the index and could be classified as overweight, even though he has low levels of internal fat.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



14 December, 2006

SOME LEFTISTS (FAT ONES?) GETTING SUSPICIOUS OF THE OBESITY WAR

New guidelines on obesity in the US may end up harming children, says an article in this week's BMJ. And an accompanying article goes on to question the financial links between the organization promoting these proposals and the pharmaceutical industry. If implemented, the proposals would see many more children classified as overweight or obese - and thus eligible for treatment with obesity drugs.

The article outlines how an influential expert committee of the American Medical Association has "tentatively decided" to reclassify obesity definitions. This will result in healthy children being categorized as medically overweight or obese, says the author, and mean that approximately a quarter of toddlers and two fifths of children aged 6-11 in America will be classed as having the disease.

Author of the articles is Ray Moynihan, who has previously written about drug companies promoting an increasing reliance on medications to the public. His report reveals that the US proposals have been greeted with alarm by some senior public health academics who have written to the committee. Dr Jenny O'Dea from the University of Sydney, for instance, warned that labeling children as overweight or obese can lead to stigmatization, eating problems, and avoidance of exercise.

Mr Moynihan points out that one of the prime movers behind the proposed changes being considered by the expert committee is Dr William Dietz, a senior member of the International Obesity Task Force. In the second article Mr Moynihan reveals how the high profile and highly influential Task Force, which has close ties to the World Health Organization, was set up in the mid-1990s with the help of grants from three drug companies and continues to benefit from drug company sponsorship.

Now merged with another international obesity forum, the Task Force gets two thirds of its funding from pharmaceutical giants Roche and Abbott. Roche makes the anti-obesity drug Xenical (orlistat), and Abbott makes the appetite suppressant Reductil (sibutramine hydrochloride). Over recent years, the article states, drug company sponsorship is likely to have amounted to "millions".

The Task Force has responded to Mr Moynihan's questions about its funding, saying that it has made no secret of the grants it has received from drug companies and emphasising that an internal ethical scrutiny system ensures independence from sponsors.

Source



MILK DRINKERS ARE WINNERS

A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found. The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice - the raising of dairy cattle - feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.

Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because there is no further need for the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on. Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people, the Funnel Beaker culture, which flourished some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago in north-central Europe. People with a persistently active lactase gene have no problem digesting milk and are said to be lactose tolerant. Almost all Dutch people and 99 percent of Swedes are lactose-tolerant, but the mutation becomes progressively less common in Europeans who live at increasing distance from the ancient Funnel Beaker region.

Geneticists wondered if the lactose tolerance mutation in Europeans, first identified in 2002, had arisen among pastoral peoples elsewhere. But it seemed to be largely absent from Africa, even though pastoral peoples there generally have some degree of tolerance. A research team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now resolved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups of East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of each other and of the European mutation, which keep the lactase gene permanently switched on. The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff's group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago. Two other mutations were found, among the Beja people of northeastern Sudan and tribes of the same language family, Afro-Asiatic, in northern Kenya.

Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created "one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans," the researchers write. The survival advantage was so powerful perhaps because those with the mutations not only gained extra energy from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from the water in milk. People who were lactose-intolerant could have risked losing water from diarrhea, Dr. Tishkoff said....

More here



New hay-fever pill

More than a million hay fever sufferers could benefit from a new drug that will be available on prescription [in Britain] next month. Grazax, taken as a pill, provides immunity to the allergens contained in grass pollens and has had an 83 per cent success rate in tests. Allergy researchers believe it will provide relief for hay fever sufferers who find antihistamines and nasal sprays ineffective.

Professor Stephen Durham, of Imperial College London, who is investigating the long-term benefits of the drug, said: "It's been shown to be associated with a 30 per cent reduction of hay fever symptoms and a 40 per cent reduction in the need for other medications, like nasal sprays. "We know it's effective, we know it imparts improvements in the quality of life of patients and we know it reduces the need for treatment."

There are about 12 million hay fever sufferers in Britain, 95 per cent of whom react to grass pollen, with 13 to 14-year-olds particularly susceptible. Traditional anti-histamine treatments reduce hayfever symptoms by 10-20 per cent and steroid nasal sprays by 20-30 per cent. These have to be repeated frequently and do not work for all patients. The effects of a spray wear off in about a week whereas a course of the pills - one a day for eight weeks - should keep hay fever at bay for a season.

The drug is similar to the monthly desensitisation injections that provide immunity to hayfever. It works by exposing patients to a 15mg dose of timothy grass extract - one of the worst pollens for sufferers - which kick-starts the body's immunity response against pollen from temperate grasses. Tests suggest that unlike injections, which cause serious reactions in 1 in 500 cases, the tablet's side-effects are limited to localised itching.

Professor Durham, head of allergy and clinical immunology at Imperial College, said: "One in four people suffers from hay fever. It can have a severe effect on quality of life; it interferes with sleep, and interferes with work, and children with hay fever can drop a grade at school. I believe about 10 per cent of the hay fever population, potentially a million patients in the UK, could benefit from this treatment."

The cost of the tablets, which are made by the Swedish company ALK-Abello, has not been decided for Britain, but in Germany they cost about 2.45 pounds each. On this basis, an eight-week course could cost patients about 135 pounds , with the potential cost to the NHS 140 million. The NHS spends about 40 million a year on prescription medicines to treat nasal allergies, including hay fever, and the over-the-counter market is worth another 80 million. Grazax would potentially replace some of these. Grazax will be available from specialist hay fever clinics, with patients requiring the treatment on the NHS needing to be referred by their doctors.

Further studies are now being undertaken to find out if the pills will provide long-term immunity or if they will have to be taken every year. Hay fever occurs in varying degrees of severity and can be dangerous for patients with conditions such as asthma. The sneezing, runny noses and watery eyes can last for weeks at a time and affect every facet of a sufferer's life, awake or asleep. Of the 150 species of native grass in Britain, 12 are responsible for the vast majority of grass pollen.

Grazax has already been approved for use in 27 European countries. The pills will cost 67.50 pounds for 30 days, making the eight-week course 135 pounds. The drug will be initially aimed at the relatively small proportion of hayfever sufferers who either do not respond to conventional treatments or get little relief from antihistamines and nasal sprays.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



13 December, 2006

Physical activity can curb many a cancer

The above heading is original to the article below but is deceptive. See why at the foot of the article

Health promotion campaigns have helped the Australian public become increasingly aware of the benefits of physical activity and exercise for improving or maintaining health. Most messages are focused on the importance of exercise for the prevention and management of conditions such as heart disease or diabetes. Surprisingly, little is mentioned of the significant impact of exercise on the nation's leading cause of death - cancer. Furthermore, cancer sufferers themselves may not be aware of the mounting evidence that physical activity significantly improves survival rate.

The lifetime risk of cancer for Australians is one in three for males and one in four for females. With 88,000 new cases diagnosed each year, it accounts for 30 per cent of all male and 25 per cent of all female deaths. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, followed by lung and colon. For women, breast cancer is the most common, followed by lung and colorectal.

There is growing evidence that a number of lifestyle factors contribute to the much higher incidence of cancer in developed nations such as Australia - particularly physical inactivity, low consumption of fibre and folate, and a high consumption of saturated fats and red meat. While physical activity reduces the risk of developing various cancers, obesity has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well as poorer survival rates (Cancer 2006;107(3):632).

However, growing evidence supports physical activity not only for prevention of cancer, but for significantly improving survival rates. A study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association involving 2987 women diagnosed with breast cancer rocked the scientific community when it revealed that walking 3-5 hours per week reduced the risk of dying from the cancer by 40 per cent (2005;293(20):2479).

The growing body of research was added to this year with two separate studies on colorectal cancer in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2006;24:3527 and 2006;24:3535). Both investigated the association between physical activity undertaken after diagnosis and its relationship with survival, and found that there was a 50-60 per cent reduction in both the recurrence of the cancer and overall mortality compared to those who were sedentary.

These results have significant implications for cancer therapy, as bowel cancer is the most frequently occurring internal cancer with more than 13,000 people diagnosed each year. An aggressive cancer, only 56 per cent of people with the condition survive five years after diagnosis.

Although the physiological effects of exercise on cancer survival are not yet understood, there are various proposed mechanisms including improved hormone regulation, decreases in blood insulin levels, enhanced anti-tumour immune function and a decrease in free-radicals. Regardless of the mechanism, what is certain is that it does have a positive impact, and there are calls for greater promotion of physical activity and exercise for both prevention and treatment.

A study published in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia last year revealed that two in three people were motivated to increase their physical activity if they believed it could reduce their risk of bowel cancer. Based on these findings, it would be reasonable to assume that cancer sufferers informed of the research linking exercise to improved survival rates would be motivated to a greater extent to increase their physical activity. However, the study's author, doctor Geoffrey Jalleh, claimed that cancer organisations did not actively promote the protective effects of physical activity on common cancers including bowel and breast. "As a result, the general public's awareness of the links between physical inactivity and increased risk for cancer is minimal."

What is clear is that if physical activity can have a similar effect as trastuzumab - an agent for the treatment of breast cancer, and sold under the brand name Herceptin - then exercise needs to undergo an investigative process similar to the development of a medication. Further research is needed to determine the optimal dose of exercise for each type of cancer, the ideal type of activity (strength training versus cardiovascular exercise), and potential side effects.

Preliminary data shows that exercise reduces the side effects associated with cancer treatment, and is quite safe as a treatment modality (Support Cancer Care 2006;14:732). However, in a recent review, a major barrier identified to promoting physical activity in cancer patients is the confidence level of the treating oncologist to provide their patient with appropriate exercise advice. Considering that this review was conducted in the US, this problem may be overcome in Australia through a partnership-based approach between the oncologist and exercise physiologist, providing the basis for better health outcomes and greater research.

As leading cancer and exercise researcher Demark-Wahnefried recently stated in the Journal of Oncology: "There is no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry would back an agent with potential to reduce cancer recurrence by at least 50 per cent, but who will back a trial that evaluates the potential benefits of sneakers and sweatpants?"

Source

The author above is Chris Tzar, an exercise physiologist and director of the Lifestyle Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, University of NSW, so an excess of enthusiasm for his chosen field can perhaps be forgiven. He gives the impression above that exercise can prevent all sorts of cancers. That is not true. All the studies he notes above refer to people who ALREADY HAVE cancer, a population that is by definition different from the population as a whole.

There is however other evidence on whether exercise prevents cancer and it shows good evidence for benefit in the case of colon cancer only. Even rectal cancer occurrence is unrelated to exercise. There is also some evidence that exercise is a preventive for breast cancer in women -- but so is being fat a preventive for breast cancer in women. So a woman who has a family history of breast cancer would be at least as well advised to eat plenty of Big Macs and KFC as to exercise. I think I can say with absolute certainty, however, that you would never hear that advice from Mr Tzar, correct though it is. That would be completely against the prevailing religion. He is good at hinting at bias in others (see his last sentence above) but I doubt that he sees his own biases as any problem.

Clearly however, men with a family history of colon cancer should exercise as long as they do not have counterindications for it as well



Low fat warning

Dieters who use low-fat foods to try to cut their weight can consume up to 45% more calories than they intend, researchers have found, writes Jonathan Leake. They warn that such foods can make people put on weight, because the fats are replaced with sugars or other nutrients that contain nearly as many calories as the original version. Additionally, it is the fats in a food that create a feeling of fullness, so their absence can encourage people to keep on eating even more than they normally would.

"People don't realise that low-fat foods are not always low-calorie foods," said Brian Wansink, professor of marketing and nutritional science at Cornell University in New York, who carried out the research. "Fat is often replaced with sugar. Low-fat snacks are an average of 11% lower in calories, but people wrongly believe they are 40% lower." He found that when offered low-fat snacks rather than regular ones obese people ate up to 45% more calories.

Source



BRITISH GOVERNMENT SUPERNANNY DEFIED

Shoppers are continuing to pile their trolleys and baskets with unhealthy food, despite the Government's focus on tackling Britain's obesity crisis. A survey of food-buying patterns of 12 million consumers has found that, in the past four years, 44 per cent of people have made no change to their eating habits. Only 8 per cent of shoppers have moved towards a healthier diet, while almost as many are deliberately shunning a good diet and eating more junk food. Even shoppers who normally try to eat healthily fall off the wagon if there is an upheaval in their lives such as the arrival of a new baby, divorce, a wedding, moving house, losing a job or being promoted at work.

The findings, from dunnhumby, the retail consultants, who have scrutinised the sales data of 10,000 everyday ingredients clocked up on Tesco loyalty cards as well as interviewed 2,000 customers, suggest that it will take more than a generation before Britain becomes a nation of healthy eaters. The findings will come as a blow to the efforts of Caroline Flint, the Public Health Minister, and the Food Standards Agency, who are attempting to encourage people to eat a more nutritious diet.

The study also appears to suggest that consumers need the help of the agency's traffic-light system of red, amber and green alerts on packs to help them to choose a healthier mix of food. The traffic lights are being strongly opposed by food manufacturers and Tesco, who claim that the system is simplistic and demonises food.

A surprising feature of the study is that there is little difference in the cost of a healthy shopping basket and an unhealthy one. A typical healthy basket costs an average 71.78 pounds compared with 71.18 pounds for an unhealthy one. Healthy shoppers were identified for buying organic and ecofriendly products and food with labels such as fresh, lite or low fat, or food from the healthy-living ranges. [The mugs who believe anything, in other words]

Unhealthy baskets typically contained value or extra lines, indicating that people were looking for the cheapest food that they could find. It suggests that many shoppers still think that healthy eating is expensive. But shoppers also enjoy a treat, and sales of chocolate and alcoholic drinks have shown no decline. They also like to "scrimp and splurge". Researchers identified people who chose cheaper products to pay for a treat, either a cream cake, gourmet food for a pet or a DVD.

Martin Hayward, director of consumer strategy for dunnhumby, said: "Most of us are neither totally healthy nor totally unhealthy eaters." He said that worry about the cost of food prevented many people from eating healthily and yet the analysis had shown that there was little difference in the price of a healthy versus unhealthy basket. Mr Hayward said: "We believe the distance between healthy and unhealthy eating is because people don't know how to cook and have a `can't cook, won't cook' approach, making them heavily reliant on processed foods and ready meals."

The findings are intended to explore new ways to help consumers to eat a healthy diet, he said. The analysis also bolsters policy statements from Tony Blair and David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who have promised to bring cookery classes back into schools.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



12 December, 2006

Epidurals bad for breast-feeding

Women who give birth with the aid of pain-relieving epidurals find it harder to breast-feed than those who give birth naturally, a study has found. The research suggests that some of the drugs used in epidurals make their way into babies' bloodstreams, subtly affecting their brains and development for weeks afterwards - including making them less willing to breast-feed. If confirmed, such research could force a rethink over the use of the drugs.

Up to a third of British women giving birth are routinely given epidurals in which a catheter is inserted into the spine to allow the infusion of pain-killing drugs. These deaden the nerves that relay sensations of pain from the lower body and legs.

In a commentary on the research, published today, one expert suggests the impact of epidurals on breast-feeding should be officially classed as an "adverse drug reaction". Writing in International Breastfeeding Journal, Sue Jordan, senior lecturer in applied therapeutics at Swansea University, says women given the infusions should be offered extra support to stop their infants being "disadvantaged by this hidden, but far-reaching, adverse drug reaction".

Such a link could help explain why many British women fail to breast-feed, with 55% giving up within six weeks of birth. More than a third of women give up within a week, saying their babies simply refuse to breast-feed.

In the research, published in the same journal, Siranda Torvaldsen, from Sydney University, and colleagues from other institutions in Australia, studied 1,280 women who had given birth, of whom 416 had an epidural. The researchers found 93% of the women breast-fed their baby in the first week but those who received epidurals generally had more difficulty in the days immediately after birth.

By the time six months had passed, the women who had been given epidurals were twice as likely to have stopped breast-feeding, even after allowing for factors such as maternal age and education. The authors suggest the most likely cause of the problem was fentanyl, an opioid drug widely used as a component of epidurals. Such drugs pass quickly into the bloodstream and easily cross the placenta to reach the unborn baby.

Many women have a good experience with epidurals because the drugs allow them to relax. However, researchers have long known that there are also potential adverse side effects such as lowered blood pressure, a slowing of the birth process and a greater risk of having to pull the baby out with forceps. There has, however, been less research into the impact of such drugs on babies, although it is known that, because of their immature livers, the drugs can linger in the body.

Other researchers support Torvaldsen's findings. A study at Toronto University, Canada, of 177 women found they were less likely to be breast-feeding after six weeks if they had been given an epidural with fentanyl.

Source

This report seems to have caused some uproar. Even though it was cautiously worded, the editorial by Ms Jordan ("Infant feeding and analgesia in labour: the evidence is accumulating") in International Breastfeeding Journal 2006; 1: 25 has now been taken down. See the cached table of contents here. It must have hit pretty close to the mark to get censored. Truth is the most usual victim of censorship. The abstract of the Torvaldsen study ("Intrapartum epidural analgesia and breastfeeding: a prospective cohort study") is however still available here. I reproduce the abstract of the censored editorial below:

The interesting and important paper by Torvaldsen and colleagues provides further circumstantial evidence of a positive association between intrapartum analgesia and feeding infant formula. Not all research supports this association. Before failure to breastfeed can be adjudged an adverse effect of intrapartum analgesia, the research evidence needs to be considered in detail. Examination of the existing evidence against the Bradford-Hill criteria indicates that the evidence is not yet conclusive. However, the difficulties of obtaining funding and undertaking large trials to explore putative adverse drug reactions in pregnant women may mean that we shall never have conclusive evidence of harm. Therefore, reports of large cohort studies with regression models, as in the paper published today, assume a greater importance than in other areas of investigation. Meanwhile, women and their clinicians may feel that sufficient evidence has accumulated to justify offering extra support to establish breastfeeding if women have received high doses of analgesics in labour.



PBS COFFEE

Being true to their hidden agenda -- helping Leftist elitists to feel better about themselves

In the midst of a really big news week for all Americans, including the release and reaction to the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report, came one of the weirder bits of news involving PBS. On Dec. 6, it was announced that the Public Broadcasting Service and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters had formed a partnership to launch a new organic coffee blend known as PBS Blend. The press release says the new blend will be offered in "whole bean, 10-oz. packages and single-serve K-Cups for use in Keurig Single-Cup brewers," also owned by Green Mountain.

The press release itself seems to present a masterpiece of politically, environmentally and socially correct blended images of this new marriage, in keeping with discriminating TV watchers and coffee drinkers. "Sweetly balanced and smooth," it states, "with full flavor and a rich finish, PBS Blend is grown in the lush, tropical rain forests surrounding the El Triunfo Biosphere in Mexico. PBS Blend carries the Fair Trade Certified label, which guarantees farmers a fair price for their coffee harvest and enables them to reinvest in their communities. In addition, PBS Blend is environmentally-friendly. A certified organic coffee, its beans were grown using agricultural practices that preserve biodiversity and vital habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife.

"`We are pleased to be working with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, which shares PBS's commitment to social responsibility and community education,' said Andrea Downing, Vice President, Home Entertainment and Partnerships. `This partnership allows PBS a new way to engage and inform consumers around a quality product, provides them with another way to support public television through their every day lifestyle choices and purchases, and ensures that our member stations can continue to deliver a valuable public service in their communities.'

"Robert Stiller, President of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, said, `This collaboration with PBS reinforces our belief that when like-minded organizations join together, they can be an agent for positive change. We admire PBS and its member stations' focus on public service and education, as well as its long-standing reputation as a trusted community resource. This delicious coffee provides us with new avenues for supporting our global community and advancing public education about Fair Trade.'"....

Nevertheless, this partnership is indeed something new and moves the Public Broadcasting Service further down the road toward commercial linkages on the margins of its still largely commercial-free main mission of delivering high quality programming free of interruption and free of the influences that network and cable television impose. In August and September, ombudsman's columns dealt with a still small but steadily growing number of complaints from viewers upset at what they see as a steady growth of "commercials" and "advertisements" on various PBS outlets that they see as undermining the network's special mission. Much of this was focused on the new PBS KIDS Sprout digital channel offered by Comcast, which is the biggest partner in that enterprise, and which contains real commercials. I still get a small but steady stream of mail from viewers who don't like that idea....

Nevertheless, this new arrow in PBS's growing quiver of commercial marketing-on-the-margins projects strikes me somehow as more sad than innovative. I'm no businessman and this all may be none of my business as ombudsman, either. But it is hard to see this generating enough revenue to really matter and meanwhile it may make it look, to still more people, as though PBS is sort of desperate to find money anywhere it can. The purist view, which I can afford to take and PBS perhaps can't, is that the piling up of these commercial linkages might slowly add-up to a weakening of this vital network's standing with enough viewers that will really matter....

Source



GOVERNMENT BULLIES

Comment by Jeff Jacoby on trans fats and smoking

Big Brother has been busy. New York City's board of health voted last week to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants, a step that will force many of the Big Apple's 26,000 eating establishments to radically alter the way they prepare food. The prohibition is being called a model for other cities, such as Chicago, where similar bans have been proposed.

Is it a good idea to avoid food made with trans fats? That depends on what you consider good. Trans fats are said to raise the risk of heart disease by increasing levels of LDL ("bad") cholesterol. They also contribute to the appealing taste of many baked and fried foods, and provide an economical alternative to saturated fats. As with most things in life, trans fats carry both risks and benefits. Do the possible long-term health concerns outweigh the short-term pleasures? That's a question of values -- one that scientists and regulators aren't competent to answer.

Different people have different priorities. They make different choices about the fats in their diet, just as they make different choices about whether to drive a Toyota, drink their coffee black, or get a tattoo. In a free society, men and women decide such things for themselves. In New York, men and women are now a little less free. And since a loss of liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere, the rest of us are now a little less free as well.

But the slow erosion of freedom doesn't trouble the lifestyle bullies. They are quite sure that they have the right to dictate people's eating (and other) habits. "It's basically a slow form of poison," sniffs David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center. "I applaud New York City, and frankly, I think there should be a nationwide ban."

Yes, why go through the trouble of making your own decision about trans fats or anything else when officious bureaucrats are willing to make it for you? Liberty can be *so* messy. Who wouldn't rather have Big Brother prohibit something outright -- smoking in bars, say, or cycling without a helmet, or using marijuana, or gambling, or working a job for less than some "minimum" wage -- than be allowed the freedom to choose for oneself?

"A nationwide ban," says Katz wishfully. It's an old temptation. New York's interdiction on trans fats was adopted on December 5 -- 73 years to the day from the repeal of Prohibition, the mother of all "nationwide bans."

But Big Brother doesn't always appear as a hectoring nanny. Sometimes he comes disguised instead as a victim of the bullies. Consider the plight of Scott Rodrigues, a Cape Cod man who lost his job with the Scotts lawn-care corporation when a drug test showed that he had violated a company rule against smoking at any time -- on or off the job. Scotts no longer hires tobacco users, since they drive up the cost of medical insurance, and Rodrigues, a former pack-a-day smoker, knew about the policy and was trying to kick his habit. He was down to about six cigarettes daily when he was fired. Now he claims that Scotts violated his privacy and civil rights, and is suing his ex-employer in Superior Court. "How employees want to lead their private lives is their own business," his lawyer told The Boston Globe. "Next they're going to say, 'you don't get enough exercise'. . . . I don't think anybody ought to be smoking cigarettes, but as long as it's legal, it's none of the employer's business as long as it doesn't impact the workplace."

It's hard not to feel a measure of sympathy for Rodrigues . Many activities endanger health and can drive up the cost of health insurance, from drag-racing to overeating to promiscuous sex. Yet none of *those* appear to be grounds for termination at Scotts. It seems capricious to treat only smokers so harshly.

But capricious or not, Scotts is entitled to condition its employment on any criteria it wishes. (With the significant exception of the "protected categories" -- race, religion, etc. -- itemized in civil rights statutes.) Rodrigues has not been cheated. No one forced him to take a job with an antismoking employer. Scotts is a private firm, and if it chooses not to employ smokers -- or skiers, or Socialists, or "Seinfeld" fans -- that choice should be legally unassailable. Rodrigues is free to vent his disappointment, of course. He can criticize Scotts publicly, even organize a boycott. (He can also go to work for one of Scotts' competitors.) But forcing the company to defend itself against a groundless lawsuit goes too far. That is an abuse of governmental power -- an assault on the liberty of employers to operate freely in the market. It is a different kind of bullying than the ban on trans fats, but it's an act of bullying nonetheless.

The price of liberty, Thomas Jefferson warned, is eternal vigilance. But too few of us have been vigilant. And the bullies keep gaining ground.

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

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



11 December, 2006

FOLIC ACID: MASS MEDICATION IN BRITAIN PROPOSED

Sufferers from some conditions (such as histadelia) are told to avoid folic acid. Looks like no convenient bread purchases for them in future!

Britain will take the first step towards mass medication of the population this week with the publication of proposals to add the vitamin folic acid to bread. A report commissioned by ministers will recommend the compulsory fortification of flour and bread with folic acid to help prevent babies being born with birth defects. It will say the benefits seen in the United States and Canada, where the strategy has helped reduce birth defects such as spina bifida by as much as 50%, justify such state intervention.

It will, however, be controversial: critics claim it takes away individual choice and could have other health risks, including contributing to neurological damage in the elderly. In Australia, where a similar proposal is being advocated, there has been vocal opposition from the food industry, which claims it is backed by up to 90% of the public in polls.

In Britain, the move is being proposed by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which was commissioned by ministers to examine the case for adding folic acid to bread. Scientists believe compulsorily adding folic acid to flour could prevent more than 150 cases a year in which babies develop neural tube defects. Some of these are aborted. Babies can develop such defects - abnormalities of the brain and spine - if the mother is deficient in folic acid when she conceives. Women are encouraged to take folic acid supplements when they are planning to have a child but because almost half of all births in Britain are unplanned, many women are not taking the tablets when they become pregnant.

Andrew Russell, chief executive of the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, said: "Hundreds of abortions are carried out every year in the UK for spina bifida, and a lot of severely disabled babies are still being born. "It is the poorest and most educationally underprivileged who are most at risk of a spina bifida pregnancy. Unfortunately, relying on women to plan pregnancy and take a folic acid supplement in advance is unrealistic in many cases."

While most doctors agree that adding folic acid to bread could benefit pregnant women, some medical professionals say the proposal could be to the detriment of the elderly. Evidence has shown that folic acid can mask the deficiency of another vitamin, B12, a common medical complaint in the over-65s. This week the Food Standards Agency will launch a three-month-long public consultation on the proposal before ministers make a final decision on its introduction.

Meanwhile, parents are expected to be told by the government's health regulator this week to eat meals with their children, ration how much television they watch and replace the school run with a walk or cycle. In one of the biggest attempts to influence the way people live their daily lives, the watchdog responsible for the way the National Health Service spends its money will announce guidelines to help tackle the obesity epidemic. The advice from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) is expected to tell families to start their day by eating breakfast together, preferably including one of the five recommended daily portions of fruit and vegetables. The family should then embark on a more active journey to work or school, possibly cycling or walking part of the way. This could even involve some obese adults being given "personalised travel plans".

Despite growing concern over the sedentary and unhealthy lifestyles of many children, critics are likely to see the guidance as a further move towards an overbearing nanny state. For those who do need to slim down the guidance will set out the type of diets they should follow. Crash diets resulting in weight loss of more than 2lb a week will be ruled out, as will regimes based on restricted foods such as the so-called cabbage soup diet. As reported in The Sunday Times earlier this year, Nice will recommend stomach-stapling surgery for obese children on the NHS at an estimated cost of 10,000 pounds per operation. [So: Plenty of money for an essentially cosmetic procedure while everyone else waits!]

Source



The Bloomberg Diet: The nanny state reaches into the kitchen

You might think that officials in New York City, which has more people than all but 11 states, had enough to do providing basic city services. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that what New Yorkers really need is a better diet, and he's just the man to order it. A politician's work is never done. At the mayor's urging this week, New York's Board of Health voted to ban restaurant use of artificial trans fats, those liquid oils made solid through hydrogenation and found in all manner of fried, baked and processed foods. Many of these products aren't particularly healthy, but then neither are many products people enjoy that contain sugar and caffeine, substances that New York hasn't outlawed. At least not yet.

"We're just trying to make food safer," said Mayor Bloomberg, who nixed smoking in bars a few years back. The city's concern for the health of residents is understandable, but trans fats are not E. coli (or even secondhand smoke), and the federal Food and Drug Administration still considers these chemically modified food ingredients perfectly safe for consumption. Could it be that Mayor Mike has been taken in by activist Gotham health czars and national Naderite "watchdog" outfits like Michael Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest, among others pushing a larger agenda?

You wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but the science on the dangers of trans fats is still being debated, which helps explain FDA approval of the ingredient. It also explains why the American Heart Association, while no fan of trans fats, was critical of the New York proposal and fears it may backfire if food outlets revert to even less healthy alternatives.

The food nannies insist that trans fats raise cholesterol and cause heart disease. The problem, says Steven Milloy of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is that the studies purporting to show this link are inconclusive at best. "People cite lab studies that show transient changes in blood lipids when people consume trans fats, but that's a long way from heart attacks and heart disease," says Mr. Milloy.

Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health is one of the nation's leading trans fat alarmists. Earlier this year he co-authored an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that said trans fats "appear to increase the risk of coronary heart disease more than any other macroingredient." As evidence the article cited three studies. One showed a statistically insignificant correlation between trans fats and heart disease when other risk factors are considered. The other two studies found a link between very high consumption of trans fats and heart trouble, but statistically the association was weak.

Before other cities decide to regulate diets absent a safety issue, they might also consider that some of the same people now pushing for a trans fat ban once recommended the ingredient as a substitute for another health scare: saturated fats. Twenty years ago, Mr. Jacobson's CSPI launched a public relations blitz against fast food joints for using palm oil to cook fries. The group claimed victory when restaurants started using partially hydrogenated oil instead. In 1988, a CSPI newsletter declared that "the charges against trans fat just don't hold up. And by extension, hydrogenated oils seem relatively innocent." Today, Mr. Jacobson is claiming trans fats kill 30,000 people a year. We wonder if he feels guilty.

The ultimate goal of these so-called consumer advocates is to persuade the FDA to turn on trans fats, a move that would serve the food industry up as the next entree on the plaintiff bar's menu. Don't be surprised if the new Democrat Congress helps them pursue this goal, just like Mayor Bloomberg, on the dubious assumption that people can't decide for themselves what and what not to eat.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



10 December, 2006

SOCIAL CLASS MATTERS: THE POOR HAVE POORER HEALTH

Two recent studies below which refer to that -- rather surprisingly. It is usually the great unmentionable in the health research that I have seen. I have been writing on the matter since 1985

Socioeconomic Status and Trends in Disparities in 4 Major Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease Among US Adults, 1971-2002

By Sanjat Kanjilal et al.

Background: It is unknown whether the previously recognized disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors related to annual income and educational level have diminished, persisted, or worsened in recent decades. The objective of this study was to examine 31-year trends in CVD risk factors by annual income and educational levels among US adults.

Methods: Four cross-sectional national surveys were used: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I (1971-1974), II (1976-1980), III (1988-1994), and 1999-2002. The main outcome measure was prevalence of high cholesterol (6.2 mmol/L]), high blood pressure (140/90 mm Hg), smoking, and diabetes mellitus.

Results: Between 1971 and 2002, the prevalence of all CVD risk factors, except diabetes, decreased in all income and education groups, but there has been little reduction in income- and education-related disparities in CVD risk factors and few improvements during the past 10 years. The prevalence of high blood pressure declined by about half in all income and education groups, ranging from 30.3% to 40.6% in 1971-1974 and 16.4% in 1999-2002, with the greatest reduction among those in the lowest income quartile and those with less than a high school education (18.0 and 15.9 percentage points, respectively). High cholesterol prevalence also declined in all groups and ranged from 28.8% to 32.4% in 1971-1974 and 15.3% to 22.0% in 1999-2002, with the largest decline (15.9 percentage points) among people with the highest incomes. Education- and income-related disparities in smoking widened considerably, because there were large declines in smoking prevalence among people with high incomes and education (from about 33% in 1971-1974 to about 14%-17% in 1999-2002) but only marginal reductions among those with low incomes and education (about 6-percentage point decline). Diabetes prevalence increased most among persons with low incomes and education.

Conclusions: Despite the general success in reducing CVD risk factors in the US population, not all segments of society are benefiting equally and improvements may have slowed. Education- and income-related disparities have worsened for smoking, and increases in diabetes prevalence have occurred primarily among persons with a lower socioeconomic status. Diabetes prevention and smoking prevention and cessation programs need to specifically target persons of lower income and education.

Source



Association of Childhood Socioeconomic Status With Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease in Physicians

Michelle M. Kittleson et al.

Background: Adult socioeconomic status (SES) is an independent risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease (CHD), but whether low childhood SES has an effect in adults who have achieved high SES is unknown.

Methods: We examined the risk of CHD and mortality associated with low childhood SES in 1131 male medical students from The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study, a prospective cohort of graduates of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine from 1948 to 1964 with a median follow-up of 40 years.

Results: Of 1131 subjects, 216 (19.1%) were from low-SES families. Medical students from low-SES families were slightly older at graduation (26.8 vs 26.2 years; P = .004) and gained more weight over time (P = .01). Low childhood SES conferred a 2.40-fold increased hazard of developing CHD on or before age 50 years (95% confidence interval, 1.21-4.74) but not at older ages. The impact of low SES on early CHD was not reduced by adjusting for other CHD risk factors, including body mass index, cholesterol level, amount of exercise, depression, coffee drinking, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and parental CHD history. Low childhood SES did not confer an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Conclusions: Low childhood SES is associated with an increased incidence of CHD before age 50 years among men with high adulthood SES. This risk is not mediated by traditional risk factors for CHD. These findings highlight the importance of childhood events on the development of CHD early in adulthood and the persistent effects of low SES.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



9 December, 2006

FATTIES GET LESS BREAST CANCER

And the researchers below tried to explain it away but could not

Longitudinal Study on the Role of Body Size in Premenopausal Breast Cancer

By Karin B. Michels et al.

Background: A high body mass index (BMI) has been related to a reduced risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women. The mechanisms underlying this association have not been elucidated.

Methods: We explored whether factors affecting ovulation may explain the inverse association between BMI (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) and breast cancer in 113 130 premenopausal participants in the Nurses' Health Study II. During 1 225 520 person-years of prospective follow-up between 1989 and 2003, 1398 incident cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed. Weight, height, ovulatory infertility, menstrual cycle patterns, and a multitude of covariates were assessed throughout follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: We observed a significant linear inverse trend between current BMI and breast cancer incidence (P<.001) that was not explained by menstrual cycle characteristics or infertility due to an ovulatory disorder (covariate-adjusted hazard ratio for breast cancer in women with a BMI 27.5 vs 20.0-22.4, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.81).

Conclusions: Body size during the early phases of adult life seems to be particularly important in the development of premenopausal breast cancer. Factors other than anovulation are likely to mediate the protection conferred by a high BMI.

Source



"MORNING-AFTER" PILL PREVENTS SOME BREAST CANCERS IN MICE

Journal abstract below

Prevention of Brca1-Mediated Mammary Tumorigenesis in Mice by a Progesterone Antagonist

By Aleksandra Jovanovic Poole et al.

Women with mutations in the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 are predisposed to breast and ovarian cancers. Why the BRCA1 protein suppresses tumor development specifically in ovarian hormone-sensitive tissues remains unclear. We demonstrate that mammary glands of nulliparous Brca1/p53-deficient mice accumulate lateral branches and undergo extensive alveologenesis, a phenotype that occurs only during pregnancy in wild-type mice. Progesterone receptors, but not estrogen receptors, are overexpressed in the mutant mammary epithelial cells because of a defect in their degradation by the proteasome pathway. Treatment of Brca1/p53-deficient mice with the progesterone antagonist mifepristone (RU 486) prevented mammary tumorigenesis. These findings reveal a tissue-specific function for the BRCA1 protein and raise the possibility that antiprogesterone treatment may be useful for breast cancerpreventioninindividuals with BRCA1 mutations.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



8 December, 2006

Four big, fat food myths

A comprehensive debunking of the obesity crusade from Britain

The Government wants to set up a database to monitor every child in the country - including their diet. But are our children as obese and unhealthy as we are told? And what about us? Health researchers argue that being overweight is actually beneficial: it's dieting that kills

Big Brother has an ambition: to become Big Nanny. The Government wants to introduce a o224 million "Children's Index", a massive database of every child in the country, charting progress from birth to adulthood and flagging up "concerns" about each child's development. Two "flags" on a child's record would trigger an official investigation into his or her family.

Not surprisingly, Parliament's Information Commissioner, in a report last week, was highly critical of the scheme. "Government policy proposes treating all parents as if they cannot be trusted to bring up their children," the report said. Increasingly, this is just what the Government and health campaigners believe. One of the proposed danger signs on the Children's Index, after all, would be if the child were not eating the requisite, government-approved amount of fruit and vegetables each day.

These health campaigners tell us that British children - and their parents - must be slimmed down because we, like much of the developed world, are in the grip of an obesity epidemic that threatens a health catastrophe. Indeed, the US surgeon general has claimed that obesity is "a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction". The media has picked up on the scares and turned them into a kind of orthodoxy. For instance, the term "childhood obesity" occurred only twice in The Guardian in 1999. In 2004, it occurred 201 times, almost four times a week. The public have become convinced that the "epidemic" is a fact.

Yet the obesity epidemic is a myth manufactured by public health officials in concert with assorted academics and special-interest lobbyists. These crusaders preach a sermon consisting of four obesity myths: that we and our children are fat; that being fat is a certain recipe for early death; that our fatness stems from the manufacturing and marketing practices of the food industry (hence Ofcom's recently announced ban on junk food advertising to children); and that we will lengthen our lives if only we eat less and lose weight. The trouble is, there is no scientific evidence to support these myths.

Let's start with the myth of an epidemic of childhood obesity. The just-published Health Survey for England, 2004 does not show a significant increase in the weight of children in recent years. The Department of Health report found that from 1995 to 2003 there was only a one-pound increase in children's average weight.

Nor is there any evidence in claims that overweight and obese children are destined to become overweight and obese adults. The Thousand Families Study has researched 1,000 Newcastle families since 1954. Researchers have found little connection between overweight children and adult obesity. In the study, four out of five obese people became obese as adults, not as children.

There is not even any compelling scientific evidence to support the Government's claim that childhood obesity results in long-term health problems and lowers one's life expectancy. In fact, the opposite may be true: we could be in danger of creating a generation of children obsessed with their weight with the consequent risk of eating disorders that really do threaten their health. Statistics on the numbers of children with eating disorders are hard to come by, but in the US it is estimated that 10 per cent of high school pupils suffer from them. Recent studies show adults' attempts to control children's eating habits result in children eating more rather than less. Parental finger wagging increases the likelihood that children develop body-image problems as well as eating disorders.

One of the principal targets of the obesity crusaders has been the school vending machine. However, the banning of these machines and their stocks of snacks and sweets is very much at odds with the most recent science on children, junk food, and obesity. In 2004, a World Health Organisation study of 8,904 British pupils found that overweight children ate sweets less frequently than normal-weight children did. Children who ate larger amounts of junk food actually had less chance of being overweight.

One large-scale American study spent three years tracking almost 15,000 boys and girls aged between nine and 14 to investigate the links between body mass index and the consumption of fruit and vegetables. It found no correlation, and concluded that "the recommendation for consumption of fruit and vegetables may be well founded, but should not be based on a beneficial effect on weight regulation".

The parallel claim of an adult obesity epidemic is equally unsubstantiated. There has been significant weight gain among the very heaviest segment of the adult population. However, this has not been true of most of the individuals who are labelled overweight and obese, whose weights have only slightly increased. In America, it is true that there was a rapid increase in the number of overweight people in the early years of this decade: but only because the classification of what was "overweight" was reduced from those with a body mass index of 27 to those of 25. Overnight, previously normal weight people discovered they were overweight.

The science linking weight to early death is flimsy, at best. Neither being fat nor moderately obese is associated with increased mortality risks. Last year, a US Centres for Disease Control study found the lowest death rates among overweight people. Furthermore, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that normal- weight individuals did not outlive their mildly obese counterparts. These findings are replicated in many studies over the past 30 years that have found maximum longevity is associated with being above, rather than below, average weight.

Nor, as is often claimed, does the nature of our diet seem to have much impact on mortality. Comparative studies analysing fat and blood cholesterol levels across different cultures fail to sustain the claims of a cause-and-effect connection between life expectancies and diets. Crete, with its Mediterranean diet, has one of the lowest incidences of heart disease, yet has a fat intake of 40 per cent, similar to the British level.

It is now well established that a low-fat diet does little to reduce the risk of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women. The only certainty about the obesity-diet-mortality connection is that, as the late epidemiologist Petr Skrabanek observed: "People who eat, die."

There is not even evidence that the heavily-advertised, much-criticised foods such as sugary breakfast cereals and fizzy drinks make children obese. A 2004 Harvard University study examined 14,000 children and found that junk food did not lead to obesity.

Extensive econometric studies debunk the connection between food advertising and overall food consumption. Food advertising may influence the consumption of particular food brands. It does not, however, increase either total food consumption or the consumption of specific categories of food. All of which is consistent with the fact that caloric intake for British children has not changed significantly over recent decades. The latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey found that, since 1983, both boys' and girls' energy intake had actually declined.

Equally unsupported is the obesity crusaders' campaign for population-wide weight loss. While they try to convince us that we are desperately fat and that our fatness will kill us, the truth about the risks of thinness and the large numbers of thinness-related deaths is quietly ignored. Large numbers of women suffer from anorexia, with one in five hospital cases ending in death. A survey of 5,000 British women in 2000 found that four in 10 had suffered from an eating disorder, such as anorexia or bulimia. These numbers do not take into account the many men and women, neither anorexic nor bulimic, who place themselves at risk through their fixation with dieting.

Contemporary weight gain is not the result of higher food consumption; rather, it reflects a lack of exercise. For the first time in many years, membership of British gyms is in decline. A survey found that most overweight British women seeking to shed pounds choose a fashionable diet over cardiovascular exercise or lifting weights at a gym. Overweight women are more likely to turn to cosmetic surgery, slimming pills or starvation to solve their problems, than to exercise.

But the sad truth is that attempts at weight loss are largely unsuccessful, even in highly controlled situations. Of every 100 people who respond to the crusaders' sermon that they should lose weight, only four will be able to maintain their post-diet weight. Ninety-five per cent of dieters are fatter five years after their diet then when they started to trim.

Weight-loss campaigners also ignore evidence of an association between weight loss and increased mortality. Two American studies - the Iowa Women's Health Study and the American Cancer Society study - found that weight loss was associated with higher rates of mortality. Research following up the ACS study found that healthy obese women were, in fact, better off not losing weight. They were at less risk from cancer and cardiovascular disease than healthy women who dieted.

Obesity crusaders believe that the nanny state has the right to define and enforce a single vision of what constitutes healthy living a good life. The government's judgment is considered inherently superior to any individual's judgment that fatness is at least personally tolerable. The obesity crusade presumes a nursery nation comprised of docile infant-citizens too uncertain of their own values to be left to make their own way in a world in which an evil Ronald McDonald lurks under every archway. Obesity crusaders believe the individual has an obligation to order his life according to their judgment about health, and that the government may justifiably force him to conform if he demurs.

The lasting legacy of the obesity crusade will be both a much fatter government and a much thinner citizenry. The government will be fatter through its expanded power to shape inappropriately the lives of its citizens. Britons will be thinner in their capacity for choice, self-government, and personal responsibility.

Source



BEADY EYES ON NEW MOTHERS

The AMA has just discovered that kids drive you mad -- with a finding that one in a thousand mothers show signs of mental illness after the birth. So what does the Leftist AMA want to do about that? Why, "screen" all mothers for mental illness, of course -- another excuse for government to intrude into private lives on specious grounds and find problems where there are none. A reasonable person might conclude that a 1 in 1000 risk meant that more important things should be attended to

New moms face increased risks for a variety of mental problems, not just postpartum depression, according to one of the largest studies of psychiatric illness after childbirth. New dads aren't as vulnerable, probably because they don't experience the same physical and social changes associated with having a baby, the researchers and other experts said.

The study, based on medical records of 2.3 million people over a 30-year period in Denmark, found that the first three months after women have their first baby is riskiest, especially the first few weeks. That's when the tremendous responsibility of caring for a newborn hits home. During the first 10 to 19 days, new mothers were seven times more likely to be hospitalized with some form of mental illness than women with older infants. Compared to women with no children, new mothers were four times more likely to be hospitalized with mental problems. New mothers also were more likely than other women to get outpatient psychiatric treatment.

However, new fathers did not have a higher risk of mental problems when compared with fathers of older infants and men without children. The prevalence of mental disorders was about 1 per 1,000 births for women and just .37 per 1,000 births for men. Mental problems included postpartum depression, but also bipolar disorder, with altering periods of depression and mania; schizophrenia and similar disorders; and adjustment disorders, which can include debilitating anxiety.

The study underscores a need for psychiatric screening of all new mothers and treatment for those affected, according to an editorial accompanying the study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association. "Mental health is crucial to a mother's capacity to function optimally, enjoy relationships, prepare for the infant's birth, and cope with the stresses and appreciate the joys of parenthood," the editorial says.

Two of the editorial's three authors reported financial ties to the psychiatric drug industry. The study researchers said they had no financial ties to the industry. They examined national data on Danish residents from around 1973 to July 2005. About 1.1 million participants became parents during the study.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



7 December, 2006

COMPANIES BACKING FOOD MYTHS

It's good PR for them to a deluded public -- even though all the longevity studies show that diet and lifestyle changes do NOT prolong life

Many companies are starting to sound like moms: They're pushing employees to eat their vegetables and go outside and play.... At retailer Replacements Ltd., 250 employees take part in a walking program organized by the company nurse. T-shirt manufacturer American Apparal has 80 loaner bikes, locks and helmets for employees and hosted an employee screening of "Fast Food Nation," a film where the villain is the meat industry.

Insurance company The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is among those using price manipulation in its cafeteria to encourage employees to eat right. It's increasing the prices on fatty foods and using the extra money to fund a subsidy for healthy sandwiches, cut fruit and salads.

Such "Twinkie taxes" are now in place at 7 to 10 percent of corporate cafeterias run by food service company Sodexho, up from almost none three years ago, according to the company.

Mounting healthcare costs are driving the changes. Employee assistance company ComPsych Corp. runs what it calls "trainwreck exercises," in which companies compute how long they can absorb healthcare cost increases before they become unprofitable. The first client that did the exercise realized it only had 18 months. Health insurance premiums for 2006 rose 7.7 percent - twice the rate of inflation.

While some companies are responding to the higher healthcare cost by cutting employees' coverage and shifting more costs to the employees, others are doing everything they can to convince employees to adopt healthier habits in the hopes they will avoid diseases caused or complicated by eating poorly and being overweight or inactive.

After L.L. Bean increased the price for burgers and lowered the price for salads in its cafeteria fruit and salad bar purchases doubled while French fry and burger sales fell by half.

When railroad company Union Pacific Corp. opened a new headquarters in Omaha two years ago it ordered its cafeteria operator to hire a full-time dietitian for the site and cut the fat and calories on every item by 10 percent. The company runs a "Know Your Numbers" program that drills into employees' heads figures such as the 30 minutes of exercise they should be getting a day and the 3,500 calories in a pound. "The biggest thing the guys come back and say they learned the most about is portion size," said Marcy Zauha, the company's director of health and safety. "They didn't understand how much they were eating."

Besides cost cutting, another factor behind the programs is the amount of time employees spend at work. If workers don't have access to fruits and vegetables on the job, they will need to consume between one and two servings every waking hour after work to meet the goal of eating 5 to 9 servings a day, according to the California Department of Human Services. To reach the recommended 10,000 steps a day, sedentary workers would have to spend most of their evenings in motion, the department said.

Even a little daily exercise can boost health, said Dr. Antronette (Toni) Yancey, associate professor at the UCLA School of Public Health. Yancey collaborated with the Ministry of Health in Mexico, where everyone gathers at 11 a.m. each morning for 10 minutes of exercise to music. The result, after a year, was an average .45 pound weight loss - an improvement from the one pound a year, on average, people gain as they age. "Especially as it relates to physical activity, people have demonstrated that they're not going to make a lot of changes on their own," Dr. Yancey said. "If we're going to make a big dent - lower healthcare costs, improve productivity and morale - you have to make it easier to do than not do."

Yancey and others say that work gyms are used primarily by people who would exercise anyway. For everyone else, a little manipulation goes a long way. Her suggestions include incorporating exercise breaks in to the work day, restricting parking close to the building, limiting elevator access to people with disabilities, widening and brightening stairwells and hosting walking meetings. (People seldom refer to the notes they take during seated meetings, she says.)

Price manipulation worked for senior business analyst Kathy Blaszczyk at The Hartford, who started buying a flank steak salad with grilled corn when the price dropped from $6 to $4.70. "I love it, but I never used to get it," she said. "I have in my head a $5 threshold."

Having the company's top leaders embrace the program also helps. Dan T. Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, Inc. restaurants and a runner, has cajoled 265 company employees to run the January Walt Disney World marathon or half-marathon with him. Most of the runners joining him "have never done anything like that distance-wise," Cathy said of his group. "There's a lot of first timers." Cathy said he's motivated by his religious belief [No argument there] that the body is a temple and a more practical thought. "We live in a time when there really is a healthcare crisis," said Cathy. "Every segment of society needs to make a contribution."

Source



BRITAIN: THE OBESITY WAR ENCOURAGES DANGEROUS LAXATIVE ABUSE

Thousands of young women desperate for a "size zero" figure are putting their lives at risk by taking laxatives in the mistaken belief that it speeds up weight loss. Mintel, the consumer goods analyst, has found that the British market for laxatives is now worth œ52 million, up 33 per cent from 2001. The company is is no doubt that desperate slimmers are behind the surge. "On the flipside of over-eating in Britain, we have seen a pre-occupation with undereating and perpetual dieting," said David Bird, senior market analyst at Mintel.

Experts on eating disorders say laxative abuse is now rife, with young people in particular totally unaware of the huge danger it poses to their health. Typically women take "lifestyle laxatives" after bingeing on high-energy, sugar-rich food, hoping that this strategy will prevent the calories from being absorbed. A smaller group of people suffering from bulimia nervosa use laxatives, as well as making themselves sick, to "purge" their systems after a binge.

Steve Bloomfield, a spokesman for the Eating Disorders Association, said that because laxatives are widely available at chemists and supermarkets, young women in particular think they are totally harmless. "Most people binge on sugary foods which are absorbed very quickly, so taking laxatives doesn't actually work if the intention is to lose weight. But they rob the body of vital vitamins and minerals, and, most significantly, potassium, which can result in heart failure."

Research commissioned by the Eating Disorders Association found that one in five women took laxatives to lose weight, with the figures far higher (11 per cent) among female students. The association said that cases it had studied showed a clear pattern of young women who started out just taking one or two laxatives a day but ended up taking dozens as their digestive system adjusted. In extreme cases it ceased to function without the aid of large doses of pills. Mr Bloomfield said that with laxatives cheap and now advertised on prime-time television, girls are learning about them from an earlier age. "A few years ago young people didn't really know about laxatives or where to get them. Now they are in no doubt."

Celia Badley, 42, now an anorexia counsellor, took 20 to 30 laxatives a day in her teens. "When I took them, they made me feel I was losing weight because my tummy was flat, but I didn't lose any weight longer-term. "The side effects were shocking - terrible stomach pain and the inevitable rushing to the loo at inappropriate moments. They were easy to get, even years ago. I would just go from chemist to chemist until I had enough. I now have a very sluggish digestive system and need to eat huge amounts of fibre to avoid constipation. "The key thing to stop people using laxatives is not really to campaign on the dangers, even though they are dangerous. The only thing that would have stopped me taking them at the time was if I had known they did not make me lose weight."

However, the risks of taking large numbers of laxatives are serious. Melissa Booth died of heart failure, aged just 17, as a result of her use of laxatives and diuretics. Speaking to The Times yesterday, Melissa's father Gary recalled how she promised not to take any more laxatives after having undergone hospital treatment for her bulimia. "The Saturday after she came home she begged us not to send her back and promised she wouldn't take them any more," he said. However, she had a heart attack during the night and was found dead the next morning. "She didn't die of bulimia. She died because of a lack of potassium in her system, which triggered a heart attack. "Nothing has changed since then," said Mr Booth. "In fact I think these tablets are even easier to get now."

Source



Again: Cell phones 'don't raise cancer risk'

The attention-seekers will never be satisfied with mere evidence, of course

Using a cell phone does not increase a person's risk of cancer, according to a broad study released today involving more than 400,000 Danish cell phone users. A team of researchers used data on the entire population of Denmark to determine that neither short- nor long-term use of mobile phones was linked to a greater risk of tumours of the brain and nervous system, salivary gland or eyes, leukemia or cancer overall. It is estimated that more than two billion people worldwide use cell phones.

"I think the results of this study are quite reassuring," Joachim Schuz of the Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, the lead researcher, said from Denmark. The study, one of the most comprehensive to date, represented the latest evidence endorsing the safety of mobile phones. The data available to the researchers allowed them to look at a large number of mobile users and assess potential risks many years after they first used them. "The big advantage is a whole nation is included in the study," Mr Schuz said.

The phones emit electromagnetic fields that can penetrate into the brain, and some scientists have sought to determine if this could cause cancer or other health problems. Mr Schuz's team studied data on 420,095 Danish mobile phone users (357,553 men and 62,542 women) who first subscribed for mobile service between 1982 and 1995 and were followed through 2002 - meaning some were tracked for two decades. The researchers then compared their cancer incidence to the rest of Denmark's population. A total of 14,249 cancer cases were seen among the mobile telephone users, a number that was lower than would be expected for that population, according to the study appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

"We were not able to identify any increased risks of any cancers that could be related to the use of the cellular phones," John Boice, a cancer epidemiologist at Vanderbilt University who worked on the research, said. Mr Boice said the type of radiation involved in cell phones was not known to damage cells or DNA. "So there's no biological mechanism that would suggest that even this type of exposure could cause cancer or DNA damage," he said.

The study reinforces the consensus among leading health organisations that mobile phones did not cause harmful health effects, a wireless industry group said. "The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk," said Joseph Farren, spokesman for CTIA, the Washington-based wireless industry group.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



6 December, 2006

IT'S THE SKINNY WOMEN WHO MISCARRY MOST

Women who are underweight are more at risk of suffering a miscarriage than those who are overweight, research suggests. Women whose body mass index was low - below 18.5 - when they conceived were much more likely to have a miscarriage in the first three months of pregnancy. But being overweight appeared to have [no] adverse consequences on a pregnancy.

A study commissioned by the Miscarriage Association suggests that taking vitamin supplements during the first weeks of pregnancy halved the odds of a miscarriage as did eating fresh fruit and vegetables. Even eating chocolate reduced the risk slightly. Other factors that increased the chance of a successful pregnancy included a planned conception and marriage, said the study, which is published online in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology today.

Every year an estimated 250,000 women miscarry, but while there are a number of well-established risk factors, including increased maternal age, high alcohol consumption or fertility problems, the exact cause of most miscarriages is unknown.

Noreen Maconochie and Pat Doyle, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, studied 603 women aged 18 to 55 who had suffered a miscarriage in the first trimester (less than 13 weeks' gestation) and compared their lifestyles with those of more than 6,000 women whose pregnancies progressed beyond 12 weeks. They found that women who had a BMI of less than 18.5 when they conceived were 72 per cent more likely to miscarry in the first trimester. Those with what is considered a normal BMI score of 18.5 to 25, and those above were not found to increase their risk of miscarriage.

Ms Maconochie, the lead author, said yesterday: "Our study confirms the findings of previous studies, which suggest that following a healthy diet, reducing stress and looking after your emotional wellbeing may all play a role in helping women in early pregnancy, or planning a pregnancy, to reduce their risk of miscarriage."

The findings suggested that if a woman was not married or living with a partner, her risk of miscarriage was higher. If she changed partner during pregnancy, her odds increased by 60 per cent. The odds of a miscarriage increased by 60 per cent for women who had a history of abortion and 41 per cent for those who had fertility problems. All types of assisted reproduction were associated with increased odds, but the ratios were highest among pregnancies that resulted from intrauterine insemination or artificial insemination.

The Miscarriage Association said: "These findings are really very interesting and surprising. When it comes to weight most of the anecdotal evidence had previously been around women who were overweight."

Source



Lay Off the Fatties: They're not hurting anybody -- maybe not even themselves

A book review of:

"Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America's Obesity Epidemic", by J. Eric Oliver, New York: Oxford University Press, 228 pages, $20/$15.95 paper

"The Diet Myth: Why America's Obsession With Weight Is Hazardous to Your Health", by Paul Campos, New York: Gotham Books, 299 pages, $15 paper

The government seems to have made tremendous strides in its War on Fat. In 2004 researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said "poor diet and physical inactivity" were killing 400,000 Americans a year, a number that was widely presented as an estimate of "obesity-related deaths." Just one year later, the estimate had been reduced to about 100,000. To cut the death toll by 75 percent in the space of a year, the anti-fat crusaders must be doing something right.

Or something wrong. Ascribing deaths from chronic diseases to specific lifestyle variables is a tricky, highly uncertain business, and the 400,000 figure, which was announced in The Journal of the American Medical Association by a team that included the director of the CDC, was suspect from the start. For one thing, the association between fatness and mortality disappears among Americans 65 and older, the age group that accounts for most deaths. According to the CDC's own data for the years 2001 to 2003, excluding older Americans leaves just 585,000 or so deaths a year, of which more than 180,000 are caused by accidents, suicide, homicide, lung cancer, HIV, influenza, pneumonia, and chronic lower respiratory diseases-none of which the CDC blames on obesity. To believe the 400,000 death toll, you'd have to believe that virtually all the remaining deaths, from causes such as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, cancer, and diabetes, are due to "poor diet and physical inactivity," a phrase public health officials and the press have treated as synonymous with fatness. (More on that later.) That would leave no room for risk factors such as smoking, stress, and heredity.

It did not take long for another set of government-employed statisticians to issue a new, much lower estimate of mortality due to excessive weight, this one also published in JAMA. By their reckoning, obesity-meaning a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, corresponding to a weight of 203 pounds or more for a man of average height (five feet, nine inches)-accounts for 112,000 deaths a year in the U.S. But in this study, people who were merely "overweight," with BMIs between 25 and 30 (meaning a weight between 169 and 202 pounds for an average-height man), did not have higher mortality than people of "normal" or "ideal" weight, which is in fact neither normal (since most Americans exceed it) nor, to judge by this study, ideal in terms of health. In fact, the death rate among chubby (but not obese) people in this study was lower than the death rate among thin (but not underweight) people, to the tune of 86,000 fewer deaths a year. Which makes you wonder exactly what it means to be "overweight" and why we should be worried about it.

University of Chicago political scientist J. Eric Oliver, author of Fat Politics, and University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos, author of The Diet Myth (published in hardcover as The Obesity Myth), both take up this question, and they reach similar conclusions. First and foremost, they argue that, except for certain conditions associated with very high BMIs (starting around 40, which corresponds to a weight of 271 pounds for an average-height man), there is little evidence that extra weight per se causes health problems. To the extent that fatness is correlated with illness, they maintain, it is primarily because fatness is associated with "poor diet and inactivity"-factors that independently raise the risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Fat people are less likely than thin people to exercise regularly, and they are more likely to skimp on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while eating diets high in fat and refined carbohydrates. Oliver and Campos say these habits, which are more common among fat people but shared by many thin people, are the main problem. Campos also emphasizes the health risks of repeatedly losing and regaining weight. Overall, Oliver and Campos, both of whom say they accepted the conventional wisdom about weight at the outset of their research, make a persuasive case for their contrarian stance.

Having shown that the medical case against fatness is much weaker than government officials and anti-obesity activists claim, Oliver and Campos ask why it is pushed so aggressively and accepted so widely. They see motivations ranging from the rational (the vested interests of obesity researchers, public health officials, and the diet and pharmaceutical industries) to the irrational (a deep-seated cultural revulsion at fat people, disproportionately poor symbols of sloth who serve as stand-ins for minority scapegoats). Here, too, Oliver and Campos are pretty persuasive, but from a policy perspective their analyses are ultimately unsatisfying. Assuming they are right that fatness per se is the wrong target, that the real threats to our health are poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles, the question remains: What is the government's proper role in addressing these threats?

While neither Oliver nor Campos seems inclined to favor interventions aimed at getting us to eat better and exercise more, neither do they take a clear, principled stand against them. In particular, they do not directly challenge the slippery "public health" reasoning that treats risky behavior like a contagious disease, providing an open-ended excuse for government meddling in formerly private decisions. The same rationale that makes smoking, drinking, drug use, driving without a seat belt, or biking without a helmet a "public health" issue-the government's purported duty to discourage actions that may lead to disease or injury-applies with equal force to diet, exercise, and every other lifestyle variable that affects morbidity and mortality.

Although neither Oliver nor Campos launches a broad attack on this agenda, they do an effective job of questioning the reality of the "obesity epidemic," beginning with the very definition of overweight and obese. "Fat," says Campos, "is a cultural construct, not a medical fact." In 1985, Oliver notes, a consensus conference convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommended that men and women be considered "overweight" at BMIs of 27.8 and 27.3, respectively. In 1996 an NIH-sponsored review of the literature found that "increased mortality typically was not evident until well beyond a BMI level of 30." Yet two years later, the NIH yielded to a World Health Organization recommendation that "overweight" be defined downward to a BMI of 25, with 30 or more qualifying as "obese." Oliver says "the scientific `evidence' to justify this change"-which made millions of Americans overweight overnight-"was nonexistent," since "there is no uniform point on the BMI scale where all these diseases [linked to weight] become more evident."

Moving beyond correlation to causation, things get even more complicated. Campos and Oliver complain that obesity researchers are so eager to demonstrate a link between fatness and sickness that they routinely make the sort of statistical adjustments that strengthen the association but rarely make the sort that would weaken it. For example, studies generally control for smoking, an independent cause of disease that is more common among thin people, and pre-existing illnesses, which might make thin people look unhealthy because people tend to lose weight when they're sick. But obesity researchers usually do not take into account fitness levels, nutrition, yo-yo dieting, and the side effects of weight loss drugs.

"Nearly all the warnings about obesity are based on little more than loose statistical conjecture," says Oliver, adding that there is no plausible biological explanation for most of the asserted causal links between fatness and disease. "The health risks associated with increasing weight are generally small," says Campos, and "these risks tend to disappear altogether when factors other than weight are taken into account." For example, "a moderately active larger person is likely to be far healthier than someone who is svelte but sedentary." Campos cites research finding that obese people "who engage in at least moderate levels of physical activity have around one half the mortality rate of sedentary people who maintain supposedly ideal weight levels." Lest you think these facts have been noticed only by political scientists and law professors, Campos and Oliver draw heavily on the work of biomedical researchers such as Case Western nutritionist Paul Ernsberger, University of Virginia physiologist Glenn Gaesser (author of the 1996 book Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Your Weight and Your Health), and Steven Blair, the physician/epidemiologist who heads the Dallas-based Cooper Institute.

That's not to say Oliver and Campos don't sometimes overstate their case. "In reality," says Oliver, "we have no clear idea whether any deaths at all can be attributed solely to a person's body weight." Yet elsewhere he says "there are only two medical conditions that have been shown convincingly to be caused by excess body fat: osteoarthritis of weight-bearing joints and uterine cancer that comes from higher estrogen levels in heavier women." Women do sometimes die from uterine cancer, don't they? And Oliver hedges a bit by mentioning that "fat distribution may actually be a better predictor of mortality than body weight." While "fat on someone's hips and thighs seems to have little or no relationship to the risk of death," he writes, "fat in the belly.seems to be problematic."

Oliver also says "about the worst thing that comes from being heavy is that it puts great pressure on people's joints and inhibits their ability to exercise." But if, as Oliver and Campos both suggest, an unreasonable fear of fatness should be blamed for the bad health effects of anorexia, dangerous diet drugs, fluctuating weight, and even smoking ("a common weight loss and weight maintenance strategy," Campos notes), surely obesity can be blamed for deterring the exercise necessary to keep fit. Beyond the fitness issue, at a certain point obesity seriously compromises a person's ability to get around and participate in everyday activities.

Yet none of this contradicts the main scientific point of these two books, which is that the public health establishment, abetted by a credulous and alarmist press, has greatly exaggerated both the strength of the evidence linking fatness to sickness and the level of risk involved. Oliver cites a 2004 New York Times story headlined "Death Rate From Obesity Gains Fast on Smoking," based on the highly implausible 400,000-death estimate that was later repudiated by the CDC. He also mentions a 2003 A.P. article that announced "Obesity at Age 20 Can Cut Life Span by 13 to 20 Years." He notes that "the obesity in question was at a BMI of 45 [305 pounds for an average-height man], which affects less than 1 percent of the population." In a passage that could have been lifted from a critique of U.S. drug policy, Campos says "the basic strategies employed by those who profit from this war are to treat the most extreme cases as typical, to ignore all contrary data, and to recommend `solutions' that actually cause the problem they supposedly address."

Campos and Oliver emphasize that, while people lose weight all the time (over and over again, in fact), keeping it off over the long term is rare. "Despite a century-long search for a `cure' for `overweight,' " says Campos, "we still have no idea how to make fat people thin." That's a bit of an overstatement, since even Campos concedes that a determined, persistent effort to reduce calorie intake and increase calorie expenditure (an approach he derides as "chronic restrained living") can make fat people thin. But it's true that our bodies resist weight loss, an evolutionary defense against famine that in circumstances of abundance tends to make us chubbier than we might like. Each person seems to be genetically predisposed to a certain weight range. Although it's possible to overcome that predisposition, it requires more effort than most Americans are willing to expend, judging from their flabby guts and quivering thighs. Campos and Oliver say, in essence: Don't bother. Not only is there little evidence that weight loss per se (as opposed to the lifestyle changes that accompany it) improves one's health, but it can be harmful, especially if it involves weight cycling, drugs with dangerous side effects, or radical surgery with high complication rates.

Anti-fat activists such as Yale psychologist Kelly Brownell agree with Campos and Oliver that substantial long-term weight loss is nearly impossible, which is why they emphasize social engineering to change the "food environment" (and the exercise environment), thereby preventing people from getting fat to begin with. Someone who believes fatness itself is not much of a health problem might nevertheless support such policies, most of which are aimed at getting people to eat better (as well as less) and exercise more, goals Campos and Oliver consider worthwhile. Yet Oliver, who agrees with Brownell that the ready availability of cheap, tasty food is the main reason for rising BMIs in the U.S. (because it led to an increase in snacking), is refreshingly skeptical about Brownell's proposal for "junk food" taxes, which he correctly sees as fundamentally unworkable. He likewise dismisses other anti-fat nostrums, including advertising restrictions, bans on soda in schools, and beefed-up physical education, saying none is likely to work. "Getting Americans to really change their eating and exercise patterns would require a level of totalitarianism that would make even Kim Jong Il blush," he writes. "The very rationale of a liberal system such as ours is that individuals are best left to decide for themselves which choices to limit, particularly as long as such decisions do not infringe on the safety or well-being of others."

Unfortunately, that "well-being of others" exception is elastic enough to justify "a level of totalitarianism that would make even Kim Jong Il blush." Every would-be regulator of every heretofore private matter argues that it affects the well-being of others. For example, anything that compromises people's health, including poor diet and lack of exercise, has the potential to raise the cost of taxpayer-funded medical care-an argument that is frequently heard in the obesity debate but that Oliver and Campos leave curiously unaddressed. Similarly, Oliver notes that public health specialists in the U.S. "needed new problems to tackle in order to justify their existence" after their triumphs over communicable diseases in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He also criticizes an influential CDC PowerPoint presentation that made obesity look like a plague sweeping the nation. But he does not nail down the crucial distinction between true public health problems like tuberculosis and air pollution, which involve risks imposed on people against their will, and "public health" problems like smoking and overeating, which involve risks people voluntarily assume.

This omission may be due to Oliver's discomfort with the language of choice. Both he and Campos blame the unjustified obsession with weight and the cruel vilification of fat people on capitalism, which, they say, prizes self-discipline and stigmatizes those seen as lacking it. To be fair, Campos more specifically blames a pro-capitalist Protestant asceticism that encourages the pursuit of wealth but frowns on those who enjoy it too much. There's an element of truth to this analysis; a similar ambivalence regarding pleasure helps explain American attitudes toward sex, drugs, and gambling. But it does give you pause when you consider that the obesity obsessives also blame capitalism, for precipitating the current crisis by making food plentiful, inexpensive, appealing, and convenient. New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle, for example, blames America's adiposity on "an overly abundant food supply," "low food prices," "a highly competitive market," and "abundant food choices," while Kelly Brownell claims restaurants exploit consumers when they give them more for less, since "people have biological vulnerabilities that promote overeating when large portions are available, a strong desire for value, and the capacity to be persuaded by advertising."

Although they talk a lot about giving people more "options" (such as the option to eat a salad rather than a cheeseburger, or to walk rather than drive to the grocery store), what the anti-fat crusaders really want to do is limit people's options (by taxing the cheeseburger or redesigning cities to discourage driving). While he rejects their prescriptions as impractical, Oliver seems comfortable with the idea of enhancing freedom by restricting it. "Our increasing affluence and consumerism seem to have trapped us," he writes. "As the obesity epidemic shows, maximizing our choices does not necessarily maximize our freedom or power..The expansion of choices is no longer making our lives any easier; in fact it may be making them harder."

Despite their anti-market instincts, Oliver and Campos do an important public service by dissecting what Campos correctly identifies as another in a long line of "moral panics," revealing the value judgments, aesthetic reactions, prejudices, and emotions beneath the veneer of objective science. But in case you have any illusions that putting the health risks of extra pounds in perspective is all it will take to call off the War on Fat, you might want to have a look at the CDC's list of "Frequently Asked Questions About Calculating Obesity-Related Risk." The CDC explains that "many chronic diseases are affected by obesity," and mortality "is an important indicator of the severity of a public health problem." So does the recent dramatic reduction in the estimate of deaths caused by excessive weight "mean that obesity is less important than CDC once thought?" the FAQ sheet asks. "Not at all," says the CDC.

In short, obesity-related deaths are an important measure of how serious the problem is, but reducing the number by three-quarters does not make the problem any less serious. That's because the purpose of government-generated "public health" statistics is to alarm the public and expand the government. On no account should the numbers be considered reassuring. To the guardians of our health, nothing could be more alarming.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



5 December, 2006

GASP! ORGANIC CHICKEN BAD FOR YOU

Organic chicken is less nutritious, contains more fat and tastes worse than free range or battery-farmed meat, scientists have discovered. Tests on supermarket chicken breasts found organic varieties contained fewer omega-3 fatty acids and lower levels of antioxidants, giving the meat an inferior taste. Some were found to contain twice as much cholesterol.

The study, by food scientists at Strathclyde University, contradicts the common view that the premium paid for organic meat guarantees a healthier and tastier product. Despite costing twice as much, the organic products scored lower in all the nutritional tests in the study, "It is safe to say that you are not getting any nutritional benefit from buying organic chicken," said Alistair Paterson, co-author of the study, which is published in the International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. "You could be better off buying conventional or free-range chicken. There is no guarantee that organic chicken gives you more omega-3, better taste or a lower cholesterol level."

Organic food, which is produced according to standards covering the use of pesticides, additives, animal welfare and sustainability, has become big business with sales in the UK doubling in six years. Last year, the market was worth 1.6 billion pounds, up from 800 million in 2000, according to Datamonitor, the market research firm, and is forecast to be worth 2.7 billion by 2010. However, there are growing concerns that the increasing industrialisation of organic farming to meet demand has led to a dilution of its green credentials and quality.

The Strathclyde team found that organic chicken was lower in antioxidants than conventional or free range chicken and, in blind tastings, scored lowest for succulence. According to Paterson, the differences in taste and nutritional composition are due to the feed the animals are given. Synthetic vitamin supplements are standard in conventional feed but are prohibited under organic farming rules.

The Soil Association, representing organic producers, insisted that organic standards were not being compromised. "This research contradicts the bulk of evidence which shows organic food is higher in omega-3, vitamins and minerals than conventional chicken," said Hugh Raven, director of Soil Association Scotland.

Source



Financial discrimination against fat people

All totally unjustified except in the case of severely overweight people. If fatties are so unhealthy, how come they live longer than slim people?

There is another consequence to packing on extra weight: being fat costs money — tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. Heavy people do not spend more than normal-size people on food, but their life insurance premiums are two to four times as large. They can expect higher medical expenses, and they tend to make less money and accumulate less wealth in their shortened lifetimes. They can have a harder time being hired, and then a harder time winning plum assignments and promotions.

We’re not talking about people who are merely carrying a few extra pounds, or only those who are Jabba the Hutt in their dimensions, either. People carrying 30 to 40 pounds extra can be affected. “Being overweight can be dangerous to your wealth,” said Jay L. Zagorsky, an economist at Ohio State University who has looked at the relationship between various economic and sociological factors and a measure of obesity called the body mass index.

Doctors use the index to determine whether a person is merely overweight or dangerously obese. You divide your weight in pounds by the square of your height in inches, which is then multiplied by 703, to adjust the English-system measurements to the metric system. (You could use kilograms and centimeters, but that would be too easy.) Or use a Web calculator like the one at www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ or www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm. Anything under 25 is considered a normal reading of the index. From 25 to 30 is overweight, and above 30 is obese. People who rate above 40 are considered morbidly obese, meaning they are facing serious and sustained health problems. The index has been criticized for its inability to distinguish between a well-muscled person and a fat one. Nevertheless, it is by this measure that academics estimate that 97 million Americans, about a third of the population, are considered obese. Almost 10 million Americans could be considered morbidly obese.

Academics have struggled to place a price tag on the cost of treating those carrying around too much weight. The obese suffer from heart disease, diabetes, depression, arthritis and joint problems, liver disease and sleep apnea. Complications from obesity, particularly diabetes, which afflicts 21 million Americans, push up the bill: $44,000 for a heart attack, $40,200 for a stroke or $37,000 for end-state kidney disease, estimates Judith A. O’Brien, the director of cost research at the Caro Research Institute, a health costs consulting firm. Amputating just a toe, a not uncommon consequence of untreated diabetes, averages $15,000, she estimates.

Academics have not spent much time calculating what that care costs the overweight individual. Instead, they look at what obesity costs society or insurers. The sum usually arrived at is about $80 billion a year and steadily growing. The government or insurers pay about 85 percent of that. In other words, the fit and the fat pay for it indirectly through taxes or higher health insurance premiums.

This year, two nutritional scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rachel N. Close and Dale A. Schoeller, took a unique twist on the calculations to determine what “supersizing” a fast-food meal costs society. Paying 67 cents to supersize an order — 73 percent more calories for 17 percent more money — adds an average of 36 grams of adipose tissue. The future medical costs for that bargain would be $6.64 for an obese man and $3.46 for an obese woman. “The hidden financial costs associated with weight gain from upsizing a value meal may help convince people it is not a bargain,” Mr. Schoeller said.

Even routine care can put a dent in a family’s finances. Office visits and prescriptions for medicines to manage diabetes, high cholesterol, back pain and depression can reach $7,000 in annual out-of-pocket expenses for someone — admittedly one with nearly every problem associated with obesity — covered by an employer’s health insurance, according to an online health care cost estimator United HealthGroup provides to its customers.

While the health problems ravage savings, an overweight person may have difficulty accumulating a nest egg in the first place. One of the earliest sociological studies of the overweight, in 1966, found that the heaviest students had a harder time getting into top colleges. More recent studies have found that the obese, particularly white women, are paid less. A study by John H. Cawley, an associate professor of human ecology at Cornell University, found that a weight increase of 64 pounds above the average for white women was associated with 9 percent lower wages.

Evidence from decades of discrimination studies has led Mark V. Roehling, an associate professor at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University, to the conclusion that there is “consistent evidence of weight discrimination.” One factor is that some employers do not want to be burdened with higher health insurance costs. Other times it is a matter of appearances or a belief that “people of size,” as Mr. Roehling terms the obese, are lazy, weak-willed or considered too unattractive to interact with customers. He has found that some employers are upfront about it, even in Michigan, which is the only state that outlaws weight discrimination. While conducting research, he said, he was told by a personnel manager, who himself was overweight, that the company would not hire overweight people, even after Mr. Roehling told him that was illegal. The bias is more pronounced toward white women than white men, Mr. Roehling said: “Blacks are more accepting of large people and whites are more accepting of overweight black females.”

Mr. Roehling is convinced that weight bias is stronger than bias stemming from race. You can test that thesis yourself with the Implicit Association Test, at implicit.harvard.edu/implicit. It was created by researchers at Harvard, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington to plumb an individual’s attitude toward race, ethnicity and religion. Take the test for prejudice against overweight people and compare your result against the similar test for race.

More here

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

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



4 December, 2006

ANOTHER WINE STORY

They do come thick and fast

An Australian wine released in Britain has been labelled a new super-wine - with qualities specifically designed to help the heart. Red Heart is produced in South Australia's Riverland district and contains 32 per cent more antioxidants than the average bottle of red, according to studies in Britain. The discovery was made after British distributors Buckingham Vintners sent the wine to a lab to test specifically for antioxidants.

Red Heart is a blend of cabernet sauvignon and petit verdot, has a 14 per cent alcohol content, and is described as "a full-bodied but elegant wine, bursting with succulent blackcurrant and forest fruit flavours". [What the f*** are "forest fruits"?]

While the British label carries the significant claim, Australian laws prevent a similar claim being made on wines sold locally. Antioxidants, long championed by the health industry, are contained in the skin and seeds of the grape. They are credited with sweeping up harmful free-radical chemicals in the bloodstream and body that cause cell damage.

Source



Give cardiac troubles a rest

A nutty British campaign coaxing men to dial 999 if they feel a pain in the chest will make more 'worried well', and possibly delay treatment for the really ill.

Last week the British Heart Foundation (BHF) launched their ‘Doubt Kills’ campaign. Posters show a middle-aged man with a belt of pain around his chest, bearing the warning: ‘a chest pain is your body telling you to call 999’. Radio advertisements feature bereaved spouses, describing how their loved ones put off calling for an ambulance when experiencing chest pain.

The BHF explain in their campaign literature that every second counts when dealing with a heart attack, and that one of the reasons for delays in getting treatment is the time taken to get to hospital. This is true, and the aim of proving that heart attacks are a ‘treatable disease’ is laudable. Research funding from the BHF has contributed to recent leaps in understanding of heart disease and its treatment. Mortality from coronary heart disease (the disease underlying heart attacks) in those under 65 has dropped by over 40 per cent in the last 10 years. From this perspective it makes sense to target an area where results from treatment could be improved. Also of course raising awareness of heart disease keeps up the BHF’s steady stream of donations.



But the use of a middle-aged man in the poster campaign is interesting. Certainly men are more likely to die of heart attacks. However, the BHF cites research that suggests it is elderly people, particularly women, and those with pre-existing heart disease, who are most reluctant to call for help. So, why not have a female chest pain sufferer on the posters? Or why not target information at those with known heart disease, who are much more likely to suffer from a heart attack?

‘Doubt Kills’ should be seen in the context of an increasing number of health campaigns targeted specifically at men, and their attitudes to health. The BHF explicitly point out that ‘British reserve and stoicism is costing lives’. This pathologising of the traditional stiff upper lip is characteristic of such campaigns. I suspect a survey of accident and emergency (A&E) doctors would find the opinion that a little more stoicism among the British public might not go amiss.

In a YouGov poll commissioned by the BHF, 64 per cent of respondents stated they would first call their partner, friend, relative, GP or NHS Direct when experiencing chest pain - with 42 per cent preferring to ‘wait and see’ if their chest pain gets better.  No information is provided about the age of those polled, but the truth is, for many of us, this is a sensible course of action. After all, heartburn is much more common than a heart attack.

The Ambulance Service are nobly supporting the campaign, but it must have occurred to them that a possible result will be more calls from worried young people with indigestion, and consequentially, longer waits for those who are genuinely ill. As with other ‘worried well’ campaigns in recent years, this latest initiative could make the population at large unnecessarily concerned about their health, while overburdening the health system to the extent that it cannot speedily deal with those who are actually suffering ill-health. It may fill A&E with people who mistakenly believe they are having a heart attack, thus reducing the response time to those who really are having a heart attack.

Source



Still not ‘ethical’ after all these years

A report saying our buying habits are increasingly driven by ethical concerns made some fairly unethical contortions to reach that conclusion.

It was widely reported this week that ethical consumerism has gone mainstream, following revelations that spending in Britain on ‘ethical’ products now outstrips retail sales of alcohol and cigarettes. The facts tell a different story. What is really striking is just how irrelevant ethical consumerism remains, despite ever-increasing media hype and the enthusiasm of retailers.

These days, every newspaper and TV show seems to have someone lecturing us about how to live an ethical lifestyle (including spiked‘s very own Ethan Greenhart). Major retailers have leapt on the bandwagon, too. No self-respecting supermarket can be seen without a wide range of organic foods. Marks and Spencer sell ethical clothing lines and fairtrade coffee in their cafés. Even the much-maligned McDonald’s now uses only organic milk and eggs.

So, it did not seem surprising when a report published by the Co-operative Bank and the Future Foundation revealed that ethical consumerism in Britain was worth £29.3billion in 2005, compared to the £28billion we spend on alcohol and cigarettes over-the-counter. This represents a rise in ethical consumerism of 11 per cent from last year. However, the media reporting of these figures left a lot to be desired. The implication is that we’re all rushing out to buy organic and fairtrade food, and that is simply not the case. The figures are actually an almighty conflation of different categories.

First, what on Earth does ‘ethical’ mean? The report (it’s actually a press release with some attached tables) defines ethical goods to include organic food, free-range eggs, fairtrade products, goods from farmers’ markets, sustainable food, vegetarian food, ‘dolphin-friendly’ tuna, energy-efficient appliances, micro-generation, and eco-friendly cleaning products. That’s not all. Also lumped in with the figures are such spuriously ‘ethical’ choices as buying second-hand goods, using public transport, shopping locally and using charity shops. So getting a bus to work is now lumped alongside buying ethical green tea.

A whole set of different motivations are mixed up. It’s true that many people see little distinction between these various categories, often assuming that fairtrade food is organic, or that organic food is fairtrade, and that both will probably be environmentally friendly. In fact, fairtrade is inevitably shipped in from countries far away – after all, that’s where the poor farmers live. The same goes for 70 per cent of Britain’s organic food. Is such long-distance shipping good for the environment? And there’s no reason why a poor farmer would grow organically except out of necessity; that is, he can’t actually afford to buy the fertilisers and pesticides to increase his yields. As has been argued on spiked before, fairtrade products might make consumers in the West feel good when they’re shopping, but they offer few real benefits to the Africa or Asian farmers who produce them (see Shop till global injustice drops, by Nathalie Rothschild).

Not only does one kind of ethical purchase often conflict with another, but the assumption that purchases of organic food or free-range eggs are always motivated by ethical concerns is misplaced. These days, consumers may find that their local supermarket only stocks organic or free-range (particularly in the evenings, when all the cheaper, non-ethical produce has already gone). Many people simply prefer the taste of free-range eggs to those from battery hens.

While ‘buying for re-use’ might practically be better for the environment than buying something new – at least in theory – the second-hand market has always been motivated by money: one owner trying to re-coup money on something he no longer needs, and a new owner trying to get something on the cheap. Even something as green as micro-generation and energy efficiency must be motivated in part by saving money – especially given the huge government handouts available for some of these projects.

More strikingly still, the Co-op and Future Foundation figures include not only spending but boycotts, too. So of the £4.5billion under the category ‘ethical food’, nearly £2billion was food boycotts; well over half the figure for ethical transport related to travel boycotts. So even not purchasing something can be added to an ethical consumerism breakdown…. What does this mean? Presumably, people were asked what they might have spent on a product if they’d been able to obtain an ethical version of it. But there is a huge difference between an opinion poll statement of intent, and the hard economic facts of handing cash over the counter.

The biggest item in this ethical consumerism basket is not a type of good at all. ‘Ethical finance’ accounted for £11.5billion of the figures. This may or may not be motivated by altruism. For example, it includes credit unions, which are usually an attempt by groups of less well-off people to get access to credit without paying punitive rates – in other words, understandable and mutual self-interest. But investments are clearly a very different thing from purchasing goods (it’s also not clear whether this was £11.5billion of new investment or the total amount invested as of 2005).

Going back to the figures, if we add up what was actually spent on ethical goods of all kinds and for all purposes in 2005, the figures are, roughly:

Ethical food: £2.6billion Green home: £3.8billion Ethical transport: £0.6billion Personal products: £1.0billion Local shopping: £2.1billion Total: £10.1billion

Even setting aside the problematic nature of lumping together so many ethical concerns, and purchases that are probably not motivated by ethical concerns at all, the comparison with cigarette and alcohol sales doesn’t hold up.

A proper reading of the Co-op’s press release (which many journalists seemed not to have bothered doing) shows that even the Co-op knows that you cannot simply say that ethical consumerism is exploding: ‘[T]otal ethical spending is spread over a wide range of products and services, and in very few markets has it become the market norm.’ The Co-op wants increasing use of regulation, labelling and subsidy to promote ‘ethical’ products, particularly in relation to climate change. But should the government be doing more at the consumer level when there is so little spontaneous demand for these things?

And can you really change society for the better by changing people’s shopping habits? I was always unconvinced by the self-flattering notion among some Western liberals that their boycotts of South African goods toppled apartheid in South Africa (the role of the black masses in South Africa was somewhat more important than the decisions made by individuals at Waitrose in Hampstead on a Saturday afternoon). I remain unconvinced that shopping styles are an effective way to transform things in the real world outside of the supermarket.

The embracing of this new report seems to be about making the apparently unethical masses feel like they should play ball: ‘Look, loads of people are buying ethical – why aren’t you?’ But the statistical contortions required to compare ethical consumerism with real mainstream spending only distort reality. And that isn’t very ethical, is it?

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



3 December, 2006

ORGANIC FISH? U.S. GOVERNMENT STROKES THE FADDISTS

Faddists vote, after all

Buying a pork chop labeled "organic" is relatively straightforward: it comes from a pig that ate only organic food, roamed outdoors from time to time and was left free of antibiotics. But what makes a fish organic? That is a question troubling the Agriculture Department, which decides such things. The answer could determine whether Americans will be able to add fish to the growing list of organic foods they are buying, and whether fish farmers will be able to tap into that trend and the profits that go with it.

Organic foods, which many people believe to be more healthful (though others scoff), are grown on farms that shun chemicals and synthetic fertilizers and that meet certain government standards for safeguarding the environment and animals. An organic tomato must flourish without conventional pesticides; an organic chicken cannot be fed antibiotics. Food marketers can use terms like "natural" and "free range" with some wiggle room, but only the Agriculture Department can sanction the "organic" label.

To the dismay of some fishermen - including many in the Alaskan salmon industry - this means that wild fish, whose living conditions are not controlled, are not likely to make the grade. And that has led to a lot of bafflement, since wild fish tend to swim in pristine waters and are favored by fish lovers. "If you can't call a wild Alaska salmon true and organic," asked Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, "what can you call organic?" Instead, it appears that only farm-raised salmon may pass muster, as may a good number of other farm-raised fish - much to the delight of fish farmers.

But a proposed guideline at the Agriculture Department for calling certain farmed fish "organic" is controversial on all sides. Environmentalists argue that many farm-raised fish live in cramped nets in conditions that can pollute the water, and that calling them organic is a perversion of the label. Those who catch and sell wild fish say that their products should be called organic and worry that if they are not, fish farmers will gain a huge leg up.

Even among people who favor the designation of farmed fish as organic, there are disputes over which types of fish should be included. Trying to define what makes a fish organic "is a strange concept," said George H. Leonard, science manager for the Seafood Watch Program at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which offers a consumer guide to picking seafood. "I think the more you look at it, particularly for particular kinds of fish, it gets even stranger."

The issue comes down largely to what a fish eats, and whether the fish can be fed an organic diet. There is broad agreement that the organic label is no problem for fish that are primarily vegetarians, like catfish and tilapia, because organic feed is available (though expensive). Fish that are carnivores - salmon, for instance - are a different matter because they eat other fish, which cannot now be labeled organic. The Agriculture Department panel that recommended adding farmed fish to the organic roster was willing to work around the issue, and offered various ways that fish-eating fish could qualify.

Source



A green bill of health?

Natural England's claim that 'contact with nature' can improve mental and physical wellbeing is both silly and sinister.

Natural England – a conservation umbrella group that includes English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service – has launched a health campaign that aims to ‘encourage’ doctors and other health professionals ‘to make more use of the natural environment as part of the total healthcare they give to their patients’ (1).

According to William Bird, a Berkshire GP and Natural England’s health adviser, ‘increasing evidence suggests that both physical and mental health are improved through contact with nature’. A campaign factsheet claims that ‘aggression and domestic violence is [sic] less likely in low-income families with views or access to natural green space’, and ‘crime rates are lower in tower blocks with more natural green space than identical tower blocks with no surrounding vegetation’ (no references provided). Dr Bird is worried that ‘people are having less contact with nature than at any other time in the past’ and insists that ‘this has to change!’.

Natural England’s campaign, which is endorsed by Britain’s deputy chief medical officer and the BBC and supported by a budget of £500million of taxpayers’ money, offers a curious combination of the silly and the sinister. On the one hand, the notion that a breath of fresh air and the sight of a few trees can cure the ills of both the individual and society has the aura of whacky green fundamentalism. On the other hand, Dr Bird’s schoolmasterish tone and his offer of a natural cure for a wide range of social problems clearly appeals to the authoritarian instincts behind New Labour’s public health policies.

While Natural England presents itself as the acme of fashionable environmentalism, its roots lie in the tradition of ‘nature therapy’ that flourished in Germany from the turn of the twentieth century and reached its peak in the Nazi Third Reich. Nature therapy combined hostility towards scientific medicine with enthusiasm for homeopathy and hydrotherapy and was closely linked with movements promoting eugenics and racial superiority. ‘Air, light, a healthy diet and exercise were recognised as the basis of good health.’ (2)

Though in its early days this movement drew support from across the political spectrum, in the 1930s it was incorporated by the Nazis, and the Reich Labour Service (Reicharbeitsdienst) became a means of mass conscription of the unemployed into conservationist – and health-enhancing – rural labour (3). Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal government in the USA followed the German example, with the Civilian Conservation Corps.

By the time that Brigadier Armstrong formed the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) in 1959, the movement had abandoned its coercive and eugenic features and had become a benign voluntary organisation devoted to practical conservation work (though in 1970 it acquired a deeply reactionary patron – the Duke of Edinburgh) (4). In the course of the 1990s, however, when Dr Bird became closely involved, BTCV moved back towards its nature therapy roots, promoting the countryside in terms of its supposed beneficial effects on contemporary health problems. With support from central and local government, and health authorities, BTCV has sponsored a network of ‘Green Gym’ projects, linking exercise to conservation (5).

The nature therapy revival has also attracted major corporate sponsorship. BTCV enjoys the support of Rio Tinto, formerly known as Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the world’s most rapacious – and environment-despoiling – mining corporations, and Barclays Bank PLC (from which a generation of students withdrew their accounts because of its involvement in imperialist exploitation in Africa). It seems that an association with environmentalism and health promotion provides a positive public relations front for capitalist enterprises with dubious reputations.

Natural England’s health campaign emphasises the healing power of nature, in particular in relation to children and those with mental illness. It claims that nature can tackle the obesity epidemic, prevent bullying, reduce ADHD and improve concentration, self-discipline and self-esteem (it is striking that modern nature therapy only deals with fashionable conditions). In common with current public health policies – such as the school meals crusade – Natural England focuses on the sections of society least capable of resisting the advance of intrusive and authoritarian health policies.

Let’s hope that the growing revolt against Jamie’s school dinners soon extends to the ‘back to the country’ fantasies of Natural England.

Source



CROHN'S DISEASE PARTLY GENETIC

Journal abstract below

A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies IL23R as an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Gene

Richard H. Duerr et al

The inflammatory bowel diseases Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are common, chronic disorders that cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and gastrointestinal bleeding. To identify genetic factors that might contribute to these disorders, we performed a genome-wide association study. We found a highly significant association between Crohn's disease and the IL23R gene on chromosome 1p31, which encodes a subunit of the receptor for the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-23. An uncommon coding variant (rs11209026, c.1142G>A, p.Arg381Gln) confers strong protection against Crohn's disease, and additional noncoding IL23R variants are independently associated. Replication studies confirmed IL23R associations in independent cohorts of patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. These results and previous studies on the proinflammatory role of IL-23 prioritize this signaling pathway as a therapeutic target in inflammatory bowel disease.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



2 December, 2006

THE LATEST RED WINE STORY

We read:

"Traditionally-made wines from southwestern France and Sardinia boast the highest concentration of complex compounds, called polyphenols, that are linked to greater longevity, a study published on Thursday in the science journal Nature says. Previous studies have generally established that a glass or two of red wine every day helps combat heart and circulatory disease by dilating blood vessels. But the picture has been confused, because not all red wines have the same kinds of polyphenols or in the same concentrations.

In tests using endothelial cells -- the cells which line the arteries and where polyphenols are believed to have their positive affect -- British scientists identified the most active members of the polyphenol family, which are called procyanidins.

They then tested red wines from the Gers department, in the French Pyrenees, and from Nuoro province on the Italian island of Sardinia, where local men are famous for their longevity. Wines from these two regions had remarkably high levels of procyanidins -- often five to 10 times more than wines that were tested from Australia, South Africa and the United States. The secret to the Sardinian and Gers wines lies partly in the grape seeds and in time-honoured wine growing methods, the paper says. In Gers, a local variety of grape called Tannat, which is rarely grown elsewhere, also yields rich amounts of procyanidins.

"The traditional production methods used in Sardinia and southwestern France ensure that the beneficial compounds, procyanidins are efficiently extracted," said Robert Corder from Queen Mary's William Harvey Research Institute in London, co-author of the paper. "This may explain the strong association between consumption of traditional tannic wines with overall wellbeing, reflected in greater longevity."

Source. And the Journal abstract follows:

Oenology: Red wine procyanidins and vascular health

By R. Corder et al.

Regular, moderate consumption of red wine is linked to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease and to lower overall mortality, but the relative contribution of wine's alcohol and polyphenol components to these effects is unclear. Here we identify procyanidins as the principal vasoactive polyphenols in red wine and show that they are present at higher concentrations in wines from areas of southwestern France and Sardinia, where traditional production methods ensure that these compounds are efficiently extracted during vinification. These regions also happen to be associated with increased longevity in the population.

Despite appearances, the study in fact offers NO data on the relationship between longevity and the wine chemicals. All that it found was that pro-cyanadins suppress production of endothelin-1, a protein that constricts blood vessels. That such chemicals are high in the wine of two mountainous regions noted for long life proves nothing. Why? Several reasons: 1) Mountainous regions all over the world are often found to go with longer lives and in many of them grape wine is not drunk at all. 2); A sample of 2 is ludicrously small and enables NO generalizations; 3). It is a basic axiom of statistics that correlation does not prove causation. You need before-and-after studies for that; 4). For all we know, suppressing production of endothelin-1 may have ill effects as well as good effects. The lifespan in wine-drinking countries is not greater than in many other countries (notably Japan) in which little wine is drunk. The "Mediterranean diet" may produce a different pattern of illness but it seems to have negligible effect on the overall lifespan, as I pointed out here on October 12th.; 5). Note the cynical comment following from the wine-writer for "The Times": "Since the early l990s there has been a stream of worthy medical reports confirming this or that wine-producing country and this or that grape variety as containing higher levels than their competitors of cardiovascular-protecting goodies. One minute research pinpoints New World producers like Chile as delivering healthier reds than any other country, the next the thick-skinned cabernet sauvignon grape is the one that doctors love the most".



DANGEROUS CHEMOTHERAPY

Common drugs used to treat cancer patients may do more harm than good by killing healthy brain cells, a research study shows. The study, which further indicated that chemotherapy can cause long-term brain damage, gives scientists clues to the causes of "chemo brain", a side effect many cancer patients complain of while under treatment, a summary of the research said.

Mark Noble, a specialist in neural stem cell biology at the University of Rochester, New York, led a research team which tested healthy brain cells with normal clinical doses of chemotherapy drugs carmustine, cisplatin and cytosine arabinoside.

The drugs are often used to treat people suffering certain breast cancers, lung cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, brain tumors and some lymphomas.

The study found that the drugs were more toxic to neural cells than to the cancer cells they targeted. The drugs killed 70-100 percent of brain cells, while only 40-80 percent of the cancer cells were killed. Tested on animal neural cells, the cells kept dying for six weeks after the treatment was administered, the study found.

The scientists were not surprised that all-important dividing stem cells were killed by the drugs, but noted the danger that "the loss of dividing cells has onerous consequences as these populations are responsible for replenishing the other cell types in the central nervous system."

The study, published Wednesday in the Journal of Biology, gave scientists some insight into the causes of "chemo brain": complaints by some four out of five chemotherapy patients of neurological side effects such as loss of memory, loss of vision, seizures and sometimes dementia. "This is the first study that puts chemo brain on a sound scientific footing, in terms of neurobiology and cellular biology," Noble said in a statement.

A study released in October by the University of California at Los Angeles medical school showed that chemotherapy can provoke changes in a person's metabolism and blood flow in the brain for at least 10 years after the treatment has ended.

Source



CITIES CAUSE BULIMIA?

A prime example of the old logical axiom that correlation does not prove causation

Young women who grow up in cities or move there from rural areas are five times more likely to suffer from bulimia. A scientific study has revealed a startling correlation between cases of the eating disorder, in which sufferers secretly gorge and purge themselves, and the environment in which they live. Researchers found that whereas cases of anorexia, a closely related disorder, appeared to occur at random, bulimics were more than twice as likely to be in urban environments, increasing to five times in large cities.

The distress of suffering from bulimia, which most commonly affects teenage girls and young women, trapping them in a routine of binge-eating and vomiting, was most famously described by Diana, Princess of Wales. She grew up in the country, at the Spencers' family home of Althorp, Northamptonshire, and moved to London as a teenager. A number of mental disorders, including schizophrenia, psychosis and depression, have previously been shown to be linked with urban life.

To test whether bulimia had a link with city life, a Dutch team, led by Hans Hoek, of Gr”ningen University Department of Psychiatry, looked at ten years' data from family doctors in the Netherlands. They listed every case of anorexia or bulimia diagnosed by 63 GP practices between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. The sample represented about 1 per cent of the population.

Dr Hoek, who was the first to suggest a possible link between bulimia and city life in 1995, and colleagues, led by Gabrielle Van Son, report in the British Journal of Psychiatry that 113 cases of anorexia were recorded, and 110 of bulimia. Almost all were in young women. Anorexia tended to be diagnosed at an earlier age (22, on average) than did bulimia (27).

For anorexia, there was little obvious link with where the women lived. The rate was lowest in big cities. But bulimia showed a completely different pattern. In rural areas, only seven out of every 100,000 women had it diagnosed, rising to 16.7 per 100,000 in urban areas and 25.5 per 100,000 in large cities (those with more than 100,000 people).

The researchers came up with two possible explanations: first, that women who suffer from bulimia tend to migrate to cities. They may well have had the condition beforehand, but it becomes apparent only when they leave home and seek medical advice. This explanation would be supported by bulimia tending to be diagnosed when women are older. But the pattern persisted when age was taken into account.

The second explanation relates to opportunity. It may be easier to be bulimic in cities where food supplies are plentiful, and where anonymity means that unusual behaviour is often undetected.

Bulimia, relatively rare before 1970, showed a sudden sharp rise after 1980. This suggests that either psychiatrists had failed to recognise it before, or that it did not exist. Historical searches have failed to find evidence of bulimia, which does suggest that it is a product of today's cultural environment. If so, it is plausible to suggest that whatever is responsible, it is found more prominently in cities than in rural areas.

The late Princess's decision to describe her battle with bulimia has been credited with a significant decrease in severe cases. A recent study by the Institute of Psychiatry in London showed that reported cases of the illness rose to 60,000 after the Princess's revelation. Since she first spoke of it in 1994, the number has almost halved - a trend attributed to the "Diana effect" that persuaded sufferers to seek treatment.

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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



1 December, 2006

Stupid food bureaucracy spreads to Virginia

The casserole has been canned. Under a tough new Fairfax County policy, residents can no longer donate food prepared in their homes or a church kitchen -- be it a tuna casserole, sandwiches or even a batch of cookies -- unless the kitchen is approved by the county, health officials said yesterday. They said the crackdown on home-cooked meals is aimed at preventing food poisoning among homeless people.

But it is infuriating operators of shelters for the homeless and leaders of a coalition of churches that provides shelter and meals to homeless people during the winter. They said the strict standards for food served in the shelters will make it more difficult to serve healthy, hot meals to homeless people. The enforcement also, they said, makes little sense. "We're very aware that a number of homeless people eat out of dumpsters, and mom's pot roast has got to be healthier than that," said Jim Brigl, chief executive of Fairfax Area Christian Emergency & Transitional Services. "But that doesn't meet the code."

County officials estimate that about 2,000 people are homeless in Fairfax. They are served by a network of shelters that swells to more than three dozen over the winter. FACETS, a Fairfax nonprofit group, coordinates most hypothermia shelters, which are set to open Friday in two dozen churches and other facilities.

The crackdown came after the county Health Department received a complaint about food being served to the homeless population that was bedding down at area houses of worship as part of the wintertime hypothermia program that began last year. Health officials took a closer look at what shelter residents ate and where the food came from. Under state and county code, food served to the public must be prepared in a kitchen that has been inspected and certified by the county Health Department. Those standards are high: a commercial-grade refrigerator, a three-compartment sink to wash, rinse and sanitize dishes and a separate hand-washing sink, among other requirements. Health officials said they weren't aware that food from unapproved kitchens was being served in homeless shelters. "We're dealing with a medically fragile population . . . so they're more susceptible to food-borne illnesses than the general population," said Tom Crow, the county Health Department's director of environmental health. "We're trying to protect those people."

To help the churches prepare, the Health Department is waiving a $60 fee for certification and is holding additional safe food-handling classes for church volunteers. It is also giving churches that do not have approved kitchens a list of other houses of worship with such facilities. "We're not trying to come across as being a heavy-handed government," Crow said.

Nonetheless, ministers from several of the two dozen participating churches said they oppose the crackdown and hope the Health Department backs off. "We see the reason for being certified. They want to ensure people's health and safety," said the Rev. Keary Kincannon of Rising Hope United Methodist Mission Church in the Alexandria portion of Fairfax County, which will open as a hypothermia shelter for four months starting Friday. "On the other hand, how much do you have to be a stickler with that?" Kincannon asked. "What's more important: whether we're open to have somebody get in out of the cold and get a meal? There's kind of a balance there."

The Rev. Judy Fender of Burke United Methodist Church said 50 volunteers had been planning to cook beef stew, pork loin and other nutritious meals in the church kitchen when it hosts the hypothermia shelter Dec. 17 through 23. But she found out this week that, because the kitchen is not Health Department-approved, it will have to prepare its food elsewhere. It will be a logistical nightmare, Fender predicted, and is an insult to members who have cooked meals for years in the church kitchen without any problems. "Why do [they] think that the traditional way of fixing a home-cooked meal is going to poison people off the street?" Fender asked. She said she will appeal to a higher authority to get the Health Department to back off. "I'm probably going to be in prayer that something is going to give on this," Fender said.

The crackdown has also hit year-round shelters. They prepare their food in on-site commercial kitchens, but many also accept donations from people who bring leftover food, home-baked goodies and other products to their doors. "It takes the personal element out," said Pam Michell, executive director of New Hope Housing, which runs three year-round shelters and two wintertime programs. "There's something about being able to bring a batch of brownies or being able to bring a home-cooked casserole to a shelter and feel like you're doing your part to end homelessness," she said. "That warm, fuzzy touch is going to go away."

Source



Folic acid lessens heart disease risk

Maybe, and if so minutely

Taking folic acid can reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke, among the biggest killers in the Western world, new research has found. British scientists have now discovered that raised levels of the amino acid homocysteine in the blood is one of the causes of cardiovascular disease. They say increasing intake of folic acid would be a relatively cheap and simple way of reducing heart disease. Since folic acid helps to lower homocysteine, the scientists believe increasing intake of the vitamin could help reduce the risk of disease.

Previous studies have already suggested that eating plenty of folic acid, a type of vitamin B, could help to prevent strokes and some cancers and could potentially halve the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Folic acid is already recommended to pregnant women as it is known to help prevent spina bifida in babies. The British Department of Health recommends that all women take a daily supplement of 0.4mg of folic acid before they conceive and for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, while the baby's spine is developing. Rich dietary sources of folic acid include fortified breakfast cereals, bread, green leafy vegetables such as brussels sprouts, broccoli, spinach and green beans, as well as oranges, dried beans, peas and lentils.

The study was published yesterday in the British Medical Journal. A team led by David Wald of Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, were attempting to resolve the debate over whether homocysteine causes heart attacks and strokes. They examined previous studies and found that tests involving large numbers of people and people genetically prone to higher homocysteine levels yielded similar results - that lower homocysteine levels had a protective effect. The tests achieved similar results even though they did not share the same sources of possible errors.

And although studies of the effects of lowering homocysteine levels were too small to be conclusive, the results were still consistent with the protective effect of folic acid. The researchers wrote: "The conclusion that homocysteine is a cause of cardiovascular disease explains the observations from all the different types of study, even if the results from one type of study are on their own insufficient to reach that conclusion."

Source



War on Drugs expands to catnip: "Drug warriors scored a virtual victory after the 2006 U.S. elections when they hurriedly extended the War on Drugs to a psychoactive substance previously exempt: nepetalactone, the main psychoactive ingredient in catnip. It is well known that the sniffing of catnip makes some cats 'turn on.' Their eyes open wide, they roll over on the floor, they hug and bite the catnip toy and kick it with the feet, and they friskily run to and fro, similar to human beings who go crazy ingesting psychoactive drugs. While catnip does not have the same effect on human beings, the advocates of banning catnip have pointed out that children who give their cats catnip and then see the cat being 'happy' might get dangerous ideas about getting high." [Is this satire? It's getting harder and harder to tell]

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

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? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

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