According to research, most people gain around one kilo a year in midlife, and the added bulk tends to arrive around holiday time.
Heftier people tend to gain even more -- 2.2 kilos -- and as most anyone knows, weight loss doesn't come easy. Your best approach: keep it off in the first place, and here's how.
1. Don't eat seconds, and keep the serving dish off the table.
According to Dr. Mache Seibel of the Huffington Post, keeping the serving trays in the kitchen can reduce your food intake by up to 29 percent.
2. Sleep
Research has linked sleep-deprived people with increased belly fat, compared to those who slumber for seven hours. But Dr. Seibel says don't overdo it: too much sleep, more than seven hours a night, can increased belly fat as well.
3. Skip the eggnog
While drinking alcohol is part of the merriment for a lot of us, avoid drinking your calories. Opt for red or mulled wine over white wine, beer, or spirits, advise British fitness trainers Shaun Petafi and Dean Connor, in a statement from Rippedtoshreds.co.uk. Red wine is packed with fewer empty calories and higher in flavonoids, polyphenols, and heart-protecting reservatrol. Frozen creamy drinks can have as many as 800 calories, while eggnog with a jigger of rum comes at more than 400 calories a glass.
4. Control your snacking
Avoid racking up extra calories with snacks, but if you must, opt for meat or cheese rather than cakes or biscuits, say Petafi and Connor. Also monitor your appetizers, which can add 1,000 extra calories to your meal, writes Seibel.
5. Go easy on the starches
Starchy foods such as breads, rice, pasta, cakes, potatoes and yams can cause insulin levels to spike, resulting in more fat storage, say Petafi and Connor. Opt for a second slice of turkey, but leave the stuffing alone. Or pile on the non-starchy vegetables, such as cabbage, kale, spinach, leeks, and broccoli.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Prolonged sitting may cause illness
Sitting all day may significantly boost the risk of lifestyle-related disease even if one adds a regular dose of moderate or vigorous exercise, scientists said.
The health benefits of pulse-quickening physical activity are beyond dispute – it helps ward off cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity, among other problems.
But recent scientific findings also suggest that prolonged bouts of immobility while resting on one’s rear end may be independently linked to these same conditions.
"Sedentary time should be defined as muscular inactivity rather than the absence of exercise," concluded a team of Swedish researchers.
"We need to consider that we are dealing with two distinct behaviours and their effects," they reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Led by Elin Ekblom-Bak of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the scientists proposed a new "paradigm of inactivity physiology", and urged fellow researchers to rethink the definition of a sedentary lifestyle.
They point to a recent study of Australian adults showing that each daily one-hour increase in sitting time while watching television upped the rate of metabolic syndrome in women by 26% – regardless of the amount of moderate-to-intensive exercise performed.
Thirty minutes of daily physical exercise decreased the risk by about the same percentage, suggesting that being a couch potato can cancel out the benefits of hitting the treadmill or biking, for example.
Metabolic syndrome is defined as the presence of three or more factors including high blood pressure, abdominal obesity, high cholesterol or insulin resistance.
New research is required to see if there is a causal link between being sedentary and these conditions and, if so, how it works, the researchers said.
One candidate is lipoprotein lipase, or LPL, an enzyme that plays a crucial role in breaking down fat within the body into useable forms.
Recent research has shown that LPL activity was significantly lower in rats with restrained muscle activity – as low as one-tenth of the levels of rats allowed to walk about.
The LPL level during such activity "was not significantly different from that of rats exposed to higher levels of exercise", the scientists reported.
"This stresses the importance of local muscle contraction per se, rather than the intensity of the contraction."
These studies suggest that people should not only exercise frequently, but avoid sitting in one place for too long, they said.
Climbing stairs, taking five-minute breaks from a desk job, and walking when possible to do errands rather than driving were all recommended. – AFP
The health benefits of pulse-quickening physical activity are beyond dispute – it helps ward off cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity, among other problems.
But recent scientific findings also suggest that prolonged bouts of immobility while resting on one’s rear end may be independently linked to these same conditions.
"Sedentary time should be defined as muscular inactivity rather than the absence of exercise," concluded a team of Swedish researchers.
"We need to consider that we are dealing with two distinct behaviours and their effects," they reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Led by Elin Ekblom-Bak of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the scientists proposed a new "paradigm of inactivity physiology", and urged fellow researchers to rethink the definition of a sedentary lifestyle.
They point to a recent study of Australian adults showing that each daily one-hour increase in sitting time while watching television upped the rate of metabolic syndrome in women by 26% – regardless of the amount of moderate-to-intensive exercise performed.
Thirty minutes of daily physical exercise decreased the risk by about the same percentage, suggesting that being a couch potato can cancel out the benefits of hitting the treadmill or biking, for example.
Metabolic syndrome is defined as the presence of three or more factors including high blood pressure, abdominal obesity, high cholesterol or insulin resistance.
New research is required to see if there is a causal link between being sedentary and these conditions and, if so, how it works, the researchers said.
One candidate is lipoprotein lipase, or LPL, an enzyme that plays a crucial role in breaking down fat within the body into useable forms.
Recent research has shown that LPL activity was significantly lower in rats with restrained muscle activity – as low as one-tenth of the levels of rats allowed to walk about.
The LPL level during such activity "was not significantly different from that of rats exposed to higher levels of exercise", the scientists reported.
"This stresses the importance of local muscle contraction per se, rather than the intensity of the contraction."
These studies suggest that people should not only exercise frequently, but avoid sitting in one place for too long, they said.
Climbing stairs, taking five-minute breaks from a desk job, and walking when possible to do errands rather than driving were all recommended. – AFP
Sunday, December 23, 2012
5 Strikes Against Strokes
Here are five ways to help prevent strokes, based on recent studies
1. Eat more citrus fruits.
Women who consumed the most citrus were less likely to have an ischemic (clot-related) stroke than women who consumed the least, according to data from the well-known Nurses’ Health Study,reported in the journal Stroke. The researchers attributed the benefit to compounds in citrus called flavanones, which may reduce inflammation and improve blood vessel function. Other substances in citrus like potassium, may also play a role.
2. Eat more apples and pears, too.
This advice comes from a Dutch study, also in Stroke. People who ate the most white-fleshed produce (at least 170 gm a day, excluding potatoes) had half the risk of stroke over 10 years, compared to those eating the least.Apples and pears are rich in flavonoids. Other white fruits and vegetables, such as onions, mushrooms, and cauliflower, may also be protective.
3. Get enough magnesium.
A Swedish analysis in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that for every 100-milligram daily increase in dietary magnesium, there was a 9 per cent drop in stroke risk. (The recommended daily intake is 320 milligrams for women, 420 for men, which most people fall short of.) other studies have linked dietary magnesium to lower blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular risk. The best sources of magnesium are leafy greens, whole grains, nuts, beans, seeds, and fish.
4. Drink a little (not a lot) of alcohol.
In another study in Stroke that also looked at women from the Nurses’ Health Study, light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink a day) was associated with a lower risk of all strokes. No benefit (and possibly increased stroke risk) was seen at higher amounts.
Alcohol, in moderation, may help prevent blood clots and has a beneficial effect on cholesterol. But as other studies have shown, high amounts can increase blood pressure and have other negative cardiovascular effects.
5 Avoid or at least limit trans fats.
A study of participants in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, in the Annals of Neurology, found that those who consumed the most trans fats (averaging 6 grams a day) were nearly 40 per cent more likely to have an ischemic stroke than those who consumed the least (averaging 2 grams a day). Other fats and dietary cholesterol had no effect on stroke risk. This was true even after the researchers controlled for other dietary, lifestyle, and cardiovascular risk factors. Trans fats have been removed from many (but hardly all) foods in recent years.
BOTTOM LINE: These studies add to the growing evidence that a plant-based diet – with some fish and a little alcohol – is not only good for your heart but for your brain as well.
1. Eat more citrus fruits.
Women who consumed the most citrus were less likely to have an ischemic (clot-related) stroke than women who consumed the least, according to data from the well-known Nurses’ Health Study,reported in the journal Stroke. The researchers attributed the benefit to compounds in citrus called flavanones, which may reduce inflammation and improve blood vessel function. Other substances in citrus like potassium, may also play a role.
2. Eat more apples and pears, too.
This advice comes from a Dutch study, also in Stroke. People who ate the most white-fleshed produce (at least 170 gm a day, excluding potatoes) had half the risk of stroke over 10 years, compared to those eating the least.Apples and pears are rich in flavonoids. Other white fruits and vegetables, such as onions, mushrooms, and cauliflower, may also be protective.
3. Get enough magnesium.
A Swedish analysis in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that for every 100-milligram daily increase in dietary magnesium, there was a 9 per cent drop in stroke risk. (The recommended daily intake is 320 milligrams for women, 420 for men, which most people fall short of.) other studies have linked dietary magnesium to lower blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular risk. The best sources of magnesium are leafy greens, whole grains, nuts, beans, seeds, and fish.
4. Drink a little (not a lot) of alcohol.
In another study in Stroke that also looked at women from the Nurses’ Health Study, light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink a day) was associated with a lower risk of all strokes. No benefit (and possibly increased stroke risk) was seen at higher amounts.
Alcohol, in moderation, may help prevent blood clots and has a beneficial effect on cholesterol. But as other studies have shown, high amounts can increase blood pressure and have other negative cardiovascular effects.
5 Avoid or at least limit trans fats.
A study of participants in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, in the Annals of Neurology, found that those who consumed the most trans fats (averaging 6 grams a day) were nearly 40 per cent more likely to have an ischemic stroke than those who consumed the least (averaging 2 grams a day). Other fats and dietary cholesterol had no effect on stroke risk. This was true even after the researchers controlled for other dietary, lifestyle, and cardiovascular risk factors. Trans fats have been removed from many (but hardly all) foods in recent years.
BOTTOM LINE: These studies add to the growing evidence that a plant-based diet – with some fish and a little alcohol – is not only good for your heart but for your brain as well.
BITTER PILLS & POTIONS. Risks Made In China
Those“traditional Chinese medicines” you’re thinking of trying for what ails you just might contain some nontraditional and potentially dangerous ingredients.
Scientists at Murdoch University in Australia used state-of-the-art DNA sequencing to unscramble the complex mix of organic compounds in samples of herbal teas, flakes and powders seized by customs officials. Among the ingredients identified were plants linked to urinary tract and kidney cancer, along with ephedra, a banned dietary supplement. Some of the 68 different compounds found in 15 herbal medicines are toxic if taken in too large a dose; the packaging failed to list the concentrations of these ingredients.
Scientists also discovered traces of animals restricted because of endangered-species concerns. Other animal compounds proved to be adulterated: A remedy labeled as 100% Saiga antelope actually included goat and sheep DNA. Scientists concluded, “Traditional Chinese medicines have a long cultural history, but today consumers need to be aware of the legal and health-safety issues before adopting them as a treatment option.”
Scientists at Murdoch University in Australia used state-of-the-art DNA sequencing to unscramble the complex mix of organic compounds in samples of herbal teas, flakes and powders seized by customs officials. Among the ingredients identified were plants linked to urinary tract and kidney cancer, along with ephedra, a banned dietary supplement. Some of the 68 different compounds found in 15 herbal medicines are toxic if taken in too large a dose; the packaging failed to list the concentrations of these ingredients.
Scientists also discovered traces of animals restricted because of endangered-species concerns. Other animal compounds proved to be adulterated: A remedy labeled as 100% Saiga antelope actually included goat and sheep DNA. Scientists concluded, “Traditional Chinese medicines have a long cultural history, but today consumers need to be aware of the legal and health-safety issues before adopting them as a treatment option.”
Friday, December 14, 2012
Doubts on Treatment for Urinary Infection
A study of urinary tract infection treatments in men suggests that a longer course of antibiotics may do more harm than good.
Researchers studied antibiotic use in 33,336 veterans with urinary tract infections, of whom 1,772 had recurrences of infections within a month and 4,041 within a year. Of those with recurrences, 35 percent had had antibiotic treatment for a week or less, and the rest for as long as 14 days.
Longer treatment did not lower the risk of recurrence overall, and it raised the risk of recurrence within a year: 10.8 percent of the long-treatment patients had a recurrence within 12 months, compared with 8.4 percent of the short-treatment group, a statistically significant difference.
Moreover, C. difficile infection, a common and often dangerous side effect of broad-spectrum antibiotics, was significantly higher in the long-treatment group.
The study, published Monday in The Archives of Internal Medicine, was retrospective, and it is possible that those men who received longer treatment were sicker to begin with. Still, the association persisted after controlling for various demographic and clinical factors.
The lead author, Dr. Dimitri M. Drekonja, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, said doctors used to guess at the appropriate length of an antibiotic regimen. “We’d pick a football score — 7, 14 — and then ratchet it up,” he said. “There’s a greater appreciation in the last few years that duration matters.”
Author: Nicholas Bakalar - The New York Times
Researchers studied antibiotic use in 33,336 veterans with urinary tract infections, of whom 1,772 had recurrences of infections within a month and 4,041 within a year. Of those with recurrences, 35 percent had had antibiotic treatment for a week or less, and the rest for as long as 14 days.
Longer treatment did not lower the risk of recurrence overall, and it raised the risk of recurrence within a year: 10.8 percent of the long-treatment patients had a recurrence within 12 months, compared with 8.4 percent of the short-treatment group, a statistically significant difference.
Moreover, C. difficile infection, a common and often dangerous side effect of broad-spectrum antibiotics, was significantly higher in the long-treatment group.
The study, published Monday in The Archives of Internal Medicine, was retrospective, and it is possible that those men who received longer treatment were sicker to begin with. Still, the association persisted after controlling for various demographic and clinical factors.
The lead author, Dr. Dimitri M. Drekonja, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, said doctors used to guess at the appropriate length of an antibiotic regimen. “We’d pick a football score — 7, 14 — and then ratchet it up,” he said. “There’s a greater appreciation in the last few years that duration matters.”
Author: Nicholas Bakalar - The New York Times
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Some Herbal Remedies Can Be Useful During Pregnancy. Really?
Concerns about side effects are a primary reason many people turn to alternative medicine over pharmaceutical approaches. Pregnant women, it turns out, are no different. Studies show that up to half of women use herbal remedies during pregnancy, and many report it is partly because they hesitate to use medications.
But herbal alternatives can have side effects of their own, and some may not live up to the claims about them. Recently, researchers set out to find the remedies that have proven benefits, and those whose claims were unsupported. In their report, published in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, they identified more than 500 studies of herbal remedies used during pregnancy. Many studies had design flaws and other problems and, ultimately, only 14 randomized, controlled trials were deemed suitable to include in the report.
The researchers found that ginger was the most thoroughly studied remedy, and the one found most consistently effective. It relieved morning sickness better than a placebo, and was as good as Dramamine at doing so.
But the evidence for other popular herbal options was lacking. Cranberry, often used against urinary tract infections, a common occurrence in pregnancy, was found ineffective. There was no evidence that garlic helps with preeclampsia, or that raspberry leaf shortened labor. And while castor oil appears to be free of side effects, it has no ability to induce labor.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Though herbal remedies are commonly used during pregnancy, most, with the exception of ginger, have not been shown to work.
Author:
Anahad O’Connor tackles health myths.
But herbal alternatives can have side effects of their own, and some may not live up to the claims about them. Recently, researchers set out to find the remedies that have proven benefits, and those whose claims were unsupported. In their report, published in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, they identified more than 500 studies of herbal remedies used during pregnancy. Many studies had design flaws and other problems and, ultimately, only 14 randomized, controlled trials were deemed suitable to include in the report.
The researchers found that ginger was the most thoroughly studied remedy, and the one found most consistently effective. It relieved morning sickness better than a placebo, and was as good as Dramamine at doing so.
But the evidence for other popular herbal options was lacking. Cranberry, often used against urinary tract infections, a common occurrence in pregnancy, was found ineffective. There was no evidence that garlic helps with preeclampsia, or that raspberry leaf shortened labor. And while castor oil appears to be free of side effects, it has no ability to induce labor.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Though herbal remedies are commonly used during pregnancy, most, with the exception of ginger, have not been shown to work.
Author:
Anahad O’Connor tackles health myths.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Forget the diets, just cut down on the fat
Forget fad diets pushing cabbage soup, weight-loss shakes or maple syrup. Swapping fatty foods for low-fat alternatives will keep you slim - and now there's World Health Organisation-backed research to prove it.
A review of 33 trials involving 73,589 men, women and children in America, Europe and New Zealand found that choosing low fat foods helped people lose around 3.5 pounds, slim their waist-lines and cut bad cholesterol - all without dieting.
If you're looking at losing a few inches around the waist, how about cutting down on the fatty stuff like cakes?
Researchers who led the study said its results prove for the first time that people can lose weight without trying to.
"The weight reduction... when people ate less fat was remarkably consistent - we saw it in almost every trial. Those who cut down more on fat lost more weight," said Lee Hooper from the University of East Anglia medical school, who led the work.
"The effect isn't dramatic, like going on a diet," she said, adding that the research specifically looked at people who were cutting down on fat, but didn't aim to lose weight - so were continuing to consume a normal amount of food.
"What surprised us was that they did lose weight, their BMI (body mass index) decreased and their waists became slimmer," Hooper said. The lower fat eaters also kept their weight down over at least seven years.
The review - commissioned by the WHO's Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) after a request to update their guidelines on fat intake - will now form a crucial part of global recommendations, the researchers said.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of many illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. Together, strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases are the biggest killers worldwide and claim more than 17 million lives a year, according to the WHO.
More than half of Europeans are obese or overweight, and in America more than 35 percent of adults and almost 17 percent of children qualify as obese.
People are defined as overweight if their body mass index or BMI - a ratio of weight to height - is more than 25 kg per metre squared (kg/m2) and obese if it is more than 30 kg/m2.
Among the 73,500 people taking part in the studies analysed by Hooper's team, there were varying ages and states of health. The researchers compared those eating less fat than usual and those eating their usual amount of fat, and measured the effect on weight and waistline after at least six months.
The results, published in the British Medical Journal, showed that eating less fat reduces body weight by 1.6 kg, cuts BMI by 0.56 kg/m² and reduces waist circumference by 0.5 cm.
Hooper's team found that reductions in total fat intake were also linked with small but statistically significant reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure, suggesting a lower fat diet could have a beneficial effect on this heart risk factors.
Carolyn Summerbell of Durham University, who co-led the research, said the trick to slimming down and staying that way was to find a way to eat what you can stick to for life.
"Cutting down on fat will help," she said, adding that this meant opting for low-fat yoghurts, skimmed milk and reducing intake of butter, cheese and fatty snacks like crisps and cakes.
- Reuters
A review of 33 trials involving 73,589 men, women and children in America, Europe and New Zealand found that choosing low fat foods helped people lose around 3.5 pounds, slim their waist-lines and cut bad cholesterol - all without dieting.
If you're looking at losing a few inches around the waist, how about cutting down on the fatty stuff like cakes?
Researchers who led the study said its results prove for the first time that people can lose weight without trying to.
"The weight reduction... when people ate less fat was remarkably consistent - we saw it in almost every trial. Those who cut down more on fat lost more weight," said Lee Hooper from the University of East Anglia medical school, who led the work.
"The effect isn't dramatic, like going on a diet," she said, adding that the research specifically looked at people who were cutting down on fat, but didn't aim to lose weight - so were continuing to consume a normal amount of food.
"What surprised us was that they did lose weight, their BMI (body mass index) decreased and their waists became slimmer," Hooper said. The lower fat eaters also kept their weight down over at least seven years.
The review - commissioned by the WHO's Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) after a request to update their guidelines on fat intake - will now form a crucial part of global recommendations, the researchers said.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of many illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. Together, strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases are the biggest killers worldwide and claim more than 17 million lives a year, according to the WHO.
More than half of Europeans are obese or overweight, and in America more than 35 percent of adults and almost 17 percent of children qualify as obese.
People are defined as overweight if their body mass index or BMI - a ratio of weight to height - is more than 25 kg per metre squared (kg/m2) and obese if it is more than 30 kg/m2.
Among the 73,500 people taking part in the studies analysed by Hooper's team, there were varying ages and states of health. The researchers compared those eating less fat than usual and those eating their usual amount of fat, and measured the effect on weight and waistline after at least six months.
The results, published in the British Medical Journal, showed that eating less fat reduces body weight by 1.6 kg, cuts BMI by 0.56 kg/m² and reduces waist circumference by 0.5 cm.
Hooper's team found that reductions in total fat intake were also linked with small but statistically significant reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure, suggesting a lower fat diet could have a beneficial effect on this heart risk factors.
Carolyn Summerbell of Durham University, who co-led the research, said the trick to slimming down and staying that way was to find a way to eat what you can stick to for life.
"Cutting down on fat will help," she said, adding that this meant opting for low-fat yoghurts, skimmed milk and reducing intake of butter, cheese and fatty snacks like crisps and cakes.
- Reuters
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Dispelling Caesarian birth misconceptions
CHILDREN born by Cesarean section are no more likely to become obese than if they are born naturally, according to a Brazilian study.
Past research from Brazil had found a link between excessive weight and C-sections, leading some scientists to suggest that not being exposed to bacteria from the birth canal could make children fatter.
However, the latest findings – published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition – suggest this does not appear to be the case.
The research is of particular interest in Brazil, because in 2009, more than half of the babies there were born by C-section.
In the United States, the number has been on the rise for years and is now over 30%.
“We thought from the beginning that probably what happened with the previous study is that they didn’t adjust for all of the confounders,” said Fernando Barros of the Catholic University of Pelotas.
Barros, who worked on the study, was referring to factors such as the mother’s height and weight.
He and his colleagues used data on three groups of several thousand people born in Southern Brazil in 1982, 1993 or 2004.
Researchers contacted the children at different ages until the oldest had turned 23.
Those born by C-section were more likely to be heavy, with obesity rates between nine and 16%, compared to rates of seven to 10% of children born naturally.
However, that difference vanished once the researchers accounted for factors such as family income, birth weight, schooling and the mother’s weight, height, age and smoking habits.
“When you factor in all of these other factors, the relationship between obesity and Cesarean sections disappears,” said Barros.
The earlier Brazilian study left out many of those factors, including maternal height and weight, Barros’ team wrote in its report.
“The really simple explanation would be that obese women require more Cesarean sections than lean women ... and it’s really not the C-section itself,” said David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Children’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
He said that things such as a pregnant woman’s diet and smoking habits, and whether or not she has diabetes, might influence a developing foetus.
Some believe that C-section babies are different because they are not exposed to bacteria in the birth canal like babies born naturally.
The theory is part of a hypothesis which suggests that a person’s immune system develops differently when they are not exposed to beneficial bacteria early in life.
“We’re not saying this hypothesis isn’t interesting. It is. We’re just saying, right now, without data, we cannot confirm the finding,” Barros said.
– Reuters
Past research from Brazil had found a link between excessive weight and C-sections, leading some scientists to suggest that not being exposed to bacteria from the birth canal could make children fatter.
However, the latest findings – published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition – suggest this does not appear to be the case.
The research is of particular interest in Brazil, because in 2009, more than half of the babies there were born by C-section.
In the United States, the number has been on the rise for years and is now over 30%.
“We thought from the beginning that probably what happened with the previous study is that they didn’t adjust for all of the confounders,” said Fernando Barros of the Catholic University of Pelotas.
Barros, who worked on the study, was referring to factors such as the mother’s height and weight.
He and his colleagues used data on three groups of several thousand people born in Southern Brazil in 1982, 1993 or 2004.
Researchers contacted the children at different ages until the oldest had turned 23.
Those born by C-section were more likely to be heavy, with obesity rates between nine and 16%, compared to rates of seven to 10% of children born naturally.
However, that difference vanished once the researchers accounted for factors such as family income, birth weight, schooling and the mother’s weight, height, age and smoking habits.
“When you factor in all of these other factors, the relationship between obesity and Cesarean sections disappears,” said Barros.
The earlier Brazilian study left out many of those factors, including maternal height and weight, Barros’ team wrote in its report.
“The really simple explanation would be that obese women require more Cesarean sections than lean women ... and it’s really not the C-section itself,” said David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Children’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
He said that things such as a pregnant woman’s diet and smoking habits, and whether or not she has diabetes, might influence a developing foetus.
Some believe that C-section babies are different because they are not exposed to bacteria in the birth canal like babies born naturally.
The theory is part of a hypothesis which suggests that a person’s immune system develops differently when they are not exposed to beneficial bacteria early in life.
“We’re not saying this hypothesis isn’t interesting. It is. We’re just saying, right now, without data, we cannot confirm the finding,” Barros said.
– Reuters
Sunday, December 9, 2012
3 Reasons Why Men Should Wear Compression Stockings
Compression stockings are worn over the legs. They provide
pressure and support that helps to maintain good circulation and reduce
swelling. The socks also provide support for the muscles and tendons in
the joints. Men often become aware of these garments because of an
injury or medical problem. The reality is that there are many situations
where men benefit from wearing compression stockings on a daily basis.
People who have certain pre-existing medical conditions should consult a
doctor before using the socks on a long-term basis to ensure that they
don't interfere with other treatments or medications.
Regular Inactivity
A very common reason that men should consider wearing compression stockings is inactivity. Inactivity is several hours every day when the legs and feet are in a static position because of a job or travel. The inactivity causes the blood in the body to start to settle in the veins of the legs. This prevents the blood from traveling back to the heart to be resupplied with oxygen that is needed by the organs and tissue in the body. Months or years of daily inactivity could result in problems like varicose veins, painful swelling and other issues. Compression stockings help to prevent inactivity from having serious side effects by forcing the blood out of the legs and back into normal circulation.
Circulatory Conditions
Men who have certain types of conditions such as diabetes can find relief during the day by wearing compression stockings. Any condition that results in edema of the legs or other types of inflammation will respond to the increase in pressure. Fluids that are collecting in the veins or tissue in the leg will be forced upwards because of the garments. This reduces the actual swelling, improves circulation and allows the body to function normally. The compression stockings also keep the legs free from swelling when used every day. The garments should be only one part of a larger treatment plan for chronic conditions.
Intense Exercise
Men who are performing intense exercise or playing very demanding sports can benefit from compression stockings. Just as the garments improve circulation during periods of inactivity, they also improve blood flow during physical activities. The increased circulation keeps the muscles oxygenated and removes waste substances that could cause cramping or pain. This is useful for men who are biking or running for many hours at a time. Compression stockings are also useful during recovery. They help to reduce swelling and inflammation that occur in the muscles once the activity has stopped. The pressure reduces pain and allows the area to recover faster.
Regular Inactivity
A very common reason that men should consider wearing compression stockings is inactivity. Inactivity is several hours every day when the legs and feet are in a static position because of a job or travel. The inactivity causes the blood in the body to start to settle in the veins of the legs. This prevents the blood from traveling back to the heart to be resupplied with oxygen that is needed by the organs and tissue in the body. Months or years of daily inactivity could result in problems like varicose veins, painful swelling and other issues. Compression stockings help to prevent inactivity from having serious side effects by forcing the blood out of the legs and back into normal circulation.
Circulatory Conditions
Men who have certain types of conditions such as diabetes can find relief during the day by wearing compression stockings. Any condition that results in edema of the legs or other types of inflammation will respond to the increase in pressure. Fluids that are collecting in the veins or tissue in the leg will be forced upwards because of the garments. This reduces the actual swelling, improves circulation and allows the body to function normally. The compression stockings also keep the legs free from swelling when used every day. The garments should be only one part of a larger treatment plan for chronic conditions.
Intense Exercise
Men who are performing intense exercise or playing very demanding sports can benefit from compression stockings. Just as the garments improve circulation during periods of inactivity, they also improve blood flow during physical activities. The increased circulation keeps the muscles oxygenated and removes waste substances that could cause cramping or pain. This is useful for men who are biking or running for many hours at a time. Compression stockings are also useful during recovery. They help to reduce swelling and inflammation that occur in the muscles once the activity has stopped. The pressure reduces pain and allows the area to recover faster.
Author writes about a variety of topics. If you would like to learn more about compression stockings from Brightlife Direct, please visit http://www.brightlifedirect.com/.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Heart attack with no chest pain more likely in women
Women, especially younger women, are more likely than men to show up at the hospital with no chest pain or discomfort after having a heart attack -- and they are also more likely to die than men of the same age, according to a US study.
That lack of symptoms can result in delayed medical care and differences in treatment, said researchers, whose findings appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"They might not even know they're having a heart attack," said John Canto, from the Watson Clinic in Lakeland, Florida, who worked on the report.
He noted that while the results are based on a study of more than a million heart attack patients, they are still preliminary. But, he added, they do challenge the notion that chest pain and discomfort should be considered "the hallmark symptom" for all heart attack patients.
"If our results are in fact true, I would argue that rather than the one-size-fits-all symptom message, we also have to tailor that message to say that women less than 55 are also at higher risk for atypical presentation," Canto told Reuters Health.
Such "atypical presentation" can include symptoms such as unexplained shortness of breath, or pain in areas including the jaw, neck, arms, back and stomach.
Canto and his colleagues analyzed medical records in a national database of heart attack patients from 1994 to 2006, including about 1.1 million people treated at close to 2,000 hospitals.
They found that 31 percent of male patients, and 42 percent of female patients, didn't have any chest pain or discomfort.
The likelihood of this sort of "atypical presentation" differed most between younger women and younger men, the researchers said.
Women also tend to be older than men when they have a first heart attack. In this study, the average age difference was seven years.
Women under 45 were 30 percent more likely than men in their age group to present without chest pain.
That dropped to 25 percent between the ages of 45 and 65, and all but disappeared after the age of 75.
A similar pattern, with smaller differences between the sexes, was seen in the likelihood of death.
Almost 15 percent of women died in the hospital after their heart attack, compared to about 10 percent of men.
Younger women with no chest pain were almost 20 percent more likely to die than male counterparts. But after age 65, the women's risk fell below that of men.
At least part of that difference could be due to lack of action by patients and doctors when symptoms are unusual, said Patrick O'Malley, an internist at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
"We tend not to think of heart disease in younger women if they're not having chest pain... and therefore we're not going to be as aggressive.
It does delay treatment," he said.
"Because it's not chest pain, they'll be coming later," added O'Malley, who did not take part in the study.
Canto said women, especially those who may be pre-disposed to heart attacks because they have diabetes, a family history of heart disease, or are smokers, should know that a lack of chest pain doesn't rule out the possibility of a heart attack -- which researchers said was actually true for both sexes.
– Reuters
That lack of symptoms can result in delayed medical care and differences in treatment, said researchers, whose findings appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"They might not even know they're having a heart attack," said John Canto, from the Watson Clinic in Lakeland, Florida, who worked on the report.
He noted that while the results are based on a study of more than a million heart attack patients, they are still preliminary. But, he added, they do challenge the notion that chest pain and discomfort should be considered "the hallmark symptom" for all heart attack patients.
"If our results are in fact true, I would argue that rather than the one-size-fits-all symptom message, we also have to tailor that message to say that women less than 55 are also at higher risk for atypical presentation," Canto told Reuters Health.
Such "atypical presentation" can include symptoms such as unexplained shortness of breath, or pain in areas including the jaw, neck, arms, back and stomach.
Canto and his colleagues analyzed medical records in a national database of heart attack patients from 1994 to 2006, including about 1.1 million people treated at close to 2,000 hospitals.
They found that 31 percent of male patients, and 42 percent of female patients, didn't have any chest pain or discomfort.
The likelihood of this sort of "atypical presentation" differed most between younger women and younger men, the researchers said.
Women also tend to be older than men when they have a first heart attack. In this study, the average age difference was seven years.
Women under 45 were 30 percent more likely than men in their age group to present without chest pain.
That dropped to 25 percent between the ages of 45 and 65, and all but disappeared after the age of 75.
A similar pattern, with smaller differences between the sexes, was seen in the likelihood of death.
Almost 15 percent of women died in the hospital after their heart attack, compared to about 10 percent of men.
Younger women with no chest pain were almost 20 percent more likely to die than male counterparts. But after age 65, the women's risk fell below that of men.
At least part of that difference could be due to lack of action by patients and doctors when symptoms are unusual, said Patrick O'Malley, an internist at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
"We tend not to think of heart disease in younger women if they're not having chest pain... and therefore we're not going to be as aggressive.
It does delay treatment," he said.
"Because it's not chest pain, they'll be coming later," added O'Malley, who did not take part in the study.
Canto said women, especially those who may be pre-disposed to heart attacks because they have diabetes, a family history of heart disease, or are smokers, should know that a lack of chest pain doesn't rule out the possibility of a heart attack -- which researchers said was actually true for both sexes.
– Reuters
Scientific Study Links Anti-depressants In Drinking Water To Autism
A new scientific study has uncovered evidence suggesting a link between low levels of anti-depressants and other psychoactive drugs in drinking water supplies and the triggering of Autism.
The New Scientist reports that the study, undertaken by professor of evolutionary biology Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello, found that just traces of selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as prozac, a common anti-depressant medication, had significant effects on the neurological activity of fish.
Thomas exposed fathead minnows to the drugs for a period of just under three weeks in doses comparable with the highest estimated environmental levels, and found that the exact same genes turned on in people with autism were also triggered in the fish after exposure.
“While others have envisioned a causal role for psychotropic drugs in idiopathic autism, we were astonished to find evidence that this might occur at very low dosages, such as those found in aquatic systems.” Thomas said.
Thomas notes that his findings could indicate that residues of psychiatric medications found in the drinking supply may be a cause of autism in humans.
The study notes that its findings dovetail with previous research indicating that pregnant women who take SSRIs are more likely to have autistic children. It also adds weight to research that has previously found a link between Psychiatric drugs and autism-like symptoms in rats exposed to the medicines.
The study has been published in the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
Thomas says that before any conclusions can be drawn further tests need to be carried out on mammals. His team of researchers plans to spike the drinking water of pregnant mice with the same pharmaceuticals to observe the effects.
They also intend to study drinking water supplies across the nation with the highest concentrations of the drugs, in order to determine whether fish and people in the areas are exhibiting autism-like gene expression patterns.
“An environmental cause is really not on the radar for a lot of people,” Thomas told reporters. “My sincere hope is that this opens the door to a new question and allows people to look into that possibility.”
As Thomas notes in his study, anti-depressants can easily work their way into the drinking water supplies because up to 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down. Filtration of waste water supplies does not adequately remove the substances. “They just fly right through,” Thomas notes.
Of course, a huge number of Americans are already being mass medicated against their will through the water supply by the artificial addition of sodium fluoride, from which one of a myriad of debilitating health effects includes lowered IQ and increased docility. Indeed, as Joseph Borkin documented in his book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, the first occurrence of artificially fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Nazis explained that the reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize women and coerce the victims of their concentration camps into calm submission.
In addition, health authorities are actively pushing for drugs that have been found to deepen depression and cause memory loss to be added to public water supplies, in a chilling throwback to how the population in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were mass medicated with Soma to keep them docile and easy to control.
Studies have shown that the dangers of statins have been deliberately underplayed by drug companies.
Statins are taken by tens of millions of people worldwide, a boon for drug companies like Merck, whose chief executive Henry Gadsden back in 1975 dreamed of being able to sell a drug to people who had no immediately identifiable illness, or as Mike Adams writes, “They needed a way to sell drugs to healthy people.” Statins were born and the financial windfall for Big Pharma quickly followed.
Drug companies claim that statins have been proven to lower cholesterol and help prevent heart disease and strokes, leading many health experts to insist that they be artificially added to public water supplies, but dangerous side-effects buried by drug companies conducting statin trials have now come to light, in addition to the fact that “for three quarters of those taking them, they offer little or no value.”
A study published in the Cochrane Library, which reviews drug trials, examined data from 14 drugs trials involving 34,000 patients and found evidence of “short-term memory loss, depression and mood swings,” that had been deliberately underplayed by the drug companies funding the research.
The researchers warn that, “Statins should only be prescribed to those with heart disease, or who have suffered the condition in the past. Researchers warn that unless a patient is at high risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke, statins may cause more harm than good.”
However, despite the fact that statins have also been linked to a greater risk of liver dysfunction, acute kidney failure, cataracts and muscle damage, health authorities have been pushing for the drug to be added to public water supplies as part of a mass medication program that is not only illegal without consent, but also threatens a plethora of unknown consequences.
George Lundberg, MD, the editor of MedPageToday, which is a mouthpiece for the American Medical Association, recently wrote an op-ed entitled, Should We Put Statins in the Water Supply?
In May 2008, renowned cardiologist Professor Mahendra Varma called for statins to be artificially added to drinking water.
Putting statins in the water supply was also considered during a November 2008 discussionwhich featured Robert Bonow, M.D., of Northwestern University in Chicago, Gordon F. Tomaselli, M.D., of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and Anthony De Maria, M.D., of the University of California at San Diego.
Also in November 2008, CNBC aired a segment lauding the effectiveness of statins, after which one of the hosts remarked, “Why don’t they just put statins in the water supply,” to which CNBC’s medical expert replied, “A lot of people have said that and they are in the water in fact.”
In December 2009, we reported on how Japanese health authorities were considering adding trace amounts of lithium to public water supplies as a “mood stabilizer” in a bid to lower the suicide rate. Fox News medical expert Dr. Archelle Georgiou gave the concept tacit approval when she labeled the study an “interesting concept” and refused to even mention the moral aspects of mass drugging people against their will.
In his 1977 book Ecoscience, current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocated adding sterilant drugs to the water supply as part of a program of “involuntary fertility control”.
Of course, the water supply is just one of a myriad of factors to consider when studying disorders such as autism. As we have previously noted, cases of autism have exploded with the increase of childhood vaccinations.
Cases of autism in the U.S. have now increased by over 2700 per cent since 1991, which is when vaccines for children doubled, and the number of immunizations is only increasing. Just one in 2,500 children were diagnosed with autism before 1991, whereas one in 91 children now have the disease, up from one in 150 in 2003.
Multiple studies have found a direct link between the use of the mercury based preservative thimerosal and a dramatic rise in cases of autism. however, such findings have been consistently dismissed by the CDC.
Author:
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
The New Scientist reports that the study, undertaken by professor of evolutionary biology Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello, found that just traces of selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as prozac, a common anti-depressant medication, had significant effects on the neurological activity of fish.
Thomas exposed fathead minnows to the drugs for a period of just under three weeks in doses comparable with the highest estimated environmental levels, and found that the exact same genes turned on in people with autism were also triggered in the fish after exposure.
“While others have envisioned a causal role for psychotropic drugs in idiopathic autism, we were astonished to find evidence that this might occur at very low dosages, such as those found in aquatic systems.” Thomas said.
Thomas notes that his findings could indicate that residues of psychiatric medications found in the drinking supply may be a cause of autism in humans.
The study notes that its findings dovetail with previous research indicating that pregnant women who take SSRIs are more likely to have autistic children. It also adds weight to research that has previously found a link between Psychiatric drugs and autism-like symptoms in rats exposed to the medicines.
The study has been published in the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
Thomas says that before any conclusions can be drawn further tests need to be carried out on mammals. His team of researchers plans to spike the drinking water of pregnant mice with the same pharmaceuticals to observe the effects.
They also intend to study drinking water supplies across the nation with the highest concentrations of the drugs, in order to determine whether fish and people in the areas are exhibiting autism-like gene expression patterns.
“An environmental cause is really not on the radar for a lot of people,” Thomas told reporters. “My sincere hope is that this opens the door to a new question and allows people to look into that possibility.”
As Thomas notes in his study, anti-depressants can easily work their way into the drinking water supplies because up to 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down. Filtration of waste water supplies does not adequately remove the substances. “They just fly right through,” Thomas notes.
Of course, a huge number of Americans are already being mass medicated against their will through the water supply by the artificial addition of sodium fluoride, from which one of a myriad of debilitating health effects includes lowered IQ and increased docility. Indeed, as Joseph Borkin documented in his book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, the first occurrence of artificially fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Nazis explained that the reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize women and coerce the victims of their concentration camps into calm submission.
In addition, health authorities are actively pushing for drugs that have been found to deepen depression and cause memory loss to be added to public water supplies, in a chilling throwback to how the population in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were mass medicated with Soma to keep them docile and easy to control.
Studies have shown that the dangers of statins have been deliberately underplayed by drug companies.
Statins are taken by tens of millions of people worldwide, a boon for drug companies like Merck, whose chief executive Henry Gadsden back in 1975 dreamed of being able to sell a drug to people who had no immediately identifiable illness, or as Mike Adams writes, “They needed a way to sell drugs to healthy people.” Statins were born and the financial windfall for Big Pharma quickly followed.
Drug companies claim that statins have been proven to lower cholesterol and help prevent heart disease and strokes, leading many health experts to insist that they be artificially added to public water supplies, but dangerous side-effects buried by drug companies conducting statin trials have now come to light, in addition to the fact that “for three quarters of those taking them, they offer little or no value.”
A study published in the Cochrane Library, which reviews drug trials, examined data from 14 drugs trials involving 34,000 patients and found evidence of “short-term memory loss, depression and mood swings,” that had been deliberately underplayed by the drug companies funding the research.
The researchers warn that, “Statins should only be prescribed to those with heart disease, or who have suffered the condition in the past. Researchers warn that unless a patient is at high risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke, statins may cause more harm than good.”
However, despite the fact that statins have also been linked to a greater risk of liver dysfunction, acute kidney failure, cataracts and muscle damage, health authorities have been pushing for the drug to be added to public water supplies as part of a mass medication program that is not only illegal without consent, but also threatens a plethora of unknown consequences.
George Lundberg, MD, the editor of MedPageToday, which is a mouthpiece for the American Medical Association, recently wrote an op-ed entitled, Should We Put Statins in the Water Supply?
In May 2008, renowned cardiologist Professor Mahendra Varma called for statins to be artificially added to drinking water.
Putting statins in the water supply was also considered during a November 2008 discussionwhich featured Robert Bonow, M.D., of Northwestern University in Chicago, Gordon F. Tomaselli, M.D., of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and Anthony De Maria, M.D., of the University of California at San Diego.
Also in November 2008, CNBC aired a segment lauding the effectiveness of statins, after which one of the hosts remarked, “Why don’t they just put statins in the water supply,” to which CNBC’s medical expert replied, “A lot of people have said that and they are in the water in fact.”
In December 2009, we reported on how Japanese health authorities were considering adding trace amounts of lithium to public water supplies as a “mood stabilizer” in a bid to lower the suicide rate. Fox News medical expert Dr. Archelle Georgiou gave the concept tacit approval when she labeled the study an “interesting concept” and refused to even mention the moral aspects of mass drugging people against their will.
In his 1977 book Ecoscience, current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocated adding sterilant drugs to the water supply as part of a program of “involuntary fertility control”.
Of course, the water supply is just one of a myriad of factors to consider when studying disorders such as autism. As we have previously noted, cases of autism have exploded with the increase of childhood vaccinations.
Cases of autism in the U.S. have now increased by over 2700 per cent since 1991, which is when vaccines for children doubled, and the number of immunizations is only increasing. Just one in 2,500 children were diagnosed with autism before 1991, whereas one in 91 children now have the disease, up from one in 150 in 2003.
Multiple studies have found a direct link between the use of the mercury based preservative thimerosal and a dramatic rise in cases of autism. however, such findings have been consistently dismissed by the CDC.
Author:
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Most women are 'in the dark' about pregnancy weight gain
A new study finds that many women are in the dark as to how much weight they should gain during pregnancy.
Two-thirds of Australian mothers-to-be weren't clear on appropriate weight gains while pregnant, with as much as a third of women gaining too much weight, according to a study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
The study involved more than 660 pregnant women.
The study, announced Friday, also showed that more than half of the women who were overweight before becoming pregnant gained too much maternity weight, compared to only a third of their leaner counterparts.
"The majority of the women in the study knew healthy eating was important, but very few could identify how much they should be eating from different food groups, particularly fruits and vegetables," says study author Susie de Jersey of Queensland University of Technology's Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and senior dietician at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.
In addition, less than half of the study's participants rated exercise during pregnancy as important.
"There are a lot of psychosocial factors in play -- many of these women may have more negative experiences from trying to control their weight in the past," she says. "The reality is that some women find it easier to control their weight than others both before and during pregnancy.
The research team offers the following guidelines:
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: Less than 18.5 kg/m² you should gain: 12.5 to 18 kg
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m² you should gain: 11.5 to 16 kg
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: 25 to 29.9 kg/m² you should gain: 7 to 11.5 kg
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: Above 30 kg/m² you should gain: 5 to 9 kg
Two-thirds of Australian mothers-to-be weren't clear on appropriate weight gains while pregnant, with as much as a third of women gaining too much weight, according to a study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
The study involved more than 660 pregnant women.
The study, announced Friday, also showed that more than half of the women who were overweight before becoming pregnant gained too much maternity weight, compared to only a third of their leaner counterparts.
"The majority of the women in the study knew healthy eating was important, but very few could identify how much they should be eating from different food groups, particularly fruits and vegetables," says study author Susie de Jersey of Queensland University of Technology's Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and senior dietician at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.
In addition, less than half of the study's participants rated exercise during pregnancy as important.
"There are a lot of psychosocial factors in play -- many of these women may have more negative experiences from trying to control their weight in the past," she says. "The reality is that some women find it easier to control their weight than others both before and during pregnancy.
The research team offers the following guidelines:
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: Less than 18.5 kg/m² you should gain: 12.5 to 18 kg
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m² you should gain: 11.5 to 16 kg
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: 25 to 29.9 kg/m² you should gain: 7 to 11.5 kg
If your pre-pregnancy BMI was: Above 30 kg/m² you should gain: 5 to 9 kg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
